Talk:Everytown for Gun Safety

message: The James Pasco quote makes no sense. Was he misquoted or did he actually say that? If the latter, it should be deleted, as an incoherent quote adds nothing to an encyclopedic entry. Patricia Meadows (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Pasco quote 

message: I dont understand the arguement here. How are these criminals obtaining guns? If im not mistaken they go to a gun store fill out paper work and if they qualify/pass tests they can purchase a gun?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.236.243 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Is the Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members section of this article, which lists former and current [mayor] members with felony convictions and misdemeanors (unrelated to firearms), and public scandals (related to firearms) belong to this article about this organization?  His male lover (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm willing to seek consensus. Can we leave hands off the section for the weekend, to seek input and suggested changes, additions,and deletions?  Trasel (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and for the sake of propriety, I've removed the data and references on Mayor Melton, since he has died. Trasel (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Some editors have seen the section as such a blatant violation of the neutrality guideline that they see it fit to delete it immediately. As with biographies of living persons, articles about organizations or corporations can affect that organization's reputation, so Wikipedia has an interest in erring on the side of caution on potentially libelous information. I am not unsympathetic to that view, but I do want to see if other Wikipedians think the burden of justification should be on those that wish to retain the information or those who seek to remove it. His male lover (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks.  I appreciate your perspective from above the fray and your impartial reasoning.  Lets see what other Wikipedians have to say. 
Oh, and FWIW, many of the mentions of the various felonies and firearms-related scandals (all referenced) were imported from individual bio (BLP) pages on the individual  Mayors, where they have stood the test of time, consensus and group edits. See, for example, the page on Mayor  Jennings:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Jennings   (There, scroll down to the word "machineguns".)
If the consensus view is that the article requires balance, then by all means, lets ADD some details on the good works and crime fighting achievements of other Mayor-Members, rather than just hacking and slashing a section that has nearly 50 referenced news articles and 30+ wikilinks.  Trasel (talk)
*Comment - If the legal issues were related to guns, it may be relevant. But this is just an attempt to undermine or attack the individuals, and not relevent to this article at all. Grsz11 15:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Why is it not appropriate to point out those who with to ban guns are very often felons barred from possession of guns?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.86.1 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I will respect the weight of opinion expressed above, and will not restore the deleted section to Wikipedia.  Oh, and as for "leading with  child pornography conviction...""  That is just how it played out, alphabetically.  Perhaps child molestation privileges should be restricted to only people with surnames starting later in the alphabet. Trasel (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is "Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members" section relevant 

message: The six footnotes sourcing the Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition#Announced_resignations section all have problems.  The first three point to dead URL links.  The fourth points to a press release by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobby group, which is really not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards.  The fifth and sixth, rely on BuckeyeFirearms.org appears to be a blog, and not up to WP:RS standards.  Can someone please provide better quality sourcing for each of the mayors which are claimed to have resigned from MAIG? Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your request, I'll do so, soon. OBTW, the list of resignations in incomplete.  I'll expand it, and provide references, primarily to newspaper articles.  Trasel (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BLP policy, we must remove those without "high quality references", and as none of the references are high quality now, I will remove that section now to fix the policy violation.  If you can find high quality sourcing then add them back in the future.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Tasel, please stop re-adding material that has been challenged until you get consensus. What you call putting your foot down is called edit warring by everyone else and will not make your point but rather lead to some uninvolved admin blocking you. Please revert yourself until your change has consensus, this would be much better than you being reverted by someone else. Chillum 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have  made a blanket statement that is NOT true.  I'm restoring this section. Many of the references included are from newspaper articles from the New York Sun, the Washington Post,  New York Times, The Nashville Post ,the  Indianapolis Star, the Anchorage Daily News,  and the Warsaw (Indiana) Times-Union.  And as for the Ammoland reference, that is one that YOU first quoted!   In your comment, you referred to that source as "adding in sourced, on-topic, criticism of the coallition, with ref)".  You can't have it both ways!  I am sickened to see such blatant POV pushing on the part of what appears to be an anti-gun cabal. (A glance at the editing history of the instigators bears this out.)  Wikipedia needs to show all side of every documented issue that has a political context, not just what is deemed politically correct. Surgically expunging documented facts is something that was supposed to have ended with the demise of the Soviet Union.  I will take this to arbitration, if need be. Trasel (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't have a point of view on this subject, I consider it to be mundane. We don't even have guns where I am from. You don't get to decide what is neutral that is determined through discussion on the talk page. If you want content on this page and it is being challenged then you need to get consensus for that on the talk page. Guns have nothing to do with this line of reasoning. Arbitration may be productive if other forms of dispute resolution fail you. Please revert yourself so it does not need to be done by someone else. Chillum 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It would have been better if you had reverted yourself, but it seems it had to be done by someone else, me. I don't have a horse in this race Trasel but I do know that the burden is on those seeking to add contentious material to an article to get consensus if it is challenged. Please use this talk page instead of insisting on your preferred version through edit warring. Chillum 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not create the section in question.  It existed long before I ever stumbled across the MAIG wiki page.  I merely added to an existing section--both listing of additional mayors that had resigned, (with references), and additional references to document the existing entries.  BTW there is virtually NO opportunity for people to chime in and create consenus on an entire section that has been "disappeared, "  unless they go back through editing history.  Now, would anyone care to comment on any of the mainstream newspaper references that I added?  Let's get back to the substance of this section, and IMPROVE it, rather than playing hack and slash.  Trasel (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: If I don't hear otherwise, sometime in the next few days I will re-write the section, using ONLY newspaper references, and PDF links to the original resignation letters.  Trasel (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain again:  The reason for deletion of the section is that the newspaper sources all pointed to dead URL links, and were not therefore verified.  The other sources were pointing to anonymous blogs, or to advocacy group press releases, neither of which are "high quality" sources when measured by Wikipedia standards which hinge upon the fact checking of the sources' publication process.  Because we are writing about "living people" the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP must be followed.  That policy requires only "high quality" sources when we write about living people.  Also, I dispute that pdf links of alleged original letters, necessarily qualify as "high quality" sources.  The reputation of the source claiming that the letter is original must be evaluated first.  Fabrication of letters, and falsely claiming them to be original is a real risk here.  We must judge the quality of the source when following WP:BLP.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re:  "Fabrication of letters, and falsely claiming them to be original is a real risk here."  Do you expect the MAIG to publish these resignation letters?  Get real.  The posted PDF link is a scan of the original letter.   If that isn't good enough for you, than, what else could be?  Tell you what: For a secondary reference,  I'll contact that mayor, and ask him to have his office post the PDF to PRNewswire or a similar neutral, third-party news source that is not associated with any constitutional rights advocacy group.  I must say that making wiki editors jump through flame-filled hoops is not endearing, Salty!  Somehow, the word tendentious comes to mind. Trasel (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit the hostile hyperbole, it poisons constructive discussion here.  The standard to apply for sources is WP:V, which says Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  The 'pdf' you write about is published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is the main gun industry trade association.  I question whether this group meets the standard of a third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: FYI, PRNewswire would also fail as a source, as would any other form of self-publication. Yeah, the rules can be tough, but they're designed to make sure that people can't take material, "launder" it through a third party, and then present the material as verifiable fact. Ronabop (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: We should avoid interpreting primary sources ourselves and stick to reliable secondary source's interpretation of the primary sources. Chillum 05:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, primary sources are allowed when the topic of the article is about the primary source (and the source is relevant), but secondary sources are preferred. Ronabop (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I have not read through our guidelines on primary vs secondary in a while but I think you are right. We do prefer secondary sources, primary sources are generally acceptable as long as no interpretation is applied to them. I will have to re-read the project pages on this issue tomorrow after sleeping. Chillum 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point I here is that in the case of writing about living persons, we are compelled to use a higher degree of scrutiny.  This goes both for WP:V, and also for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  It appears that one editor here is acting in synch with the NRA-ILA campaign to put political pressure on the individual mayors who are members of this group.  For this article to give undue focus on the members and leadership of the group seems inappropriate.  It would be more appropriate for the weight of this article to be discussing the group itself, and not to select out and overly give focus to the individual members.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing for Announced resignations section 

message: Some former mayors are still listed on the MAIG web site, but TTBOMK, that is an error.  Given the many recent embarrassments of felony indicted and convicted individuals that have been booted out of office, one must wonder why the MAIG would see it in their best interest to continue to list former mayors. Part of the problem may be, that the MAIG would have to account for the reason that they have departed--other than just leaving their mayoral offices.  As previously discussed, some mayors have quit the MAIG, or claimed that they never joined.
But then there are these individuals:
*Former Mayor Gary Becker of Racine, Wisconsin is under five felony indictments for child pornography, attempted child sexual assault and child enticement. He resigned after pleading not guilty and being released on bond.  Is he still a MAIG member?  The MAIG has been silent about him. How do we document his status with MAIG?
*Former Mayor David Della Donna of Guttenberg, New Jersey was indicted under a Federal extortion and mail fraud charges. How can he "participate" in the MAIG while serving four years and three months in federal prison?  Is he still a MAIG member?  The MAIG has been silent about him.How do we document his status?
*Mayor Sheila Dixon. Multiple felony indictments, but refuses to leave office. 
*Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Convicted, served time, moved to Texas in shame.  Is he still a MAIG member?  The MAIG has been silent about him. How do we document his status?
*Mayor Larry Langford  - arrested by the FBI on a 101 count indictment alleging conspiracy, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and filing false tax returns in connection with a long-running bribery scheme, but refuses to leave office. The MAIG has been silent about him.
*Mayor Eddie Perez - indicted on bribery, fabricating evidence, and conspiracy to fabricate evidence felony charges.  On September 2, 2009 Perez was again arrested, and additionally charged with first-degree larceny by extortion, stemming from a no-bid parking lot deal, unrelated to the other corruption charges. He again proclaimed that he would stay in office, despite these new felony charges. The MAIG has been silent about him.
*Former Mayor Samuel Rivera, of Passaic, New Jersey was convicted of corruption, influence peddling, and extortion charges.[38][39] In August 2008 he pled guilty,and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. How can he "participate" in the MAIG while serving four years and three months in federal prison? The MAIG has been silent about him.
*Former Mayor Will Wynn was convicted of Class C misdemeanor.  Is he still a MAIG member?  The MAIG has been silent about him. How do we document his status?
In summary, How do we reconcile accounting for the whereabouts and membership status of former mayors, while still remaining neutral? Should we put "(In Federal Custody)" after their names in the list? Or would "A Guest of the Taxpayers" be more NPOV?
And how can the wiki page have TWO mayors of Philadelphia listed--both the current mayor and his predecessor, the former mayor?   Just curious... Trasel (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The membership seems to include both mayors and former mayors, no big deal.  You seem to be trying to finds a scandal where there is none.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't answered my question.  How do we list their status?  Is former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick still a MAIG member in good standing?  The silence from the MAIG is deafening. Trasel (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The List of presidents of the United States just lists all the presidents, both present and former.  That list could be called the 'presidents and former presidents', but once a president, always a president.  Similar for mayors, once a mayor always a mayor, just keep it simple.  Again, you seem dead set on smearing this group by fabricating a scandal for some unknown reason.  Quit it, enough already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of former mayors that have never formally resigned from MAIG 

message: The content on this page has been improved, but there is still a great deal of irrelevant content here. There are long sections here discussing the Tiahrt Amendments and Lost and Stolen Guns. If it is necessary to explore these issues in depth, that should be done on separate pages created for that purpose. The topic of this article is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." The discussion here should focus on the organization itself.  If there is general controversy about MAIG's mission, that should be handled in a single section that states who has criticized the group and on what grounds. It is odd, for example, that the article currently lists mayors who have left the group (a small number) before linking to the group's current, overall membership (a large number). Thanks to those who have worked to improve the content here. The final goal should be a neutral presentation that lays out the facts and avoids tertiary issues.Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you, as the Communications Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, have a different perspective than most other wiki editors about what constitutes "Irrelevant", vis-a-vis a similar special interest group.  (Your own talk page acknowledges that you had "previously logged into to Wikipedia under the name "CSGV," reflecting my employment with the Washington, D.C.-based group the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.")   Some of us don't appreciate POV pushing by a paid lobbyist.  You've already been blocked, censured, and forced to change your user name.  Please bug out of gun legislation topic pages!Trasel (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Trasel how about we debate the facts instead of attacking the person making the argument. It is not as though your POV is not apparent. Chillum 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to make it clear who had made that comment.  Allowing a paid lobbyist to push the  POV of an article, behind the scenes, does not sit well with me. If he wants to make an edit, then he should edit.  But here he is, LOBBYING for edits in the project page, without leaving his fingerprints on the page itself.  Enough said. Trasel (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  the point of the talk page is to discuss edits before making them, in the spirit of coming to consensus instead of warring back and forth.  It makes sense to me to stick to basic organizational information and address issue-controversies on issue-specific pages.  Presumably an organization doesn't have a controversy with its own goals.  --PFS (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have an opinion, as does just about everyone that makes edits to pages where politics are concerned.  I make NO SECRET of my position on Second Amendment issues, so thanks for reiterating it here.  My main interest (as you can see at my Talk  page) is biographies of economists and survivalists, because I find those fascinating topics.  And, as you can see from my edit history, about out 80% of my edits in the past three years have been on those pages. I am not a "single issue" editor.  I do occasionally make some edits in gun politics articles, but that is usually when I see something egregious going on. Again: Yes, I have an opinion, but I certainly don't get PAID to do wiki editing.  Trasel (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop using this talk page to talk about each other. The purpose of this page is to improve the article. Chillum 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Let's avoid talking about each other.  That said, I agree with the point made at the top of this section.  The article suffers from too much critique of the issues raised by MAIG, in violation of WP:SYN policy.  Any discussion of the merits of the Tiahrt Amendment doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in a Tiahrt Amendment article.  This article should be about the MAIG, and limited to coverage drawn from reliable sourcing of the MAIG and nothing more.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Content

message: As recommended, I've just done some reorganizing. First, I grouped the legislative lobbying items together and added an introductory sentence for that section (with a new reference to a MAIG PDF). Second, I moved down the criticism section to the end of the article to de-emphasize it.   Lastly, I re-wrote a number of sentences that were convoluted and laden with passive voice and lacked clarity. I trust that I did all of the preceding with sufficient neutrality. Trasel (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop incrementally POV-pushing this article. All of my recent changes have been well-referenced and are NPOV.  Please note that I VOLUNTARILY moved the "Criticism, controversy and resignations" section to the end of the article, to de-emphasize it. Let's cooperate on making this on a quality article, and not be tendentious. Okay? Thanks!  Trasel (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned before, Ammoland  is a source that YOU first quoted! In your original comment on it, you referred to that source as "adding in sourced, on-topic, criticism of the coallition, with ref)". You can't have it both ways! If they weren't reliable then why did you quote them in the first place?  Trasel (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing the article

message: I have improved the list of references to this section as follows.  There were several repeated refs which were included in duplicate, now removed.  I also removed two passages which were referenced to primary documents, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Reading an original letter and writing about it in Wikipedia is a form of original research.   I removed one ref which pointed to an "ammoland" blog, which after further thought does not meet the WP:V standard which require us to use sources which are considered to be reliable as measured by the publishers reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  Ammoland has an obscure publication process and doesn't meet this reliability standard.  I removed the reference to the Time-Union article because mayor Ernie Wiggams claims that he did not resign, but that he never joined, therefore this is not a resignation.  I also removed the ref for the "TheTimesNews.com" article because it does not actually say that mayor Ronnie Wall resigned.  And after carefully checking these references I cannot agree that the title of this section should be simply 'criticisms', and there is a commonality in all of these refs which is that they all are linked to the NRA-ILA and NSSF campaigns to pressure mayors.  Considering that both of these groups self identify as "gun lobby" groups, I object to the change of the section title.  We should call a spade a spade here, based on this reliable sourcing, this is gun lobby criticism and the title should reflect such.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms and resignations section 

message: Hamitr recently reverted with the comment "(The source says nothing about: "dozens of mayors have joined the organization while the resignations have been a trickle")  See the NYSun article at   Quoting from the last paragraph in the article:"Though dozens of mayors have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns in the last several months, there has also been a trickle of mayors leaving the coalition."  Clearly, Hamitr's reasoning appears unfounded, as the sourcing does indeed support the passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an article from 2007!!!  That was published long before the mass defections that have been prompted by the NRA's 2009 letter-writing campaign.  The "trickle" has become a torrent.  More than 70 mayors have now left the group. Trasel (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your sourcing that "the trickle has become a torrent"?  When I look it seems to be coming from press releases issued as part of an NRA campaign.  That doesn't meet WP:V and WP:NPOV standards here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: When I look at the list of members from 2007 I see 243 members listed.  When I look at the list from 2009 I see that number increase to 383 listed members.  That is a net increase from 2007 until 2009.  Where do you get the idea that there have been "mass defections", and how does this square with the net increase seen?   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: More precisely, we need a source that meets Wikipedia verifiability standards.  That is: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the NRA does not meet this requirement.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that a politicized special interest group (the MAIG, with their web site is cited throughout this article) is a reliable source, but that another politicized special interest group --the NRA-- is not?  Trasel (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't need to argue.  Let's just stick with policy.  Read WP:SELFPUB for the answer.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  nysun article 

message: Clearly in reliable sourcing, a significant subtopic of this article topic is the 2009 letter writing campaign pressuring mayors.  And per Wikipedia guidelines, the section titles should describe the topic of the section, therefore I have restored the title "NRA pressure campaign".  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRA pressure campaign 

message: See above. Especially that entire legislative initiatives section. Jtrainor (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads far too much like a pamphlet.  

message: Does anyone care to chime in here?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_members_of_the_Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion of the daughter page with List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

message: I am dismayed to see that four reliably sourced sections were deleted.  Elected officials are held to high standards, and when they fail to meet those standards, it is newsworthy.  It is also worthy of mention in Wikipedia IF it has been reported by a reliable source.  See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Seven
I fail to see any distinctiion between those long-standing Wiki articles and the inclusion of two of the four sections in question.  The other two were quite positive-- about membership reaffirmations, and awards. (Those were also drawn from reliable sources, and their inclusion show a balanced, fair and even-handed editorial approach.)
Repeated deletion of these sections is not called for.  If this continues, it is grounds for mention in a Noticceboard.  SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections are a hodge-podge of anecdotes about individuals, not about the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This article is about the organization. I suggest perhaps the reliable sources noticeboard would be an appropriate place to discuss whether a list of every person ever convicted of an offense should be placed in the articles about every organization such people happen to be members of. I'm sure the results for the Lions, the Republican Party, and even the beloved NRA would be quite fascinating. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Wkii editor SoTotalyAwesome.  Chalk me up toward consensus on this point. Just 'cause something is ugly doesn't make it untrue. If this were just conjecture, it would be different. But these are all reported facts from reliable sources. (WP:RS)  TobyGreener (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  And here is a recent article, on the same topic, from a mainstream newspaper:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/weakened_arsenal_O4NRYKYmkSxmdBUC8na7yK  So this is quite obviously worth mentioning, and timely.  TobyGreener (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   I concur. The four new sections should stand. OnlySwissMiss (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated deletion of four new sections

message: This section is clear synthesis, and as such a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. There can be no justification whatsoever for compiling a list of individuals of a particular organisation convicted for unrelated crimes. This is nothing but crude propaganda, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. I have deleted the section, and should it be restored, I will have no hesitation in asking for sanctions to be taken against those responsible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the deletion of this section. In addition to synthesis, it is ad hominem and guilt by association. GabrielF (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to other policy violations, the list 'cited' Wikipedia articles for a large number of individuals included - entirely contrary to WP:BLP policy, and on those grounds alone, any names improperly included in this manner must be deleted. Violation of WP:BLP policy in such a manner can never be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

text: None of the sublists add encyclopedic value, and each should be removed. This revert to  included "Elected officials are universally held to high standards" in the edit summary. However, that reveals the purpose of the list, namely to use Wikipedia to hold elected officials to a high standard. That's not our role. What secondary source has done an analysis of criminal behavior by all U.S. mayors? Does the analysis show higher criminal activity by those favoring gun control, or by those opposing it? Do secondary sources claim there is any significance to the findings? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Members convicted of illegal activity' - a gross violation of WP:NPOV/synthesis - and WP:BLP policy too.

message: You want to remove the names of mayors charged, tried and convicted of crimes by legitimate courts on the one hand.
While listing bullshit fluff awards as somehow relevant on the other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'bullshit fluff' has been removed, along with the 'crime' dirt-digging. Neither are relevant to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a third-rate partisan tabloid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant NPOV hypocrisy 

message: I just completed what I consider some practical, well meaning, and hopefully logical edits to the sections, their titles, and content within each. Nothing was deleted, in fact I added a paragraph describing the "No More Names" program and bus tour that prefaces the news report about the announcing of the names of murderers. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section formatting 

message: As of January 13, 2014, the link for citation 44 goes to a blank page with no members listed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.72.77 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation formatting 

message: Current entry:
"Largely in response to a recent NRA organized letter writing campaign, dozens of mayors have resigned from or distanced themselves from the MAIG while still in office.[45][46][47]"
Problem:
"Largely in response to a recent NRA organized letter writing campaign" is not mentioned or not substantiated in the cited sources (footnotes [45],[46],[47]).
Proposed entry:
"Dozens of mayors have resigned from or distanced themselves from the MAIG while still in office.[45][46][47]"
Anyone's thoughts on this, please?  Danniemeadows (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not checked the sources but from the sound of it, you have. If they do not mention the "largely" influence of the NRA, I would say the proposed edit is good—please make it. It's a bit awkward because the resignation probably are due to NRA action, but the article does not need to make that point. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit to section "Publicly announced resignations, misidentification, roster removals, disavowals". 

message: Mayors Against Illegal Guns has removed the section of their website listing their members and as such, it is it hard to get a count. The section of the page detailing the number of members (and it's now dead source) need updating. Should it simply be removed or should it reflect that at last count there were 1000 member but then the membership list became private.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.246.148 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of members and citation 

message: Now that this organization has been changed to "Everytown for Gun Safety" shouldn't there be mention of this (and potentially a re-focus to that subject) and should we consider merging the Moms Demand Action article with this one? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to the idea. Maybe create a new article "Everytown for Gun Safety" and merge the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action articles under it as sections, along with a "Survivors" section? (If you scroll down on this page -  - it lists three main Everytown subgroups: Mayors, Moms, and Survivors - though I don't know if "Survivors" is comprised of or a re-branding of some survivor group that existed before the creation of the Everytown coalition.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree; I feel that this would reflect the changes that have happened in the real world.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everytown change and "Moms Demand Action" merge 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Page moved.  Rider ranger47   Talk 19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayors Against Illegal Guns →  – Mayors Against Illegal Guns has rebranded as a campaign of Everytown.  At the very least, Everytown should get its own article, and MAIG's post-Everytown activities should be included on its page. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

text: *Can this be solved with a redirect?  Or should the pages be split?  I absolutely feel the new "Everytown" organization deserves its own page, but MAIG has a much longer history.  I'm really not sure on this myself, which is a big reason I asked for input. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why is the article is named "Everytown for Gun Safety " when there ain't a single mention of that group in the article? Somebody needs to fix something. Felsic (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 January 2015 

message: This section accounts for more than 10% of the article. 345 words out of 3110 total. Much of that is straight from the NRA website, and there's no rebuttal included.  By comparison, the NRA article is 5643 words long with just 396 devoted to criticism from all sources, including rebuttals from the NRA. Ever hear of WP:UNDUE? Would the editors who favor the material in this article support doubling the length of the criticism section in the NRA article, and removing the rebuttals? I doubt it. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight?  Are you kidding?  The paragraph that you are complaining about is practically a footnote, buried down at the bottom of the article. You should be happy that other editors haven't spilled more ink over criticism of the MAIG by many other pro-liberty organizations like Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and many more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.237.35 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's way more than a paragraph. But sure, summarize all the significant criticism of the group and keep it to a reasonable length. Then go over to the NRA and double the amount of criticism there. And while you're at it read WP:NPOV. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the crap that came right off the NRA website and the repetitive stuff about membership. Felsic (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition from NRA 

message: There are only two sources in this article from 2014 - everything else is from before 2014. I am going to place some sources here for consideration. Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *It looks like almost all of those are after it rebranded as Everytown, and are therefore not about MAIG per se.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing. Felsic (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current sources 

message: I have contacted the org to see if they will release to us an image file of their logo. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought limited use of low-res logos was okay under the fair use doctrine, no?  That's how I got the  old logo.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: As referenced above, much of the material in this article appears to be outdated. Especially with the name change of this page and the merging of two organizations. Going to start to try and update the content to better align with the current organization and its timeline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberwaves50 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update - timeline 

message: Based on a discussion that  started here, we need to figure out whether to lead the description with the group's mission statement (properly quoted and sourced), or a neutral summary of its objectives (in the encyclopedia's voice).  There are advantages and disadvantages of both, and I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other (though right now I'm leaning towards a "summary" approach). I'd like to go find other well-established articles on contentious organizations and see how they have handled it. We can use them as guidance for how to move forward. If there is an overwhelming tendency towards any one of the three below approaches, then let's go with it. If it's a mix, let's figure out why there's a mix and pick the one that best applies here.
Please add your additional example articles or advantages/disadvantages below:
===Mission statement===
*Advantages: Keeps encyclopedia out of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues, makes it clear what the org/group actually does.
*Disadvantages: Groups' mission statements are often very biased and grandiose.  They can also be very long, meaning that we end up having to shorten/summarize them anyway.
*Example pages:
===Summary===
*Advantages: The job of an encyclopedia is to summarize the information and to present it in a neutral, factual manner.  
*Disadvantages: It can be very difficult to get consensus on neutral wording/summary. 
*Example pages:
#Council on American–Islamic Relations
#MoveOn.org
#Organizing for America
#Organizing for Action
#The Heritage Foundation
#PFLAG
#Human Rights Campaign
#Electronic Frontier Foundation
#Wikipedia
#Second Amendment Foundation
#Animal Liberation Front
#Southern Poverty Law Center
#Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
#NARAL Pro-Choice America
#Planned Parenthood
#Westboro Baptist Church
#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
===Hybrid===
*Advantages: See above.
*Disadvantages: See above.
*Example pages:
#National Rifle Association
#Focus on the Family
#Greenpeace
#Earth Liberation Front
#Church of Scientology
For now, I have modified the lead sentence to more closely reflect the NRA lead.  I'm pinging  on this as well, since they changed the lead to begin with.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for the Lead to be anything OTHER than a summary much like any other established organization article. This one should be far easier simply because of the amount of time that it has existed relative to other organizations, not just the sheer volume or availability of sources. We can take common sense things like this into account. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with the lead of this article as it stands right now. At this time, I would like to ask others to join me on the NRA talk page to discuss its lead. As noted above, I changed it to reflect the changes made to this article, but Scalhotrod has reverted it. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi   - I’m fine with how the page reads right now, but I’d also be fine with a summary or hybrid approach as long it remains clear that the primary goal of the organization is reducing gun violence rather than promoting “gun control.” The term "gun control” would imply that their main goal is reducing gun ownership, not gun violence. Everything I’ve seen indicates that the ultimate purpose of the organization is the latter. Amberwaves50 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  they absolutely promote gun control. Gun control is "laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms". Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence - summary versus mission statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Everytown for Gun Safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923233856/http://www.yakima-herald.com:80/stories/2009/09/14/edler-notes-nra-pressure-to-quit-mayors-against-illegal-guns to http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/09/14/edler-notes-nra-pressure-to-quit-mayors-against-illegal-guns
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222024140/http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wear_vid_4163.shtml to http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wear_vid_4163.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Everytown for Gun Safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150201001039/http://www.theitem.com/article/20090915/ITNEWS01/709159910 to http://www.theitem.com/article/20090915/ITNEWS01/709159910
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Everytown for Gun Safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702003247/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org:80/html/about/principles.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/principles.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907105728/http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org:80/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510132409/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr010-07.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr010-07.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510132108/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr003-09.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr003-09.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801050120/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org:80/html/partnership/partnership.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/partnership/partnership.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517061747/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org:80/html/media-center/pr007-08.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr007-08.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228123519/http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/80774322.html to http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/80774322.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923233856/http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/09/14/edler-notes-nra-pressure-to-quit-mayors-against-illegal-guns to http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/09/14/edler-notes-nra-pressure-to-quit-mayors-against-illegal-guns
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101120043/http://www.modbee.com:80/local/story/857567.html to http://www.modbee.com/local/story/857567.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Everytown for Gun Safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/principles.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/partnership/partnership.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr007-08.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210201926/http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/recent-news/rep-mccarthy-remarks-re-house-introduction-of-fix-gun-checks-act/ to http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/recent-news/rep-mccarthy-remarks-re-house-introduction-of-fix-gun-checks-act/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815090335/http://nomorenames.org/ to http://nomorenames.org/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130127080440/http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/242506 to http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/242506
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119195916/http://prtl-sitea-maigs.nyc.gov/html/media-center/yhr_091509.shtml to http://prtl-sitea-maigs.nyc.gov/html/media-center/yhr_091509.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716183637/http://www.jg.net/article/20090913/LOCAL0202/309139878 to http://www.jg.net/article/20090913/LOCAL0202/309139878
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.modbee.com/local/story/857567.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added March for Our Lives in a "See also" section. Feel free to revert, integrate "March for Our Lives" into the article's prose, or help expand the newly-created article appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  March for Our Lives 

message: Under the "Moms Demand Action" subsection in the "Organizations" section, the group are "... for violation of the second amendment and gun ownership prevention..."
This reads partisan, if not incendiary. 
There's also no source or quote for it. It just says they advocate for that, as fact. 130.44.166.158 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible partisan or incendiary language?