Talk:Everytown for Gun Safety

Partisan language

17:32, 20 August 2007 66.108.111.61 (Talk) (21,500 bytes) (→Criticism and Controversy - Removed partisan language) (undo) Why would it be "partisan language" to state that "Their actual goals are unclear" based on the fact that the CDC has been unable to find a single law out of ~26,000 that supports their position? This makes their actual goals very unclear to me, as they are either 1. dumber than dirt, or 2. have some other goal (most probably gathering power for themselves, but that's speculation on my part, so I left it out). If I don't see a response I'll revert your change in a few days.

James Pasco quote

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)

Clarification

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)

Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members section

This section is getting so lengthy, that perhaps it would be appropriate to break it up into a bulleted list. Your thoughts? Trasel (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A fellow editor wrote me and questioned the relevance of Felony charges and convictions of mayor-members in the Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members section. Here is my rationale:

Every one of the indicted or convicted members (from the first of the two long paragraphs that I added) are up on FELONY charges. Here in the US, conviction of felony means the immediate loss of both the right to vote and the right to own a gun for the rest of one's life. So each of those remaining entries are COMPLETELY relevant. Here we have an organization that espouses doing away with "illegal guns", yet a surprising number of their members have made choices in their lives that have set themselves on the path to being disenfranchised from ever owning a gun. That includes Kilpatrick's and Langford. (Kilpatrick is already a convicted felon, and Langford is awaiting trial on his own felony charges.)

Personal character and integrity are prerequisites for anyone entering public office, to serve in an elected position of "special trust and confidence", such as a mayorship. Abuses of that trust, gross lapses of integrity, and forays into criminal conduct are not tolerated in our society. If anything, elected politicians are held to a higher standard than the general public, and their actions are closely watched. For an elected official to become a criminal, when they themselves are entrusted to protect us from criminals is nearly the most heinous and unforgivable thing imaginable in a democracy. For some of these same individuals to continue to be considered members in good standing of a "crime-fighting" organization--and not even censured by the organization--is absolutely ludicrous.

Stating the well-documented facts of these felony indictments and convictions (with full references) does not constitute synthesis or some sort of smear, any more than does recounting a politician's voting record. Public officials are judged by their actions. Committing felonies is not part of the job description of "mayor." Nor is the illicit opportunity to do so a "perk" that comes with the office.

Similarly, a crime-fighting organization should obviously be judged by its intolerance to crime. Mentioning the details of any tolerance to crime that the organization demonstrates--either on the street or within their own coalition member's roster--is not a smear. Rather, it is merely objective reporting of the facts, and it is unquestionably appropriate. Trasel (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm deleting the section as soon as I can. This entire page is garbage and needs a total re-write from the ground-up.Yoursfaithfully (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that this is your first day as a Wiki editor. Please refrain from deleting huge chunks of articles, especially when they are well-referenced. The section that you deleted had more than 50 references. It was automatically restored by a wiki "bot". Please take the time to read the editorial guidelines before making any more large deletions, or they might be misconstrued as vandalism. I look forward to your contribution to this and other articles. Once again, welcome aboard. Trasel (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to place undue emphasis on certain mayors belonging to the the organization. It's unclear that the scandals, indictments, etc have much if anything to do with their membership. The info perhaps belongs on their individual pages an not on this one? Does this information shed any light on an encyclopedic entry about the Coalition? I doubt it. I welcome further discussion. (Oops, sorry, forgot to sign my post) Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The content in that section is encyclopedic, relevant, and useful for anyone seeking information American Gun Politics. For the sake of balance, perhaps another section could be added, that highlights the contributions of individual members, or the group as a whole, in "getting illegal guns off the streets." In particular, I think that a new section about mandatory stolen gun reporting (which is a currently legislative push in several states) would be apropos. But one key point is that Mayors don't legislate--they administrate. So, much like the National Conference of Mayors, Bloomberg's group is essentially a partisan advocacy group with little means of effecting change. Trasel (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This section has no relevance whatsoever. In an organization consisting of more than 450 members at this point, the fact that a handful of them have been indicted on some type of charge is insignificant. It's unclear what inference is being made here... Is the author suggesting that every policy ever supported by these mayors is somehow now in question, or that the Founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns have expressed public support for criminal behavior, or that this behavior in some way implicates the mission of an organization of which they are one small part? Like the rest of the content on this page, this section doesn't even make a pretense in hiding its bias. Wikipedia's Neutrality rules have clearly been violated here. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

it seems that your concept of a "handful" is substantially different than mine. For these public officials to have a higher percentage currently under indictment than the population at large is a fact that is worth mentioning ,in WP in a neutral,and fully-referenced manner. The section in question is indeed fully referenced and entirely relevant. Facts are facts, even if they reveal uncomfortable truths. Here is quote that sums it up much better I can: "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." - Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775 . Sincerely, Trasel (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not even a pretense of objectivity here. The article reads like an attack piece and veers off on a number of tangents that have nothing to do with the organization or its mission. I agree with Yoursfaithfully. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch, in observation of Wikipedia's rules on Neutrality. Forward Thinkers (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You preach about objectivity, yet on your talk page, you admit: "I 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." There is little objectivity to be found in the work of "single issue" editors. My main interest in editing WP is biographies of economists and survivalists, not gun politics. If you look at my editing history over the past three years, it will bear that out. I only began to add to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns article because I noticed that mention of criminal conduct by its members was entirely absent.

You also claim to "agree with Yoursfaithfully." Well, wait a minute, that was a now-deleted sock puppet account that was only used once to blank the section in question. Proviso: By this, I am not making the claim that this sock puppet account was your own. I don't engage in personal attacks, or make unsubstantiated claims. Also keep in mind that I have NOT launched an investigation by wiki arbitrators to compare any editing account's associated IP addresses.

Further, you state that "The article reads like an attack piece..." Neutrally stating objective, fully-referenced facts about the members of the organization does NOT constitute an attack. In the public sphere, public conduct is reportable and should be a matter of record in a democratic society. (I would go so far as to say that whenever history is systematically expunged or re-written, then democracy effectively ceases to exist.) If there were press reports of members of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association or the Gun Owners of America that were committing felonies or violent misdemeanors, or involved in gun scandals, then those too could and should be mentioned in their respective wiki pages. Indeed, I encourage you to do so. The same applies to ANYONE in public life, especially an elected official. An organization is no more moral or righteous than its leaders and members.

You posit that my editing "...veers off on a number of tangents that have nothing to do with the organization or its mission". The Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization was established as a collective, suasive moral force, to exert political pressure on a single issue. The morals, character and obedience to the law of those who helm the organization are entirely relevant. This is, after all, an organization that seeks to effect change on the conduct of others, through law and public policy. I must reiterate: Personal character and integrity are prerequisites for anyone entering public office, to serve in an elected position of "special trust and confidence", such as a mayorship. Abuses of that trust, gross lapses of integrity, and forays into criminal conduct are not tolerated in our society. If anything, elected politicians are held to a higher standard than the general public, and their actions are closely watched. For an elected official to become a criminal, when they themselves are entrusted to protect us from criminals is nearly the most heinous and unforgivable thing imaginable in a democracy. For some of these same individuals to continue to be considered members in good standing of a "crime-fighting" organization--and not even censured by the organization--is absolutely ludicrous.

If you have anything to ADD to the encyclopedic entry on Mayors Against Illegal Guns, then I invite you to do so. But please refrain from deleting the neutral, well-referenced work of others that merely states verified facts. Trasel (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted this list of character attacks, it is plainly off topic, and is little more than a smear on some members in an attempt to smear the group. Not encyclopedic. Sorry. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As previously discussed, this section is on topic, neutrally written, and fully referenced. Facts are facts. Plain and simple facts are not smears. Lo siento mucho. Trasel (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I must remind you of the three revert rule (3RR). Your compadre Forward Thinkers (aka CSGV) already ran afoul of this and was both disciplined for COI and had his account blocked. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Forward_Thinkers Trasel (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members" section relevant

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Unencylcopedic - Not even close to on-topic,. Come on, leading with child a pornography conviction? This is a bald attempt to smear the entire coalition by selectively smearing the individual coalition members. Plainly in violation of WP:SYN too.SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Not appropriate It is off-topic, a violation of neutrality through undue weight, and appears to be an attempt to discredit the movement. I think we can remove that off-topic section and write a far more neutral article. It is not enough to simply add content in support of this or that to achieve balance, the "Indicted, convicted, and scandalized members" section needs to go in the interests of neutrality. Any content in it that is actually on the subject of the article can be worked back in. Chillum 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Not appropriate, not even close, per the three comments just above mine. I'm glad that it has been removed, and it should absolutely not be restored. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Only when relevant Firearms convictions might be okay, but otherwise, no. Ronabop (talk)

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)

sourcing for Announced resignations section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No comments? I guess that is because someone completely deleted the section. The axe tends to discourage debate. Here is what I propose: That I re-write the section, using ONLY newspaper references, and PDF links to the original resignation letters. After all, Salty's reasoning was based on claims the section had poor references. (I had taken the time to add about 10 references, but even though most of those were from newspapers, the entire section was blanked.) Your thoughts? Trasel (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is a double standard in operation in the editing of this article. See Reference # 10, for example: "Full text of current Tiahrt Amendment From ProtectPolice.org, a project of Mayors Against Illegal Guns." That is a PDF is at the web site of the MAIG, albeit the subject of this article, is a partisan organization. By your stated standards, this PDF would not be allowed as a reference. Trasel (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Status of former mayors that have never formally resigned from MAIG

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)

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)

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)

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)

Irrelevant Content

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trasel, with all due respect you recently wrote in the Discussion area of the Gun Show page:

"By creating a hobgoblin [the Gun Show Loophole issue], the the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al, have attempted to implement the Hegelian dialectic, to meet their political end, This is a classic political ploy: They create a false "crisis", and their "solution" is the implementation of their originally desired political goal. The loser, at the end of the day, is liberty. By incrementally destroying constitutional liberty, statists hope to accomplish over the course of a century something that they could never do overnight ... By calling free and legal commerce a "loophole"--which creates subconscious links to people that cheat on their taxes--they sought to demonize one of the cornerstones of American life--the ability to buy or sell household goods , at will, with or without profit, in INTRAstate commerce, without government regulation, and without paying homage to any entrenched guild, or fill out any "paperwork", or get "permission" from a bureau or agency or government. This same commerce is the last bastion of free, undocumented firearms ownership, which is anathema to gun controllers. They want to see the advent universal registration of firearms, and the very thought of private citizens buying and selling firearms freely amongst themselves does not fit with their world view, and their agenda for civilian disarmament. (After all, there can not be effective eventual confiscation of firearms, if some of them are not registered.)"

I think we all have personal points of view, the more important issue is do we observe Wikipedia's rules and attempt to craft articles here that are balanced, neutral and based on reliable sources? I welcome the opportunity to work with you on this article to create such content.Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I checked the sources provided for some of the legislative goals here, and they do not provide any evidence that MAIG has advocated for the following reforms: 1) Mandatory reporting of lost and stolen guns, 2) Purchase permits for all handgun sales, 3) Local control of firearms regulations, and 4) State inspection of gun dealers. In the case of the latter three, MAIG's report notes that states that have these laws export fewer crime guns to outside states, but they do not call for these reforms to be implemented. The reforms that are explicitly called for at the federal level on the MAIG webpage are: 1) Repealing Tiahrt Amendment, 2) Closing Gun Show Loophole, 3) Ending gun dealer fire sales, 4) Banning firearm sales to those on the Terrorist Watch List, 5) Employee background checks at licensed gun dealers, 6) Opposition to Thune Amendment. The article continues to move in the right direction, but there is still a lot of debate about specific issues that does not belong in this article. Forward Thinkers (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

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)

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)

Sorry, but you are wrong here. The USA Today article makes no mention of MAIG, and your usage of it here is pure synthesis to make a POV hypothesis which is your original research. Also, the Ammoland.com cite in the opening paragraph is a huge stretch, as they barely are a reliable source per WP standards (I am presently favoring removal of all the Ammoland.com cited material now for this reason) And worse, the Ammoland.com article does not coherently "dispute" the membership numbers anyway, but rather uses innuendo and no more. Those two sentences in the intro don't really fit the WP:LS guidelines. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

criticisms and resignations section

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[1] 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)

I deleted the recently added assertion that 73 members of MAIG have quit the Coalition because it was improperly cited and clearly in error. The local Knoxsville television network that was cited stated that an NRA spokesman said that "73 out of Florida's 450 mayors have quit the group." That is clearly an error because nowhere near 450 Florida mayors ever joined MAIG in the first place. Currently, 39 Florida mayors are members of MAIG: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml Forward Thinkers (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

nysun article

Hamitr recently reverted[2] 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 [3] 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)

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)

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)

When I look at the list of members from 2007[4] I see 243 members listed. When I look at the list from 2009[5] 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)

Can we get a source for the claim that "more than 70 mayors have left MAIG"? The NRA website continues to claim "more than 40," but does not specify who they are. We need a definitive source. Thanks. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

NRA pressure campaign

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)

This article reads far too much like a pamphlet.

See above. Especially that entire legislative initiatives section. Jtrainor (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of campaign

Is the idea behind the campaign to reduce illegal gun violence by criminals? Or to make it harder for law-abiding civilians to defend themselves from criminals?

Generally, debates on "gun control" issue assume that "guns" are the problem; and that increasing restrictions on gun purchase or gun possession will reduce illegal gun violence. The typical argument goes something like this:

1. If it's harder to get a gun legally, then the number of guns will go down.
2. If the number of guns goes down, then illegal gun violence will go down.

Proponents of this sort of argument seem to assume that illegal gun violence rises and falls in proportion to the number of guns we possess. Opponents generally state (explicitly) that they think illegal gun violence is not in proportion to gun ownership in general, but depends on how many guns are in the hands of criminals and law abiding citizens.

Is there a way to describe this neutrally and fairly in the article? For example, can we say that MAIG's purpose is to reduce illegal gun violence? And if so, can we describe how they feel their campaign will serve that purpose?

We might compare this to MADD, which has campaigned to penalize drunk driving. Their purpose is explicitly stated: they want to reduce accidental deaths resulting from drunk drivers losing control of their cars. I'd like to know what MAIG's purpose is, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to do this would be simply to say "MAIG's stated mission is '[quote from their website or other official sources]'." Put it in their own words, but make it clear that this is their stated mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faceless Enemy (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 January 2012

Sam Jones self-defense incident

I added a new section to the article, about a recent incident where Sam Jones, the mayor of Mobile and a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, discovered a burglar in his garage and held the intruder at gunpoint until the police arrived. According to reliable news sources it is not known whether or not Mayor Jones was carrying the gun concealed outside of his property, or if he has a concealed carry license, but he has not been charged with any crime. I provided two reliable references for this, CBS News and the Press-Register. This change, along with some other material, was removed with this edit. I believe the material that I added should be restored. The use of firearms by the members of this organization, including their apparently legal use in self-defense, is relevant to the subject of this article. Other editors are invited to share their views. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very reasonable approach. I should explain that this and a couple of related articles have been the subject of a fair amount of drive-by point scoring where enthusiasts add stuff to show how evil those described in the article are. I have no interest in this topic other than my dislike of POV edits that take advantage of the open nature of Wikipedia. I see you are an experienced editor (and my "drive by" remarks are not regarding you) so I would not normally use all the bureaucratic links in the remainder of my message, but I'm addressing my comments more generally.

I do not see why this article needs a section with title "Gun-wielding mayor" and content describing how one of the MAIG had a gun (and may have a problem regarding where the gun was concealed). An article following WP:NPOV on this topic needs to simply describe the organization and their activities, with WP:DUE commentary on the topic, preferably based on secondary sources. Suppose there was an article on a committee of 600 people who run some organization. Editors should not add news reports to that article showing that a few of the 600 have been convicted of shoplifting, or have exposed themselves, or any other weirdness. To do would be synthesis whereby the intention is to add negativity so the reader can infer that the organization has some problems. Maybe it does have problems, but it is not the role of editors to point them out (that's original research). It's known as coatracking—adding tidbits cherry-picked by editors in order to attack a subject.

Regarding the "Gun-wielding mayor" section: possibly that info is relevant in an article on the mayor (although it may contravene WP:NOTNEWS, particularly as the only real issue is whether the mayor may have done something without the required permit, and that is a total unknown at this stage). However, its only function in this article is to point out that one of the 600 mayors found it useful to use a weapon to restrain an intruder (which carries the synthesis that the mayor is a hypocrite and the organization are phonies), and that the mayor may have a permit problem (with more synthesis to double the score regarding hypocrisy/phonies). The section (with a neutral title) would be appropriate after a reliable secondary source writes an analysis (not a news report echoing the event) with a claim that the incident has an impact on MAIG (the topic of this article). Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, here are two analyses by reliable secondary sources: "Mobile Mayor a Member of Group Some Consider Anti-Gun", from WKRG-TV, and "Pistol-Packing Mayor Draws Heat", from al.com, the web site of the media company that publishes the Press-Register, The Birmingham News, and The Huntsville Times. Both are reporting on criticism by people who are opposed to the agenda of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. You said the only issue is whether the mayor may have done something without the required permit, but I don't agree. Suppose hypothetically that the mayor holds a press conference tomorrow and shows everyone that he has a concealed carry permit. This incident would still be relevant to the credibility of MAIG, according to these two analyses, because the mayor used a gun to defend himself and his property, yet he's a member of an organization that's perceived by some as having positions that make it harder for the average citizen to do the same. So, in your view, would it be okay to put the section back, with additional quotes from these commentaries? I'm certainly open to that. And I'm definitely open to the section having a name other than "Gun-wielding mayor". And here's another question about all this. I ended my original edit with "... and Jones has not been charged with any crime." Is it better to leave that in, to make it clear that Jones has not been charged? Or should it be left out, because it might be taken to imply that he could be charged in the future, or that he committed a crime but is not being charged? I think it's better to leave it in, but again, I'm open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I encountered this article because I noticed it at a noticeboard (WP:NPOVN?). Perhaps the issues will need to be raised there again for general opinions because I doubt if we are going to agree. However, I'm not going to do much at the moment, but I will reply. The two sources you gave are essentially blogs where someone has given an opinion about the exciting news of the day (see WP:NOTNEWS). No secondary source has produced an analysis of the state of the gun debate where they have mentioned this issue as of significance. The news reports just signify that there is a flash-in-the-pan, not that there is any incident of encyclopedic value. Your comments about "relevant to the credibility of MAIG" and "perceived by some" just reinforce my earlier view that the material is synthesis intended to discredit the organization. That's fine on a blog, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Text is definitely undue when it includes "...has not been charged with any crime" because that is the typical "have you stopped beating your wife?" smear where an editor writes that politician X has been involved in incident Y (reference: news report), but "X has not charged with any crime"—that's Wikipedia's voice being used to unequivocally associate X with a crime. It may be possible to mention the incident in some section of the article, but it would have to brief, and it would have to not be focused on a particular individual, and it would have to be attributed. I'll exaggerate, but wording would be along the lines of 'in a quick blog, X said that "Some consider the group to be anti-gun, and Y said "the rest of us should not have guns to defend ourselves" [huh? that's an extreme view given what this article says], and Z said "...believes it is okay for him to carry a gun, but he belongs to an organization that consistently works to keep everyone else from carrying"'. That would still look like coatracking to me, but it would at least be transparent coatracking. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A coatrack is when the article is about one subject, and that's used as an excuse to talk about a different subject -- there are good examples at WP:Coatrack#Typical coatracks. That's definitely not what my edit did, I was adding material about this article's subject. Synthesis is "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I was thinking that if I added the new section without reaching a conclusion, or adding any commentary at all, I would not be engaged in synthesis. But you're saying, I believe, that what I did would imply a conclusion. I'm not convinced of that, but I could see where a reasonable person might take that position. And you are also saying, if I understand correctly, that it would be okay to add material about this event if it said that someone else reached such a conclusion, and this event and its aftereffects are significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the article, if reliable secondary sources were provided -- conditions which you believe have not been fulfilled, so far anyway. Let me know if I have misstated anything, I don't want to misrepresent your views. By the way, thanks for the thoughtful discussion on this subject. And I would also strongly encourage other editors to give their opinions about this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that several of the essays/guidelines do not accurately portray how the community uses certain terms. It is true that WP:COATRACK talks about a coatrack article, but the term is used to oppose edits of a similar nature in many kinds of articles (often articles on politicians where opponents love to add opinion pieces suggesting the subject has some problem). I haven't looked at WP:SYNTH recently, but it definitely includes adding a paragraph without a conclusion: that's the point—the reader is expected to infer negativity from the paragraph. Yes, SYNTH talks about an editor saying A and B are verified, therefore it follows that C is verified. But why would a paragraph on an incident involving a particular mayor (without conclusion) be added to this article? (Answer: so the reader can draw the unstated conclusion that MAIG is evil.) What secondary source suggests there is a connection with this article? What is the connection? Is this an encyclopedia or an op-ed collection? Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, but don't hold your breath because the only activity here is generally from passing wikignomes (fixing typos and so on), or from people adding paragraphs showing flaws in individual mayors in an attempt to smear the MAIG (as I've said, such smears are fine if made by a secondary source which has written a considered analysis of the general situation regarding the gun debate). Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the daughter page with List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

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)

Repeated deletion of four new sections

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)

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)

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)

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)

I concur. The four new sections should stand. OnlySwissMiss (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the new sections have relevance. I also agree that politicians are in the public/media spotlight, so all of their actions, affiliations, screw-ups and kudos are worth mentioning. That is the nature of the beast. They put themselves in the spotlight as our public servants, so they'd better behave themselves. The new sections are worthwhile. (But the Awards section seems lame--it should either get zapped, or be expanded to make it better.) DiligenceDude (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

'Members convicted of illegal activity' - a gross violation of WP:NPOV/synthesis - and WP:BLP policy too.

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)

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)

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)

None of the sublists add encyclopedic value, and each should be removed. This revert to add the criminals list 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)

Secondary sources picking up on this topic

• http://nypost.com/2013/11/29/illegal-mayors-against-guns/
• http://www.twincitytimes.com/events/enough-is-enough-some-mayors-against-illegal-guns-act-illegally

also on a separate note, this story may be interesting for inclusion as well http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/11/08/bloomberg-a-big-loser-with-antigun-money-in-virginia-n1743378 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Blatant NPOV hypocrisy

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)

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)

Section formatting

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)

Citation formatting

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)

FYI: I am going to take some time to update the source citations using WP:CS1 and date format YYYY-MM-DD. I will also try to find some archived links for the many dead links. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit to section "Publicly announced resignations, misidentification, roster removals, disavowals".

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)

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)

Number of members and citation

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)

Here's the latest - "http://everytown.org/mayors/" - since they joined with Moms Demand Action to start the Everytown movement. It says, "a bipartisan group of more than 1,000 current and former mayors..." Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Everytown change and "Moms Demand Action" merge

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)

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 - [6] - 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)

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)

Requested move 8 January 2015

Mayors Against Illegal Guns → Everytown for Gun Safety – 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) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use separate articles if necessary, but MAIG is a highly notable topic, and the WP:COMMONNAME (which trumps WP:OFFICIALNAME concerns).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposition from NRA

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. 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)