Talk:Million Mom March

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Gun politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Cleanup needed

Ok this article needs some MAJOR work! This reads like an advertisement now. I would be very highly surprised if this wasn't written by members of this group. It sounds to me like a copy/paste off their website but since I cannot find the original source, if there is one, I'll just put a totallydisputed there for now. A Clown in the Dark 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to do a MAJOR NPOV edit on this, and removed the totally disputed tag for now. Added considerably more background details on the figurehead of the organization. There are probably still issues, but it at least no longer reads like an ad for the organization now. Yaf 05:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now only the propaganda of the NRA. I was there. The article is wrong. Where's the truth? When you start something with "according to the website" it gives it a negative tone. Then, to imply that because Donna Dees-Thomases was a publicist, that makes the whole thing a sham is ridiculous. You guys usually do a pretty good job. this time you totally missed it.148.85.1.102 19:14, 2 March 2006

Addressed the NPOV concerns with a re-write/edit. Articles are to be written with a balance called neutral point of view. Hopefully, this article now addresses these issues better. Of course, you can always edit the article yourself to address your concerns if you still have concerns regarding the article. Yaf 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yaf, What's with all the Donna Dees triva? Is all that name dropping there to make her sound important? Also, I'm not sure that citing the "official paper of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy."[1] is what we mean by editing with a neutral point of view. -MrFizyx 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation of the Million Mom March

The original Million Mom March liquidated in 2001. This can be verified from the organization's 2001 Form 990 tax return, which is a public record (because the MMM was 501(c)(3) tax exempt) and can probably be downloaded from Guidestar.org. I can in fact provide a screenshot. What is now called the Million Mom March is not the same corporate entity that Donna Dees-Thomases put together. Bill Levinson 05:21 28 July 2006 UTC

Alamance Independent

Is this really a reliable source? I fail to see how it could qualify as one. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Graham?

The paragraph about the Kikko Smith shooting seems completely superfluous and irrelevant because nothing in the remainder of the article has any mention of them. Do either of them have any connection to the MMM organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.106.73 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Graham, also known as Barbara Lipscomb was an organizer and speaker at the march who was later convicted of shooting Kikko Smith. Her case probably isn't too relevant to this article, despite being a good case study of the inherent hypocrisy of most gun-control proponents. 4serendipity (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ends versus means?

The article stated in the beginning that the Million Mom March wanted stronger gun regulations to keep guns out of the hands of kids and criminals. While that arguably may have been the intended result, the policies sought would place strict gun regulations on all people. The inclusion of children in this context is suspect as is the dubious assertation that any kind of law is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, since criminals are the very people who do not obey the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.159.153 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I'm flagging this article for POV. As other people have mentioned on this talk page, the article reads like an advertorial, with abundant non-neutral language. In particular, I'm looking at phrases like "grim picture". Mike Helms (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BradyMail seems to have one purpose here. I'm going to try to add stuff back in, but yeesh. It's hard when half of the stuff is puff. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"On the state level, Million Mom March Chapters have had numerous successes in passing stricter gun laws."

We need a citation besides the group's press release. They may have existed, but another group may have been responsible for the passage of these laws, and MMM may have simply watched from the sidelines. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the material. I was unable to find any sources that directly linked MMM to the passage of specific restrictions. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article?

Should this article be about the event or about the organization that ran the event? The first line refers to the event, but most of the content refers to the organization. I feel it needs a lot of cleanup. Personally I feel that it should be about the organization. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) bite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.199.29 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of business management expert re Brady Campaign

This sentence:

William A. Levinson wrote that the Brady Campaign's estimate of the number of children who die in handgun related incidents is exaggerated.^[1]

^ Levinson, William A. (January 16, 2013). "Why Does the Anti-Gun Camp Need to Lie?". American Thinker. Retrieved January 22, 2013.

The piece cited says Levinson "is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality."

I do not think his opinion is relevant here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I uploaded a large amount of public-domain licensed images of the Million Mom March to commons. Feel free to add one or two of them to enhance the article. I'm having trouble deciding which photos to use. SecretName101 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A former senators PR specialist is "Grassroots"

What does "Grassroots" even mean then? Why isn't her background mentioned at all? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Levinson130116-1] Levinson, William A. (January 16, 2013). "Why Does the Anti-Gun Camp Need to Lie?". American Thinker. Retrieved January 22, 2013.

[1]