Talk:Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Non-profit size

I modified the claim that MADD is one of the largest non-profit organizations in the United States. It is certainly one of the largest victim rights organizations, but is not a particularly large non-profit. There are thousands of non-profit colleges, universities, hospitals, museums and the like with larger budgets, revenues and assets than MADD. Harvard University, The Shriners Hospital, Partners Health Care, etc.

Whitfield Larrabee 03:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy Concerns In Description of MADD's positions

The summary of what MADD stands for is inaccurate. I have never heard any statement that MADD opposes the use of alcohol for religous purposes, such as communion, and there is not cite to any such authority. This seems calculated to be inflamatory. A better expression of this point would be that MADD strongly favors laws that set the legal drinking age at 21.

Although it is evident that MADD has been advocating for more strict drunk driving laws, there is no evidence that they advocate making them as strict as possible. For example, they have not advocated for the death penalty for drinking and driving at any time to my knowledge. They have not advocated a constitutional amendment to permit torture, cruel and unusual punishment of drunk drivers. This statement is incorrect.

MADD has advocated for a reduction of the permissible BAC limit to .08, but MADD has not advocated "laws which prohibit driving after consuming any amount of alcohol" from what I can discern from there web site. Some individuals associated with MADD have made such statements, but I have not seen an organized effort on the part of the organization to achieve no alcohol and driving rule.

It is true MADD advocates an "increase beer excise taxes to equal the current excise tax on distilled spirits. Higher beer taxes are associated with lower rates of traffic fatalities and youth alcohol consumption." http://www.madd.org/activism/0,1056,4612,00.html?p=1

Whitfield Larrabee 02:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A simple google search finds a Rhode Island law that MADD supported that makes no exception for under-21 year olds using alcohol for religious purposes. The article may need citations, but the description is accurate.

I agree that "strict as possible" is an overstatement (if not by much) and the current version is an improvement.

MADD has shifted from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive," which is a substantial difference; they have lobbied for terminating parental rights for parents that drive after consuming any amount of alcohol. I think the original is more accurate.

A congressional panel found that there were no studies that supported MADD's claim that higher taxes reduced youth alcohol consumption; Wechsler's work found that youth demand for alcohol was inelastic, because underage drinkers don't buy their own alcohol.

The current summary thus had POV problems, which I hope I've fixed. -- FRCP11 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've hedged the claim in "Controversies" that underage drinking is proven to cause brain damage to make it clear that it is just that -- a claim -- and not a settled fact. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence from unbiased sources (ie from outside the anti-underage drinking movement) that moderate consumption by under-21s is associated with any more detrimental health effects than it is in over 21s. 69.174.68.99 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no good evidence that consuming alcohol in moderation by persons under the age of 21 has detrimental effects on the brain. See, for example, Alcohol and Teenagers' Brains — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Justin (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Age 21, no exceptions

I have reverted deletion of the statement that MADD opposes alcohol consumption by those under age 21 *with no exceptions* for religious, health, or other reasons. A careful reading of the MADD website demonstrates clerly that it makes no exceptions whatsoever, even in those states, for example, which specifically legalize alcohol consumption by those under age 21 within the parents or guardians house under parental or guardian supervision. Some states provide exemptions for religious use, when prescribed by a physician, etc. However, MADD clearly does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.88.33 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is packed full of POV statements and uncited claims. It needs to be trimmed, too. -- Scientizzle 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Check

Much of this article reads like a diatribe against MADD. In particular, the Controversy section makes up about half the article and seems to have little to say in MADD's defense. The External Links section continues this trend. I suspect I'm being overly skittish in not marking this as a POV dispute.

I also removed the link and one other reference to "Drivers Against MADD Methods." The link was an easy choice--http://damm-madd.com/ "is currently under construction and will be available soon." Aside from that, this article contains the only reference to DAMM I could find outside their own website. The website itself (some pages are available there--just not the homepage) lists no contact information except their Paypal donations account. whois damm-madd.com returns a UPS store address. It strikes me as a "some guy ranting behind a keyboard" operation--irrelevant to the article.

AdamBradley 04:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MADD is very conroversial and this article does a good job of describing the organization in a balanced and impartial way. For this reason, extremists on both sides will be unhappy with it.Harmon Johnson 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Balanced and impartial way" also means that one particular traffic case should not be made definitive for each scenario. Pease remember that each case is individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.148.215 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue

As written, this article is remarkably strong in terms of critical content toward MADD. While a discussion of any particular controversy or criticism is a valid portion of any Wiki article, the manner in which this article is written makes it seem that controversies abound regarding MADD's mission, activities, and goals. The article needs to be rewritten with a neutral POV so as to accurately reflect the purpose of the organization, its accomplishments, its failures, and issues surrounding its activities. Drgitlow 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really think it's Wikipedia's fault or the fault of the contributors if many of their practices invite controversy such as the allegations of junk science regarding their data, supposed avarice, and the alleged impracticality of some of their proposals. Let's see if we could build a consensus and decide which way to go with the article, I'm not in favor of deleting any information currently in the article, but I think it would be a prudent idea to expand on information about MADD and their activities and mission to give a balance to the article, such as those on many of the religion pages.--Folksong 06:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. Some rewriting and addition of material would be a good approach, I think. Drgitlow 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has beeen flagged as being factually inaccurate but I can't find anything factually inaccurate in it. For the flag to remain, factual innacuracies need to be identified and proven.Harmon Johnson 15:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)— Harmon Johnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was flagged as not being neutral. It still isn't neutral. Drgitlow 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most blatent POV articles that I have ever read on Wikipedia. The entire article reads like a libertine hit piece on MADD. It needs a complete rewrite into NPOV form. I'll start working on changes forthwith. Until then I'm flagging this article. Ghostmonkey57 02:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the criticisms "libertine." Some people sincerely disagree with a large portion of MADD's policies, and I rather doubt many of these people are libertines. Did you mean libertarian? MADD did a lot to bring attention to the issue of drunk driving, of course, and I don't know if anybody really opposes that. But some of their methods do seem kind of along the lines of gee, you think we should consider this a little more? to say the least. Bolwerk 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of these removals are rather inappropriate, although I partially agree that the removed sections were poorly cited. Honestly, the criticisms about MADD's attacks on civil liberties are probably the most interesting and pertinent. The section on MADD's paternalism is actually a very cogent point; a lot of people feel that MADD is too paternalistic. They may be a minority, but they're out there. And the fact is, MADD's policies are at least somewhat paternalistic, although this need not be said in the article—somebody familiar with the concept of paternalism can figure that out for themselves. Meanwhile, since a link can kindly be provided to the WikiPedia article on paternalism, somebody not familiar with the concept can read up on it and then decide. Concerning my point that I partially agree that the sections were ill-sourced, I say that because there were partly cited, in the sense that they linked to an article on paternalism, but not to any human actors making that claim. The real problem with this article is not NPOV, but that it's a stub, even though that does give it a hint of NPOV. Somebody more familiar with the history and workings of of the organization really needs to expand the first half of the article. Speaking of which, since the criticism section is kind of long, would a Criticism of Mothers Against Drunk Driving article make sense? Bolwerk 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of the criticism concerning MADD is sourced to David J. Hanson personal website, a self-published source. I think we should be careful with what we reference to the man. As for creating a fork, I oppose that. I don't think Wikipedia should act as a mouthpiece for critics of the temperance movement. Jean-Philippe 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think that not only shouldn't we fork the criticism, but we should also take care that the criticism section does not outweight the rest of the article in term of article space. Jean-Philippe 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting WikiPedia should become a mouthpiece for critics of the temperance movement. And (hopefully) nobody is suggesting WikiPedia become a mouthpiece for the temperence movement to use against its critics. According to usual procedure on WikiPedia, the criticism section is towards the end of the page; a lot of it is truthful; I think the top of the page concerning MADD's history and policies need to be expanded, more than the criticism section needs to be contracted. I tried to tweak it some, however. As for David Hanson, I made a lot of those edits mentioning him. Others have been parroting his arguments without even so much as citing them. I at least tried to at least make clear that Hanson's opinions were being stated, not that what Hanson is saying is true is untrue. (As near as I can tell, Hanson is one of the few people in academia — on any side of the debate over alcohol and policy — to do peer reviewed research into alcohol consumption habits. Other criticism has been largely from op-ed critics of MADD, or the odd grassroots opposition. I'd like to find some others, however.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolwerk (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think half of this article just needs to be deleted and totally re-written. It's saddening that this vandalism (because frankly that's what it looks like to anyone coming across the page - not "point of view")has been allowed to remain up this long. And how is "a waste of an organization in the United States and other gay countries" not "factually inaccurate" ? Unless you're implying that the whole of the US is homosexual. Rach 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism happens. Remove it. It doesn't mean an article needs to be tagged as NPOV or non-factual. Bolwerk 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with biographies of MADD presidents

I see no reason to put biographies of past presidents on this page.Little Ol' Winemaker 01:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)— Little Ol' Winemaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I removed the suggested merge notices from the top of the page because they were obtrusive. (I first reverted them as vandalism... which they were not.. sorry User:Bissinger) The suggested merges are: Wendy J. Hamilton, Millie I. Webb, Glynn Birch, and Mickey Sadoff. These are all stub articles on past MADD presidents. If there is a desire to delete these articles and incorporate their information here, I don't think there is a need for four notices at the top of the article. Zzxcnet 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Check for the 3rd time or more

Labeling editors who contend that an article has POV as "extremists" is not helpful. Please take a look at Wikipedia policy regarding Civility and No Personal Attacks. I have restored the POV flag. The discussion page makes absolutely clear that this article's NPOV dispute has never been resolved (see Wikipedia policy regarding Resolving Disputes), so the repeated removal of the flag has neither been helpful nor appropriate. (Let's assume good faith and allow that the repeated removal of the POV flag has been not an edit war but simply an honest mistake that now need not be repeated.) Either the POV flag must remain or we must refer this article for mediation and wider comment. Perhaps both.

A reorganization of this article into two main sections - "MADD" and "Criticisms of MADD" - would help better represent what controversy there may be around this organization. (As it is, the criticisms of MADD take up more space than information about how MADD has actually organized, argued, and acted.) Sourcing the criticisms and interpretations of MADD is, as others have pointed out, an absolute necessity. As Wikipedia policy regarding Verifiability makes crystal clear, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Note also that otherwise unpublished arguments or theories constitute a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Everyone would currently be within their rights to remove most of what this article has to say about MADD, good, neutral, or bad. - RamseyK 01:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have moved all of the criticisms to a "Criticisms" section. As the article currently stands, most of the criticisms are unsourced statements of the "Some argue" and "Critics say" kind. Unless someone adds documentation to meet the Verifiability policy, all of the unsourced criticsms will have to be deleted. Who have the critics been? Where did they do the critiquing?

The "Arguments" section consists almost entirely of interpretations that are, as the article currently stands, unsubstantiated original research. All of the "It can be argued..." paragraphs will need Verifiability documentation or they will also have to be deleted. Who have the arguers been? Where have they been arguing it?

For everybody's convenience, here's the link to Wikipedia's Citing Sources guidelines.

-RamseyK 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anything in there constitutes original research (WikiPedia guideline). The problem is more along the line of poor citation. Also, a lot of the original URLs people have cited have expired and should probably be updated. I did try to consolidate most of the references into a Notes section. Bolwerk 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Several quotes in the article also fail to cite their sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Alternate viewpoints"

Those links were inserted disguised into opposed viewpoints, but they really are little more than hitpieces. I came here specificly to remove activistcash.com, an attack site that shouldn't be used as a source of information for anything but itself according to guidelines. I also found the parent website of activistcash. Alcohofacts and "alcohol solution" appears to be owned by the same person and there's 6 links to them. There's a blog thrown in there for good measure too. Wiki policies are fine with alternate viewpoints, but AFAIK those are just attack sites (eg.:all they do is attack MADD).

• The Reputation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD
• ActivistCash.com - criticism on MADD's drift in emphasis to neo-prohibitionism
• The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food and beverage organization that opposes some MADD political actions and agenda items.
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD -
• Alcohol: Problems and Solutions
• Candy Lightner: Founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
• Young Drivers and Alcohol
• getMadd.com is a site critical of MADD.
• DUIblog: Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution" includes criticism of MADD
• Stop The MADDness! by Tom Alciere, supports repeal of prohibition for those under the age of 21.
• Fighting Madd, an article in Modern Drunkard Magazine.
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Resources
• National Youth Rights Association on the Drinking Age, pro youth rights organization in favor of lowering the drinking age.
• DUI, MADD and the New Prohibition

It's not too surprising there's 4 link and several references to David J. Hanson personal website [1]. I understand he's a longtime critic of the temperance movement. See his bio and wiki account [2]. He's been recently found to be engaged in an aggressive campaign of POV pushing using several (9 blocked in all) accounts on another article. See the closed case here. So yay, some of the recent single-issue pov pushing account might be his and I'll be watching out for that. Cheers. Jean-Philippe 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you might be inserting your own POV into the article by referring to them as "hitpieces" and deleting all links critical of MADD from the article. We shouldn't have too many pieces from Hanson, but at the same time, I still believe that it's fine to include one website from him and use his work as a reference.--Folksong 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brain Development

"MADD argues that, given that the brain does not stop developing until the early 20s..."

I've seen studies that point out that while heavy brain development does occur during adolescence, some aspects of the brain don't stop developing until much later. These two articles say it doesn't stop until 35-45:

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/media/News/HS_05162001.html http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060927/news_lz1n27brain.html

Not trying to disabuse the rersearch, just want it cited right. Lots of studies and articles make the "early 20s" claim, but they are none of them conclusive. That said, this link has some pretty compelling evidence about alcohol leading to possible adolescent brain damage:

http://www.duke.edu/~amwhite/Adolescence/adolescent7.html

Perhpas it could be reworded to reflect the both ambiguity about brain development and the evidence of potential damage from excessive alcohol use on developing brains? Just a thought. 66.57.225.77 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism: Financial mismanagement allegations

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165619410528&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

This article alleges that MADD spends less than 20% of the money it raises on direct charitable work, with the rest going to administration, salary, and more fundraising. Read the article and say whether it merits mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoctorWorm (talk • contribs) 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Candy Lightner's departure

Ouch, sorry, Jonathan Luckett, I didn't notice that you added the "according to"s right before I took them back out. I have database access, so I'm going to go look up those two articles and see what they say. - Kelly Ramsey 09:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. It turns out that the Dresty cite isn't from The Chronicle of Higher Education It's actually an op-ed from a student newspaper, the Hofstra Chronicle, and it's online in their archives. Dresty only cites getMADD.com as his source. IMHO, considering that the Dresty piece is (a) an op-ed, (b) in a student newspaper, (c) by a student pundit, and (d) cites only that polemical self-published personal web site as its source, it doesn't count as a reliable source to verify the Lightner quote. - Kelly Ramsey 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bresnahan piece is a news article. It mentions Lightner only in this 3-paragraph passage, which looks to be enough to verify the quote:

Candy Lightner, MADD's founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction.

"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned," said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

Several years after she left MADD, Mrs. Lightner briefly represented the American Beverage Institute in its fight against the 0.08 percent BAC law. She also lobbied Congress to enforce tougher penalties for drunk drivers.

- Kelly Ramsey 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phone policy

I restored the mobile phone section. It is not original research, it is cited and a link is provided to the main article which shows that MADD's policy is out of touch with research published in respected academic journals. Cheers m'dears. Famousdog 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The research shows that cell phones are distraction WHILE driving. Is there any evidence MADD supports their use while actually driving? If you read the quote carefully, it doesn't say that. -- Mgunn 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly distinguishing between use of a phone while driving or while pulled over, or distinguishing between use of a hands-free setup as opposed to a hand-held, means that their policy is ambiguous, and therefore dangerous. Famousdog 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument you're putting forth is: "MADD has a cell phone stance.(cite) Cell phones can be dangerous.(cite) Therefore, MADD's stance is dangerous." This is precisely the kind of original synthesis that wp:nor forbids. A statement is specifically excluded by wp:nor policy if "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position.")

What would be okay would be something like this: "MADD has a cell phone stance.(cite) Critic X says MADD's cell phone stance is dangerous.(cite)" (This presumes that the criticism is notable enough for inclusion.)

I'm taking it back out, until the argument itself has a reliable source. If this in any way a widespread criticism, finding an analyst or pundit who's making it should be fairly easy.

- Kelly Ramsey 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MADDlogo.gif

Image:MADDlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Steering Wheel sensors

The last paragraph in the Ignition Interlock section under criticisms ("These concerns may be allayed with newer technology which provides for passive sensors installed in steering wheels. Since many responsible drivers, both non-offenders and offenders who have become sensitized to the danger of impaired driving, prefer to not drive when they have had any alcohol, the sensors can provide the peace of mind they desire. These drivers believe that their personal guideline is safety-related and not dependent on a state's laws. They choose to believe studies which show that any measurable alcohol increases the likelihood of a traffic incident.") is un-encyclopedic and, frankly, a little silly. I propose deleting the paragraph and appending a version of its first sentence to the preceding paragraph, where it rightly belongs. Perhaps, "This concern may be allayed by the introduction of passive sensors installed in steering wheels." 67.161.2.49 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Minimum drinking laws

I removed the {{Off-topic}} tag from the Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Minimum_drinking_age_laws section. The reason given was

This section is off-topic because it's about MADD's opinion on why young people shouldn't drink alcohol, not on why it should be _illegal_ for them to drink alcohol.

I disagree. The section describes MADD's rationale for supporting 21-and-over drinking laws. It is on-topic because it is about positions put forth by MADD, and MADD is the subject of the article. --Ultra Megatron (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sobriety Checkpoints

This section, however brief, needs to be rewritten. While it is certainly good to note that MADD's statement regarding opponents of checkpoint critics is invalid, that 'fact', like MADD's, needs to be documented in some way. The rest of the section needs to be outright deleted until someone who actually understands the facts behind sobriety cases has time to compose a sentence or two that is not as misleading as the current bit. Or maybe just link to a more useful Wikipedia article on the subject (nor would a reference to, for example, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz be out of place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.196.240 (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased

This page is very biased in supporting MADD. There are a few criticisms, but the overall tone of this page is saying this is a good group. Reference a similar group page, for the KKK and you will find a much more negative tone. This is supposed to state facts, but it does not state facts or say that MADD invents all of their science, statistics, and beliefs. One of the core values of MADD is promoting hatred and prejudice toward young adults, yet every time this information is added, the MADD supporters delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.124.89 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. "hatred and prejudice toward young adults" - yes, I can see how that might get killed right away. I see this is quite old but if there are wp:RS that say that I would love to see them.- sinneed (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Restructure

wp:criticism - several points were covered only in criticism. Banishing the critics from the body of the article and confining them to their own section does not generally lead to wp:BALANCE... it can either give wp:undue weight too them or to the positive comments.

I am *CONFIDENT* that I did not do all this work correctly, and apologize for anything I broke. I will be happy to fix, or help fix, and to improve. There are several bits here that I think would benefit from more coverage if wp:RS are available, and some bits that simply need sourcing.- sinneed (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anon duplicated the content, restoring the criticism section. The criticism is still there. Duplicating it is a Bad Thing.- Sinneed 18:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. MADD had been proven as a horrible and irresponible charity. Where's all that info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.167.90 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mission into lead, other wp:LEAD ideas

wp:LEAD the 1st sentence should say why the subject is notable. I think that putting in the effects MADD has achieved... 21-year-old min, .08% max BA level.- Sinneed

How about the 2nd sentence being: MADD's stated mission "to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking." - - Sinneed 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then para 2 perhaps mention Lightner's departure, other bits, again hewing to wp:LEAD and covering in summary of what is in the body.- Sinneed 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

This page offers no criticisms of MADD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A review of the article might well reveal criticisms of MADD. If there is a notable criticism in the generally wp:reliable sources, it might merit inclusion. Is there a proposed edit and source you would like to see added?- Sinneed 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much unrelated discussion

The article seems okay about the discussion of MADD. It has offered extensive criticism about whether it is okay for teens to drink or not.

I think some or a lot of this discussion needs to be forked. Okay to link it from here, but it digresses, after a while in "who is right: Okay for teens to drink/not okay." That could use it's own article.

Here we can say that MADD has been criticized for enforcing laws against teen drinking, with a little discussion. It just goes on way too long and winds up having little to do with the organization at that point. It deserves a separate article about "who is right." Student7 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed false arguments sourced to biased websites -- January 2012

I removed this section about minimum drinking age laws that's nothing more than lower-age drinking hype promoted by the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility. Blah, blah, blah for MADD, blah, blah blah against MADD; I really don't care, but blatant crap like this, yes, we should all care, even those of us with teeny tweenie alcohol-sodden rat brains. To add this content back to this article, source strictly per multiple, independent news reporting meeting WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Massive removal of sourced content without discussion

I expect to restore at least some of that unless there is a consensus to remove it. The shifting focus seems to be very much a key part of MADD. Does anyone support the large removal? I oppose at least much of it. User talk:Unfriend12 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I restored the shift-of-mission bit.User talk:Unfriend12 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawyer opinion and advert as a source.

While the lawyers' opinions are interesting, they still won't meet wp:RS I shouldn't think... they are selling lawsuits.User talk:Unfriend12 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange bias

This article almost reads like drunk driving is a good thing and MADD is infringing on our right to drive drunk. Anyone else feel that it's primarily anti-MADD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.70.234 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

MADD Virgin Drinks

There should be mention of the MADD Virgin Drinks line produced in Canada. http://www.maddvirgindrinks.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.240 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Name change to include MADD

I've believe MADD should be in the title of the page. Most people search Mothers Against Drunk Driving by its abbreviation MADD. This should help the page get more hits as when you type MADD into google the wiki link does not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilianois123 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)