Talk:MADD Canada

Very stupid commercial! Makes drugs look like fun ordering a burger! There should at least be flashing lights behind him

NPOV tag (August 2008)
This article puts too much weight on a scandal in 2006. MADD Canada has much more to it than that.-Wafulz (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am more concerned about the NOPV of the Policies section of this article. It reads like it was written directly by someone from MADD. Also, the criticism of MADD for the 2006 scandal is warranted. Like all bureaucracies over time, MADD has slowly lost focus of its core mission and now exists largely to perpetuate itself.24.69.50.94 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This article entirely lacks any and all neutrality. Swinging from biting criticisms to blatant fundraising and self-promotion. The writer didn't even try to hide their affiliation using first person references. This article should likely be deleted and started over. I do agree that it is important to include the 2006 scandal in addition to its charitable work. (99.242.107.142 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree the MADD Canada wikipage is definitely not impartial and reads like an advertisement wrtten and edited by MADD itself. Of course the 2006 funding scandal should be present, the fact that it was removed is one reason why the article in its current form is so obviously biased. 66.183.26.52 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a neutral article. There is no mention of the 2006 scandal where the newspaper the Toronto Star uncovered MADD actively obfuscating the fact that only about 19 cents out of every dollar collected was actually spent on charity work. The rest was used for Admin and "fundraising". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.233.106 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Throughout the years, the user Minuet1968 or  Minuet68 seems to have been constantly 'cleaning up', in the sense that they remove all negative parts of the page. The entire 2006/2007 funding scandal was removed with the comment that it had 'been resolved'. So? It's still part of the history, why would it be removed? Criticisms about breath mints, or trying to prevent new types of liquor (neo-prohibitionist parts) have been removed in their little tidy-ups. I really feel that this user should be blocked from editing this page. In the meantime, I'd love to help put back together the scandal's information, so that this page can be more complete. -mabbo, May 21, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.225.150 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2006/2007 funding scandal material has been restored for a month now, without evidence of any dispute. I will remove the NPOV tag. William Avery (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)