Talk:Alliance for Retired Americans

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for December 30.

A fact from Alliance for Retired Americans appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Alliance for Retired Americans was instrumental in enacting Medicare?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

Wikipedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CCRivers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Alliance for Retired Americans is quite partisan for a group insisting on calling itself non-partisan. The section at "Legislative Agenda" is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.83.44 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group meets the definition of nonpartisan under federal law (or their tax status would be revoke). So it doesn't matter what you or I think; what matters is whether they meet that definition. (Nonpartisan does not mean that they cannot support issues strongly liberal or strongly conservative; it means they cannot support parties or candidates. They can, however, educate the public about what candidates think. The distinction is a fine one, but it exists.) As for the Legislative Agenda section, I agree. You and anyone can remove that under WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, and I've done so. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Personally, I would prefer to see a section like this rendered NPOV, rather than merely removed. While POV'ed content is problematic (and unsuited for Wikipedia), the organization itself does have a "POV" (i.e. they have some agenda/orientation), and some sense of "what is their POV" would be welcome for those trying to understand this organization. I came to Wikipedia trying to evaluate them in response to a solicitation for charitable donation. Wikipedia is so ardently NPOV in this entry that I couldn't figure out whether I wanted to donate, or not! 2602:306:B84A:8280:2480:DFCA:C2C2:1860 (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made alot of good points and there was new info that I was not privileged to have and now I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wc01873 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]