Talk:Alliance for Retired Americans
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | 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:
|  |
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)
POV
editAlliance 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)
- 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)
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)
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)