Talk:60 Plus Association

POV

I've done a bit of a NPOV edit on this page, but it still comes over as fairly one-sided. Other edits would be welcomed! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we wouldn't want to be one-sided. I added quotes from three sources in support of the org. It's nicely balanced now. Regards, (W E Hill (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

60 PLUS IS A COMPANY!!!

60 Plus is a front for the pharm industry because almost all its revenue is from--you guessed it--the pharm inustry. This is why it opposes healh care reform.--Ms dos mode (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is also inexplicably one of the official supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act - along with all the pharmaceutical companies. --Erf380 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

haha, I wonder how they thought that was a good idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

US Senate

Sen. Baucus (D-MT) just quoted the lead of this wikipedia article on the floor of the US Senate and asked for it to be entered into the record. (2:25 PM Eastern Dec 3 2009)

I think all the AARP Bulletin Today references should be removed. They do not jive with WP:SOURCES. Read BOLD text below.

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

60 Plus sends scare mail to elderly

I have read some of the mail 60 Plus sends to elderly persons. It is clearly intended to scare them into contributing, and is devoid of critical facts. For example, some letters contain lists of assets the goverment may "seize" to pay the "death tax", but does not mention the $5,000,000.00 exclusion. This type of letter may cause an elderly person unneeded anxiety, and is, in my opinion, shameful and deceitful. (Heart.matters.more (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

This would need one or more reliable supporting sources if it is to be included in the article. I see here that it has been talked about, but I'm not sure about the reliability of sources mentioned there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)