This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

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) reply

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)) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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

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.

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)) reply

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) reply