Talk:AARP/Archive 1

Campaign Finance Law
If the AARP is, as the article states, "known for advancing the interests of aging populations through lobbying efforts at the state and national governmental level" then why aren't they subject to any campain finance laws like PACs are? 216.64.7.114 17:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

interesting trivia
In his widely referenced article/later book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam (political scientist) remarks that "....an even more dramatic example is the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which grew exponentially from 400,000 card-carrying members in 1960 to 33 million in 1993, becoming (after the Catholic Church) the largest private organization in the world."

Second to the church in numbers....wow

(I hope Vicarious enjoyed his drunken night in front of his PC.)

Jabbi 02:12 15 dec 2005 GMT

Source

Name
"Today, "AARP" is not considered an acronym, but simply a name." Move back to AARP? Rich Farmbrough 07:42 31 May 2006 (UTC).

Requested move

 * American Association of Retired Persons → AARP … Rationale: Name was changed in 1999. AARP is currently a redirect. … (This was put on WP:RM on July 9, 2006 but the discussion area was never added to the talk page). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support: Per original nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. American Association of Retired Persons should redirect to AARP, not vice versa.  --Rehcsif 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I have moved the article per request. I also changed the tag at the top of the article to reflect the change. Thanks --liquidGhoul 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added some critical views to begin moving toward NPOV
This was pretty much an AARP PR site, as somebody said above, not very encyclopeda-ish. I added some section names and a few critical items, to start the article moving toward neutral. I lifted source ideas from those who posted above, thanks. I think there's a lot more that can be added, the article is still pretty much a skeleton.

How did I get myself into this? Well, I looked up AAA to find out how their hotel-rating system worked, then I looked up AARP just out of curiousity because I am a member of that exclusive organization as well, and up came this page, tidy but tilted. I'm new and I thought it would be good practice to fix it up a little. The source material is a real snoozefest, but the editing was fun. --CliffC 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If yuo want more criticisms, look into their involvement with passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and Medicare Part D.--Hraefen Talk 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I revised the Criticism section to make it more clear that's the act it was talking about.


 * When is it time to remove the Expand
 * tag? --CliffC 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would leave the tag. AARP is a huge and very influential organization. What we have here is still pretty bare-bones relative to the influence they wield.--Hraefen Talk 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is link to 60 Plus history of AARP legit?
As far as I can tell, 60 Plus is a highly partisan group, possibly political astroturf. The American Prospect article says the following (be aware The American Prospect is partisan on the other side): "... a coterie of 'seniors' groups ... had been created by archconservative and direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, including the United Seniors Association, the Seniors Coalition, and the 60 Plus Association. They hired former Republican representatives to lobby and coordinate activities. Although founded years earlier, none of these groups were very active on Capitol Hill until the Republican takeover. Suddenly they were invited to testify in support of Republican Medicare cuts. Jim Martin, president of the 60 Plus Association, testified in 1995 against AARP, arguing that as a lobbying group, it should not be allowed to receive federal grant money. Through public statements and reports detailing AARP activities and finances, these groups attempted to discredit AARP. A bumper sticker distributed by 60 Plus declared, 'AARP: Association Against Retired Persons.'" (Linkified by me, of course)

The question is, is it appropriate to link to their history of AARP, even if we contextualize the link as a critic's history? I have no reason to think 60 Plus is a reliable source. On the other hand, I haven't found another history that covers the ground theirs does. Try Googling 'AARP history' -- there's nothing out there. 66.92.53.49 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems OK to me, given that it's characterized as you suggest. If we only allowed undisputedly neutral sources, we'd lose all the cites to my favorite  newspaper.  --CliffC 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... "neutral" and "reliable" are two different things. But lacking anything better, I would leave it for now. 66.92.53.49 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs AARP's response to critics, for balance
The article does clearly identify the criticism as such, but it lacks the other side. We need more balance. 66.92.53.49 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Other side? The entire article reads like it was written by the AARP's PR form. The miniscule Criticism section could be much longer, and reads how it is supposed to read - as a criticism. The are is already far short of being NPOV as it is.

Merge
(Copying this from Talk:AARP the Magazine) KeithTyler added a merge tag here without explanation, so I'm simply starting talk page discussion in order that others might weigh in. The magazine, to be sure, is notable irrespective of its AARP association, if only in view of its massive circulation, but it is also, unlike other geriatric magazines, inextricably linked to AARP, getting its readership only by virtue of its AARP association. I haven't yet developed an opinion apropos of a prospective merge, I suppose. WP:MM suggests that we merge where the instant page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, and I can't imagine that this article could be greatly expanded; OTOH, Consumers Union and Consumer Reports, between which the relationship is similar to that betwixt the two articles of which we write, have separate articles, even as they cover related subjects...[and] have a large overlap (viz., in that CR is published by CU, such that the former is largely incorporated by reference into the latter) (see also ESPN The Magazine and ESPN). At the very least, I think we can safely say that, if this article can't be expanded much, we should merge; if it can be expanded, well, we should expand it. Thoughts? Joe 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To the degree the Magazine is a real journalistic publication, it may deserve its own article. To the degree it's just an AARP newsletter, it does not. 66.92.53.49 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Current version is the AARP PR version.
According to today's LA Times, In late 2003, when the Bush administration was struggling to get its Medicare prescription drug program through Congress, a timely endorsement by AARP helped turn the tide in its favor. But the program has become more than just a legislative victory for the influential lobbying group and its pro-senior-citizen agenda.

... With at least 1.8 million members and counting, the AARP plan has the potential to generate royalty revenues amounting to tens of millions of dollars for the organization.

To help finance its activities, the organization long has sold various types of insurance. It derives more income from its businesses than from the $12.50 annual dues paid by each of its 35 million members.

According to a Paul Krugman editorial, [F]or most of its history the A.A.R.P. was basically a business enterprise using politics as a sales gimmick. Until the 1980's, a mogul named Leonard Davis effectively controlled the organization, using its publications and mailing lists as a way to sell insurance to members. The A.A.R.P.'s political activism was undertaken essentially for advertising purposes: just as corporations sponsored the recent Olympics to enhance the credibility of overpriced gym shoes, the A.A.R.P. sponsored pro-retiree legislation to enhance the credibility of overpriced insurance policies. Of such seeming trivialities are public policy disasters made.

Ironically, the Davis years were brought to an end by another institution whose commercial success depends on its image as a public crusader: the television program "60 Minutes," which did a devastating expose of the organization in 1978. Since then, the A.A.R.P. has gone a long way toward cleaning up its act.

Krugman refers mostly to the book, The AARP America's Most Powerful Lobby and the Clash of Generations by Charles R. Morris

This site has a more balanced, detailed history. If you search AARP's site for "Leonard Davis", you find nothing.

I'm not well versed enough in Wikipedia to properly present this information, nor do I have time for researching better citations, but it should balance what is now a very uncritical article.


 * Page not found, re This site Brian Pearson (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Political posture statement
I'm removing the following statement, which needs to edited to meet the standards of Neutral point of view and Attribution. "[AARP has been] generally and historically liberal in its advocated political posture" Also, I think it may be hard to fit it, with NPOV balance, in the intro. Perhaps in another section? Guanxi 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that statement disputed? Brian Pearson (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Money magazine article has some good info
It's from 1988, but it covers much history until that point. I don't have time at the moment, but maybe someone else wants to mine what's useful (I added it to External Links, too) http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1988/10/01/84702/index.htm Guanxi (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sam Biglari"
I removed the following:
 * (Adrus founded AARP) along with the help of Professor Sam Biglari of Harvard. 

Here's why:
 * The citation is not a Reliable Source. It's a user-maintained website.
 * I searched Google, and the NY Times back to 1851, for AARP Biglari, and found nothing.
 * I searched aarp.org for biglari and found nothing.
 * I searched Google and the Times back to 1851 for Biglari harvard and also found nothing, except another Wikipedia article. I wonder if he exists (pardon my ignorance if he does).

If he does exist, and he was involved in the AARP, we need a citation from a reliable source saying so. Guanxi (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Title
Seeing as though the acronym AARP no longer stands for American Association of Retired Persons, should the title be changed to "AARP" from "American Association of Retired Persons"?
 * I'll second that.--Hraefen 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So... uh... what DOES it stand for? -Anonymous
 * That was the former acronym, but now the name AARP stands for itself. The title of the org. is now "AARP," not :: insert old name ::, so it makes more sense if the WP article's title is AARP Mike Murray 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's onomatopoetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.13.177 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. (It no longer stands for anything, it's now just a name with a historical 'former' meaning. --Rehcsif 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will third that motion. 24.7.217.221 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a photograph
Until something better comes along, I added the photograph at right, lifted from Tourism. It seems like a nicely neutral shot of "active" 50-somethings enjoying themselve by doing pretty much nothing, and avoids the stereotypical image of a smiling grandma and grandpa on the shuffleboard court. I also considered [[Media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg | this one]] and [[Media:Rolling-stones-copacabana-18-02-11.jpg | this one]].

--CliffC 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have a photo of the AARP headquarters in DC? This would be an appropriate photo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.143.99 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"NRTA"
Someone might want to add info on their subsidiary, National Retired Teachers Association. Info on their website. Pretty big and impressive. 207.237.207.140 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Robert Tolmach

Membership?
Wow, today it's 37 million? This is like watching the McDonald's "___ Billion Served" sign. Does anything besides the headine of the 10/31 AARP press release about car rentals support this? Recently someone reduced the membership number in the article to 33 million from 35 million, and I don't know where that number came from either. --CliffC 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I cited it and clarified that it's AARP's own number. 66.92.53.49 15:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it should be changed to 40 million, since that is what it now states on AARP's about section. http://www.aarp.org/aarp/About_AARP/ 132.241.219.164 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

American Seniors Association
American Seniors Association adds almost nothing to what's written in AARP, and the group doesn't seem to have had any news coverage since 2009: is it notable enough for its own article, or should it redirect here? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's two weeks with no reply, so I'll go ahead and merge. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"membership"
They sent me a card with a number when I turned 50. I threw it out. Does their membership figure only include dues-paying dupes people? Or do they claim everyone they have mailed a card to? Huw Powell (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct for Wikipedia not to be neutral
There seem to be two competing associations for seniors in the United States AARP and ASA. It is incorrect to present only one of these associations. I was trying to find information about these two associations in order to be able to decide which is the one which best suits my concerns as retired citizen. I only found out that Wikipedia supports one of the associations and rejects the other.

The only conclusions I could draw from Wikipedia it that Wikipedia is not an objective source of information. Maybe there was an article which did not have sufficient information on ASA. This could have been eventually completed with additional information. But presenting only one of the associations and not the other one is definitely incorrect and confusing. A site with encyclopedic claims should present the information. If this would be generalized, Wikipedia could present only America as a continent and not present Africa or Asia, considering them less important than America (actually this happens if not for continents, at least for other information which is considered less important if it deals with developing countries). Anyway, just another proof of the lack of reliability of Wikipedia information. 04:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afil (talk • contribs)

Quality assessment
I've looked at this article to get an idea of WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment might compare with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, which I'm more familiar with. My first impression is that the present article resembles C-Class, so I'll do an assessment against the B-Class criteria: So this would be a decent C-Class article per WP 1.0. Hopefully it will also be assessed against USPP criteria, and it should be interesting to see what that arrives at. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) B-Class-1: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
 * - There are some weakly referenced sections, particularly 'Activities' and the last paragraph of 'Divided We Fail'.
 * 1) B-Class-2: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * - I'm unsure how comprehensive the content is, but judging by the talk page, there have been numerous requests for expansion, perhaps broadly met now.
 * 1) B-Class-3: It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
 * - Structure is defined, but is the distinction between 'Activities' and 'Health care' logical? According to the 'Criticism' section, AARP is AARP Foundation + AARP Services Inc (this needs mention in the lead). Perhaps the activities would be better organised by those two divisions explicitly?
 * 1) B-Class-4: It is free from major grammatical errors.
 * - Pass.
 * 1) B-Class-5: It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
 * - Weak here. Surely some more images could be found? (see talk above).
 * 1) B-Class-6: It presents content in an accessible way.
 * - No problems (I added alt text for the logo).


 * It would be better if what reads as ad copy/promotional material was removed. Huw Powell (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this article makes claims about lobbying that are cited by 2 Newspaper Articles alone! Isn't there a better source for, what I assume should be, publicly available documentation? ILMostro (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on AARP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110615164914/http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/annual-reports.html to http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/annual-reports.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on AARP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150905055404/http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-2009/History.html to http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-2009/History.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on AARP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905055404/http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-2009/History.html to http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-2009/History.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bulletin.aarp.org/opinions/wherewestand/articles/where_we_stand_why_aarp_endorsed_the_house_health_care_bill.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729090242/http://www.newyorklife.com:80/cda/0,3254,13730,00.html to http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,13730,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627092314/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/05_11/b3924050_mz011.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924050_mz011.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dated statements
In the section titled Insurance it says "In 2008, AARP plans to begin offering" and goes on to describe some types of insurance. So I assume this statement was written in 2008 or earlier. Can someone update it to reflect whether AARP did offer some/all of these types of insurance. 2008 is before Obamacare passed, so I don't know what effect, if any, that had on AARP's plans or its insurance offerings. Circumspect (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Congressional investigation and other criticisms
This article still reads like a PR piece to me. There is plenty of criticism out there about AARP's massive revenues from United Healthcare royalties. A reader shouldn't have to dig to find it. Could we add a Criticisms section such as is found in many other organization's articles? Here's a (partisan) congressional investigation document: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/AARP_REPORT_FINAL_PDF_3_29_11.pdfPyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AARP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123121325/http://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/ethel-andrus/ to http://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/ethel-andrus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053040/http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1124-07.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1124-07.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph
Hi, my name is Jeff and I work for AARP. Since I have a conflict of interest here, I won't edit this article. Instead, I'll stick to proposing changes for others here to consider. I have thoroughly read through the policies and style guidelines here. And it seems that this article is not up to par with Wikipedia's own standards, given that the article has a (rather accurate) yellow warning label at the top right now which states "This article reads like a press release or news article." My aim is to help be of assistance in bringing it up to Wikipedia's guidelines, but being sensitive to the conflict of interest requirements I will only do so via Talk pages, and never with direct edits.

To that end, can we consider updating the first paragraph?

The first paragraph of this article currently reads as: "AARP, Inc. (formerly American Association of Retired Persons) is a United States-based interest group that focuses on the elderly, especially on how they can continue to live well after retirement. In 2016, it had a membership of over 37 million people."

A few gaps here:


 * It starts with "AARP, Inc." but that isn't the way most nonprofits are described. AARP is a nonprofit 501c4 organization, and when you look at how other 501c4 groups are described in the opening sections on Wikipedia, there is no "Inc." and it is simply the name of the organization. I think "AARP Inc." was mistakenly put in the current opening sentence because AARP itself is a 501c4 nonprofit, but "AARP Services, Inc." is a separate legal entity that exists to manage any commercial benefits that are offered to AARP members.
 * The "formerly" part makes the first sentence rather longwinded, as the organization has been known as simply "AARP" for 20 years now. So while "formerly known as..." is smart to explain in the article itself as well as the info-box on the right, including it in the first sentence it makes for a mouthful of an opening sentence.
 * This sentence describes AARP as a group "that focuses on the elderly, especially on how they can continue to live well after retirement." In its origins, AARP was initially created with a narrow focus on retirees. But beyond those early years, AARP expanded to serve a broader range of people: all Americans age 50 and up. The age of membership starts at 50 years old. And AARP was active in advocating for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (which passed in 1967)--an example reflecting that since the 1960s AARP has not strictly been for elderly people after they retire.

To that end, I propose a fairly simple change of the first paragraph to the following:

AARP is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization whose stated mission is "empowering people to choose how they live as they age." It fights age discrimination and advocates to protect the health and financial security of people 50 and over. As of 2018, AARP had more than 38 million members.

(And while the guideline says sources are not needed for the lede section, if you wish to verify the stated mission it can be found here)

Would an editor consider this proposed revision to the first paragraph and implement it if you see it as an improvement? Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your forthrightness.
 * I believe all C corporations are corporations by definition.
 * Beginning sentences in ledes tend to be long. This dates back to early days of newsprint and the concept that you should deal with the basic questions quickly..
 * Good point. I’ve made adjustments. You are welcome to suggest further changes, so long as they meet the WP:PUFF guidelines. O3000 (talk)


 * O3000 and JeffreyArthurVA - if no one objects I've removed the "Inc." After checking the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs website it appears the legal name of AARP in its corporate registration is "AARP" and not "AARP, Inc." and I can't find any other RS that refers to it as "AARP, Inc." Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well documented:  . O3000 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know a Bloomberg company listing and primary sources like court filings count as "well documented." Currently, the name of the article is "AARP" not "AARP, Inc." I could see including "AARP, Inc." if that was the name of the article but, until the page is moved, I don't believe that's consistent with our naming policies. And I don't believe a page move is warranted per WP:COMMONNAME; Google News displays 482 results for "AARP" and 63 for "AARP, Inc." Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another note: I've slightly reworked the first sentence of the article. The sentence, as it appeared, was a run-on sentence with redundant words and some grammar errors. I've incorporated JeffreyArthurVA's suggestions with two modifications:
 * I removed this sentence as I don't believe the RS in the article permit us to say this in WP's voice: "It fights age discrimination and advocates to protect the health and financial security of people 50 and over." (in contrast, the mission statement in the first sentence is attributed to AARP so is not being disseminated in WP's voice.
 * I added "according to the AARP" prior to the last sentence since we don't have independent confirmation of AARP's membership numbers.
 * Chetsford (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I looked through a bunch of articles. Although AARP is incorporated, it appears that we only use Inc. when disambiguation is needed. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Were there any other parts of your request still left to be done, or may I close the request? Please advise. 0.725em 22:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks as if Chetsford has taken care of this request, so I'm going to close the last template open on this page. If there was anything missed, please feel free to reopen a new request. 0.75em 14:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. There are some other items I can help out with (for example, the logo in the infobox is an old version circa '07 and I can provide access to the current one). If it is alright with you, I'll continue to use the request-edit approach to propose any additional changes for your consideration. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the logo on the AARP site. If not, SVG format is preferred. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello @O3000, @Chetsford and @Spintendo, I have proposed a few updates to the infobox in a new section on this Talk page. If you are able to take a look below, that would be very helpful. Thank you, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox contains some outdated information. The logo is an old version, the membership number is missing a citation, and the revenue stats are from 2014. It also contains a few extra bits of information that don't make sense to include--for example, it lists the president of AARP Foundation, and because of how AARP is organized, listing the president-level (and equivalent) individuals would result in a list far too long for an infobox.

I've put together a draft of a new infobox in a sandbox right here: User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandbox. Since I am an employee of AARP and have a conflict of interest, could an uninvolved editor look at the sandbox version and implement it in the main article so long as you see it as an improvement? Regards JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the logo has been removed from the draft in my sandbox due to the requirements surrounding non-free files being used in the userspace. Makes sense. So for those reading this, you can use AARPLogo2018.png as the image file in the infobox. It is already coded into the draft infobox, but it has extra markup around the AARPLogo2018.png so it does not show up in the sandbox. I believe if you change it to remove the extra markup on that line it will display properly. - JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like just before you uploaded File:AARPLogo2018.png, you also uploaded the same image as a new version to File:American Association of Retired Persons (logo).png. Since these two files are now identical, I went ahead and switched the infobox image back to File:American Association of Retired Persons (logo).png and deleted the duplicate file. Mz7 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply 30-MAY-2018
✅
 * 1) The infobox with the appurtenant logo was appended to the article.
 * 2) Additionally, the Close paraphrasing maintenance template was appended to the article, as text within the article was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. This material originated on the AARP page, which contains a copyright notice covering the material placed there. All text placed into an article must be in an editor's own words, or else placed in quotation marks with proper attribution, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. A description of this particular text may be found here.   .   spinten do    18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Spintendo. Your addition of the close paraphrasing maintenance tag is fitting, as the beginning of the History section is virtually copy/pasted from the aarp.org website into the Wikipedia article about AARP. To address that--along with other areas where the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines--I think the best next step would be to come up with a revised outline for this article. A few gaps in the current structure and a few early thoughts:
 * One of the seven primary sections of the article is titled "AARP Awards." While it is true that AARP issues awards, this topic is not notable enough to warrant an entire section. It also has sourcing issues, as many of the award recipients listed cite Getty Images--not a proper source.
 * The section titled "Affiliates" is unfocused. It begins by outlining several subsidiaries of AARP, such as AARP Foundation and AARP Services Inc. These are distinct legal entities, so they make sense to include under this section. After these, the section lists specific programs or projects operated by AARP, such as a safe driving training course. These are not separate legal entities; rather they are simply activities or areas of work AARP has pursued over the years--perhaps more fitting in the "Activities" section.
 * The "History" section is where it should be, but it contains language that is nearly copy/pasted from aarp.org and it skips large periods of time (for example, it jumps from the founding in 1958 directly to 1978.
 * The "AARP Publications and Broadcasts" sub-section is under the "Affiliates" parent section, is too self-promotional, is formatted as a lengthy bulleted list, and describes programs in a present-tense (e.g. "Inside E Street, hosted by broadcast journalist Lark McCarthy, takes a "nonpartisan, civil look into issues critical to Americans") when some of these programs were discontinued years ago.
 * The "Activities" section should describe what types of notable things AARP does. This section reads like a cobbled-together mishmash of random, vague promotional statements such as "AARP also provides extensive consumer information, volunteer opportunities, and events including the annual National Event & Expo (2013 in Las Vegas from May 30–June 1 and in Atlanta from October 3–5)." Perhaps this section could be useful if done properly.
 * To that end, I'll work on a draft of an outline and will post it here on the Talk page to get feedback and input. Thanks, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

First Sentence
Disclosure: Hi, I am an AARP employee and have previously disclosed my WP:COI on this article Talk page. Per WP guidelines I never edit this article and will stick to strictly proposing updates on this Talk page.

Requested change: Update the first sentence of this article to the way it read in this prior version.

Wikitext for updated first sentence:

AARP (formerly called the American Association of Retired Persons ) is a United States-based interest group whose stated mission is "to empower people to choose how they live as they age".

Explanation: -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this article contains two inaccuracies, which the proposed Wikitext above resolves.
 * 1) It reads as "(formally American Association of Retired Persons)" when it should--and used to--read as "formerly American Association of Retired Persons..." Per this article in The New York Times, as of 1999 the organization "is no longer the American Association of Retired Persons. It is AARP."
 * 2) This recent IP edit changed the first sentence to describe AARP as "...a United States-based interest group focused on the elderly." The United States-based interest group part is correct, but the "focused on the elderly" portion is not accurate. The previous first sentence was accurate, as it read "...a United States-based interest group whose stated mission is "to empower people to choose how they live as they age." This earlier first sentence was modeled from the Good Article-rated American Civil Liberties Union Wikipedia article, which used that nonprofit's stated mission in its opening sentence. This previous version was discussed on the Talk page here and made the edit to the article with this edit in 2018. "Focused on the elderly" is not accurate because A) Since the 1990s a large portion of AARP members are still employed (and therefore not retired); B) Membership is primarily for people in the U.S. starting at age 50 (though those under age 50 can join as associate members), and while the word elderly is a dated term it certainly is not a fitting descriptor of someone who is 50 years old; C) AARP is focused on many things far outside of the realm of "elderly." Two examples: the organization does a lot of work focused on the issue of age discrimination in employment, as explained in this article and this report from the chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act in the U.S. established that age discrimination protection begins at age 40. The organization is also quite involved in legislation and issues related to family caregivers--people who provide care to relatives or friends. Per this news article on caregiver legislation in Missouri, "most caregivers these days are roughly 50 years of age with their own careers." Hope this helps provide context as to why "focused on the elderly" is inaccurate.
 * It appears both of these issues have been addressed. The typo was fixed and the “elderly” focus was changed to people over 50, which satisfies the concern. This edit request is therefore unnecessary now. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversies
As one of the largest lobbying organizations and non-profits in the U.S., AARP has faced scrutiny over its practices, including the way it earns revenue. There are mentions of these criticisms thoughought the article, under various subsections. I propose adding a "Controversies" or "Criticisms" section, to organize these criticisms and controversies for easy reference in the spirit of a balanced article. Does anyone object? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a Controversy section with recent news of the class-action lawsuit against AARP. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added some details of the 1995 Senate investigation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is the following quoted text a criticism? It's in the criticism section. Did someone make a mistake? Quote, "Charity Navigator rated the AARP Foundation overall at 91.22 out of 100 possible points (a "four star" rating), giving it a financial rating of 88.26 out of 100 ("three stars") and an accountability and transparency rating of 96.00 ("four stars") for its fiscal year 2017."

There is no longer a Controversy section, but it should be mentioned that AARP claims to represent everybody in the USA who is at least 65 years old, including people like me (born 1949) who are not members and have no desire to join. In my case, I won't join partly because of that claim, partly because I don't like their political positions and refuse to support them. This is my personal position and I don't feel qualified to add this to the article because I don't trust myself to be properly objective and impartial. If somebody else feels that this belongs in the article and can do it properly, please do. JDZeff (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the Charity Navigator bit. You're right, it's not a criticism. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)