Talk:Americans For Fair Taxation

NPOV
The terms grassroots and non-partisan call for references to membership data, staff bios, lists of contributors, and a good deal more. Morphh is being challenged on NPOV in the FairTax page, and we will have to have the same argument here. Unless the appropriate backup information is supplied, I intend to tag the entire article NPOV.Cherlin 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * AFFT has no partisan affiliation - they accept anyone and do not endorse anyone. From Mike Huckabee to Mike Gravel. I believe their tax status is dependent on them being non-partisan. Do you have any reliable reference that states the organization is otherwise? Again, work out the disputes first... if it can't be worked out, then apply the tag if need be (if the entire article is POV). If it is just a sentence, then just add that tag. Morphh  (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Criticism of fair tax should be in its own section, especially since wiki sections on pro-progressive tax organizations like Citizens for Tax Justice do not contain criticisms of the progressive income tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs)


 * To comply with NPOV policy, each article should contain relevant and verifiable criticism. Lack of criticism in Citizens for Tax Justice does not justify removing criticism from other organizations. Criticism should be added to those articles as well, if such exists. The FairTax plan has its own article and contains the criticism against the plan. This article should contain criticism against the organization. So Citizens for Tax Justice would not have criticism of the progressive income tax, but they would have criticisms of the organization, if such exists, for their support / opposition to such policies. Morphh  (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Listing links to the state chapters for the group seems unnecessary, if the article is intended to be informative rather than an advertisement. I was searching wikipedia for "new york state tax rates" and this was the highest-relevance hit, a search problem that could be ameliorated by removing the chapters.

is the United States' largest, single-issue grassroots organization dedicated to fundamental tax code replacement
This seems like a claim with so many caveats that I wonder how significant it is. It's currently entirely unsourced, while a simple source is very much needed just to verify, I also wonder about how significant a claim it is, especially as it's used as the defining first sentence. I think we could use several sources (or a very reliable tertiary source) that not only confirm the fact of it but that also indicate that a broad spectrum of expert commentators think this is something worth noting about the org. Otherwise, from an undue weight perspective I think it should be change to is an American grassroots organization dedicated to fundamental tax code replacement. -- SiobhanHansa 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a reference for the statement and reworded the sentence so it references the source of the statement, which is themselves. I also have no problem with your suggested change either. Whatever works... Morphh  (talk) 0:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also ambiguous, especially with the comma (the largest what? "grassroots organization"? "single-issue grassroots organization"? "largest, single-issue grassroots organization dedicated to fundamental tax code replacement"?) They do say it themselves, and we say they state it, but that doesn't make it a useful description to put in the first sentence (and organizations can easily be wrong about themselves, and that's just some document, just about NO ONE can know about "largest" for grassroots orgs). That .doc also mentions some number like at least 500,000 Americans, and something like that (perhaps more up-to-date) might be more useful. &mdash;Isaac Dupree(talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Legislation reference is out of date
While the FairTax bill in the House of Representatives is still HR25, the bill in the Senate has a new number in the current session. It is no longer S13. The bill can now be found under S122. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhleake (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)