Talk:Association of Mature American Citizens

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Carolinerayburn (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Proposed deletion and problems with sources

This article has serious problems. First and foremost it appears to be an advertisement. That's a no no on Wikipedia. Secondly the sourcing mostly comes from blogs and politically biased websites. So as of right now we have a deeply flawed article that needs MAJOR work if it is to be brought up to standards. All hints of bias or attempts to promote political views need to be expurgated. And notability needs to be established. See WP:GNG and WP:ORG for the nuts and bolts but read this for what it boils down to. Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has many problems. On the other hand, some independent reliable sources do exist that discuss this organization. It's not yet clear to me if there's enough to support a satisfactory article or not. Note that the Wikipedia article about the American Seniors Association, a similar organization, was ultimately merged and redirected to AARP, where there's now a "Controversy" section that mentions the ASA's self-proclaimed conservative critique of AARP. It's possible that some material about AMAC could end up there as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure why it appears to be an "advertisement;" if anything, it's a rip-off of AARP's page. The format is almost identical with only names, places, dates, and figures changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsw1022 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a non-partisan organization. It is very conservative in nature. I routinely receive emails from them attacking several liberal members of Congress (clearly evidence of partisanship). There needs to be an independently developed article that states what the organization does (somewhat addressed). I suspect that research will show that they do support specific candidates of the Republican party, which is well within their right; however, this article makes them appear to be some innocuous group dedicated to helping seniors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.57.36 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the Wikipedia article, AMAC is a non-partisan organization, meaning that the organization does not endorse specific political candidates, affiliate with one particular political party, or contribute money to political campaigns. Regardless of AMAC's ideological positions on certain issues, the organization does strictly adhere to the standards of a non-partisan organization. In fact, AMAC has supported legislation derived by congressional members of both political parties in the past. No AMAC publication has ever endorsed a candidate or steered members to vote for a certain political candidate. Statements added to the Wikipedia page that contradict AMAC's non-partisan status must be accompanied by a credible reference - none of which has been been provided to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinerayburn (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt/Far Right Positions Lacking

This article seems to have not caught up to the organization's more recent far-right leanings. An edit was added, then removed stating that the current CEO - Rebecca Weber - was at least in attendance in the crowd during the January 6th attack at the Capitol. Reading through the article that was cited, she writes as the author of the article that she was at the "Stop the Steal" rally beforehand and marched with the crowd up to but not inside the Capitol building. I think that activity, seeing as how it was written about on organization's website by the CEO, is worth mentioning in the main article. Also, at time of writing this it's not hard to find the organization platforming alt-right figures in recent episodes of their podcast such as Jack Posobiec, Roger Stone, Sebastian Gorka, and Dennis Prager. BarrenScepter (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]