Talk:Americans For Fair Taxation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Americans For Fair Taxation article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)