Talk:National Association of Manufacturers

Untitled
The source for "Duke Energy to Leave Trade Group Over Climate Policy" from Bloomberg has a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.172.150 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the American Justice Partnership (AJP) as an affiliate. The AJP was not founded by the NAM nor has the NAM ever been an affiliate. The posting listing AJP as an affiliate was false and misleading. --Ardmore56 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

After the first paragraph the article comes straight from NAM's website; http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=4&DID=2 http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=201846&DID=230841

-http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/nam.html for a pro-Union stance on NAM and it's involvement in some less than tasteful activities. -http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html is from a partisan page designed to present the Bush family as a long standing Crime Family involved in such activities as support for Nazi Germany, eugenics, and war profiteering. I take no stand on the viewpoints but the history seems to be factually well documented, at least in other sources I used to fact-check the linked reference. Removing Jeb Bush's comment would obviate the need for such additional commentary but lessen the scope of the entry and, I believe, the underlying philosophical idea behind Wikipedia which is to provide access to more information, not less. I also recommend the viewpoint warning continue to remain in place. I would also appreciate any reedit in the wording of my linkys, I just can't seem to think of a way to express what I want to convey about their partisan appearance in the link referals.
 * 05/14/06 - In an effort to provide a more balanced view, I added 2 linkys to pages which reference NAM's involvement with some political causes that are somewhat opposed to the presentation of a simple beneficial commercial lobbying organization.
 * IdioT.SavanT.i4

on 7/10/05, I removed this text from the differing views section, due to factual inaccuracy:

"These connections between NAM and the JBS cast some shadow on the commentary of Florida Governor Jeb Bush due to the long standing history of Bush family's NAM involvement dating from the time of Samuel Prescott Bush, NAM's first president & great-grandfather to the 43rd President of the United States - George Walker Bush & his Florida Governor sibling."

I called the George Bush Library in College Station, Texas, and found out that NAM's first President was NOT the great grandfather of the 43rd President. In fact, According to an obituary in the Greenwich Times from Tuesday, February 24, 1948, Prescott Bush was a member of the NAM's Executive Committee and was a president of the Ohio Tax League and a former President of the Ohio Manufacturers Association, but not invovled in a major capacity with the NAM.

Due to this inaccuracy, I highly suggest someone research this data further as other parts may be inaccurate too.


 * both the original entry and the addition of conspiracy-theory links fall well short of NPOV. NAM is a significant organization and deserves a serious entry, rather than PR flackery and paranoid bufoonery. In any case, the pro-NAM statements and the alleged links to fascism are so far apart in relevance to one another that no purpose is served. It is true that all manner of NAM executives were connected with all manner of conservative causes, but there is nothing remarkable or unique about that. The entry for Ford Motor Company, for instance, gets along just fine without mentioning Henry Ford's antisemitism and general fascist-flavored lunacies. THat is more properly dealt with in the entry for Henry Ford. The Du Pont Company article also maintains NPOV and does not deal with the political extremism of the various executives during the first part of the 20th Century. A full rewrite is probably necessary.Richardjames444 04:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Glowing quotations
I fail to see how two glowing, paragraph-length quotations with no context are remotely encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.99.230 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree; without context the quotations appear solely designed to show the NAM in a positive light. I've thus removed them from the article as unencyclopedic. ―Wmahan. 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality -- please cite good sources
I've trimmed this article as best I can to remove lack of neutrality, some long-unsourced POV statements, some poorly-sourced statements, and some trivia. I've also put an expand tag on a history section, because some historical facts have been offered, but more is needed to balance the history section. Please add only well-cited information to this article to help prevent POV problems. Thank you! --Busy Stubber (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

NAM on the Pro Act
I am new to wikipedia as an editor and don't know how to use it but I found this article from NAM opposing the PRO act, which is a labor bill which would weaken right to work laws and increase the power of workers and unions. The CRS summary can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2474. The article from NAM can be found here: https://www.nam.org/manufacturers-pro-act-is-anti-worker-12660/?stream=series-press-releases. I believe this belongs under the legislation section, so could someone who knows what they're doing in editing wikipedia add this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.189.99 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)