Talk:United States Chamber of Commerce/Archives/2012

NPOV

The current article is not very NPOV. This section is particularily bad:

"The U.S. Chamber and the legacy of Daniel Webster share more than just the hallowed ground that is now 1615 H Street Northwest. This venerable institution and this statesman's spirit share an unwavering commitment to democracy, individual opportunity, and free enterprise. They are forever bonded by the words of Webster, which were inscribed in stone in the original Chamber building ..."

Phrases like "hallowed ground" and "unwavering commitment" really jump out. According to the edit history, this page was copied from the US CoC's website. Prior to that, the article was a stub. I'm not sure how to fix this article to be more neutral. If someone knows more about the subject matter, please fix. --Jmesserly 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is a phenomenally biased and one sided depiction of the US Chamber of Commerce. A properly balanced and neutral article would better portray the Chamber's lobbying efforts that support and oppose agendas from both sides of the aisle. Lighten up Francis! 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)

redirect

Should Chamber of Commerce really redirect here? I mean, you just swept a lot of community CoCs under the rug without as much as a disambig link. IMO, Chamber of Commerce should contain general information about the type of the entitys CoCs are. --Qviri (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, just saw Chamber of commerce. I changed the redirect link, very misleading otherwise. --Qviri (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just added redirects on "Amcham" and "American Chamber of Commerce", these are both common names to describe the United States Chamber of Commerce. King256

copyvio

The history section of this article was a direct copy from http://www.uschamber.com/about/history/default, a copyrighted website, therefore I have completely removed this section from the article. S Sepp 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Outline format

The format of this article is too much like a college outline, with bullet points and such. It really needs to be wikified.--Samiharris 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On the issues

Agreed. I will be undertaking improving the POV and the "issues" section as a project for GWU. Please let me know if you have any pointers! Thanks! Megwd (talk)MDMegwd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC). As this is a large corporate lobbying front, the history of its stances on issues are even more important than the building history of its H Street front office facing the Capitol, eh.--Wetman (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion about the issues section. If we cannot find a citation (other than the CoC's own comments) to any statement, it should be deleted. There have been many statements for a few months that have gone unsubstantiated on that page. We need to clean this out and further neutral, fresh discussion on the page. Other thoughts? Megwd (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Megwd (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-Social Security Reform"?

What does that mean? Pro-dropping social security or pro-improving it? Considering they're against minimum wage, it seems they are actually anti-social security... --Sigmundur (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The same ambiguity shows up in the statements about immigration reform, health-care reform, climate-change reform. The article and this section in particular seems to be in need of some major POV and sourcing attention, I don't even know where to start. Is it inappropriate to ref the CoCs own own pages about the issues?:-- Digitiki (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though secondary sources (WP:PSTS) are preferred. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It means they favor privatization of Social Security. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Page is target of vandalism (very droll, but still vandalism)

Possibly as a result of high profile TV adds in California, this page seems to have attracted one or more vandals who have been playing with the Mission Statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetdog (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gross POV-Pushing and Soapboxing re C of C Fundraising

Neutrality & Arzel, I appreciate your dedication to journalistic standards here. I'm undertaking this assignment as part of a cohort with GWU public policy initiative. I'd appreciate your insight and help as I try to improve this page too.Megwd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

A section was recently added, supported by nothing but bloggy references and selected partisan quotes", regarding allegations that the Chamber might be receiving foreign contributions. The section's author apparently considered the allegations a "debacle", but the New York Times thoroughly debunked them and the section has been revised accordingly with references to reliable sources. In the future, please keep in mind that blogs such as ThinkProgress are not reliable sources. NeutralityPersonified (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why is the application document linked into this section (currently link 44)? I don't see the relevance to the paragraph. Arzel (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by User:NeutralityPersonified. Perplexed me as well. Perhaps a poor attempt at OR showing us and bahraini businesses working together? In other news, anyone else think this article could use full protection for a few days for the blogosphere and its partisans to quiet down a bit? Not one of the partisans has come to the talk page despite repeated requests and perhaps a bit of full protection might lead to some constructive dialog. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked to that application because it showed that it was not merely an allegation that the money goes to directly to the American branch of the CoC, it's demonstratable fact, even from their own documentation (that included), and previous editors had taken it upon themselves to suggest that the connection was merely "alleged". As for locking the article, that makes sense, but I think if it is locked it should be without ANY reference at all to the current controversy (given that I think "NeutralityPersonified"'s take on the whole thing is anything but.) Richard LaBorde (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, I would argue that if it is decided to lock the article with the New York Times centered narrative that the idea that NYT "debunked" the theory is strictly avoided. The claim cannot be debunked as it is strictly non-falsifiable, and to claim the opposite is a clear example of non-neutral POV. There is current no way to prove whether or not CoC has used foreign dollars to pay for their US advertising because they are currently not required to release their internal financial structure -- that is why the White House, and numerous other organizations are currently pushing them to do so. Richard LaBorde (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally coming to the talk page. While you may disagree with the "NYT centered narrative", that is the preferred choice on wikipedia. The other narrative that you have attempted to add to the article has been based largely on the ThinkProgress blog. Regardless of political alignment, blogs are almost never accepted as sources for wikipedia articles (see WP:BLOG). Given that the story has been covered in depth by the New York Times (which is more or less the gold standard for a reliable source) the article is fine as written. If another newspaper or news network puts out more information on the subject then it is allowed. With regards to your original source, I read it, but it doesn't say what you think it says. It actually says that foreign organizations can only join for the purposes of helping the American corporations abroad. The foreign corps cannot even become full members. Additionally, synthesizing information is not allowed, which is what including that source would be. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLOG doesn't say anything about not using blogs. Richard LaBorde (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a my bad. Correct policy that I was thinking of is WP:SPS, which also has a shortcut of WP:TWITTER. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

First, citing that the blog made a claim, and then using a link to that claim is acceptable, it allows readers to see the actual claim rather than read the NYT narrative. The SPS rules are primarily attempting to defend against non-experts. The Center for American Progress is most certainly an expert.

"In October 2010, the liberal Think Progress blog run by the Center for American Progress nonprofit, alleged that the US Chamber paid for pro-Republican political advertising from the same general 501(c)(6) account where donations from foreign businesses and foreign governments are received. -ref- http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/09/nyt-wp-on-chamber/ -/ref-"

Second, the NYT did not "debunk" the theory. The theory is non-falsifiable, thus debunking it is impossible.

This is absolutely noteworthy and well-sourced-- "President Obama alluded to the US Chamber's possible use of foreign funds in advertising opposing the GOP's political maneuvering.

As is -- "David Donnelly, national campaigns director for Public Campaign Action Fund, responded “They (US Chamber) basically say, ‘trust us’ when there's mounting evidence they're outsourcing the funding of their political attacks ads." Richard LaBorde (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first and the last additions. My most recent pruning of the article left those in. Politico may even qualify as a WP:NEWSBLOG. The middle 2 are less acceptable. Saying something is non falsifiable in the article is not acceptable as that would be original research. Changing the word "debunked" to something less loaded would be a reasonable change however. The third source I need to think about a bit more. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on US Chamber only accepting US-based companies as members. See AmCham Shanghai at www.amcham-shanghai.org, for example which has several corporate membership levels open to non-US companies. These companies pay annual fees to the AmCham which could possibly be funnelled to other non-appropriate uses. Please do more thorough research before presenting false information as fact.Myk60640 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section on ThinkProgress should be deleted until the dispute is resolved. If a "controversy" could be created everytime a liberal or conservative blog leveled a charge against the opposition, every article would be as big as the blogosphere itself. Insofar as ThinkProgress and the Obama administration concede there's no proof for the charges, it's silly to include it. Arguing that the Chamber must open up its books is also silly, as under that theory a blog could level tax evasion charges against Obama, Biden, Pelosi etc and claim there was a "controversy" until they released their tax returns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Richard LaBorde (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just wanted to say that I came to this article to learn more about the controversy over whether the CoC is raising funds from foreign sources; and I was disappointed to find no mention of it. This allegation is not just being leveled by bloggers. The DNC ad: "It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections."1 Karl Rove said, "This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this?" (same link). The matter seems relevant to an article about the CoC. --Smoggyrob | Talk 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We had decent coverage, but there was some spectacular disagreement on the tone of the coverage, so it was removed and the page was blocked from editing. This version [1] is the closest to neutral and complete coverage of the event. On a general note to everyone on this page, I think that version of the article is a good version to build from. Does anyone object to the linked version of the article? If so, why? What would you change? Sailsbystars (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the funding controversy, my thoughts are it is a good paragraph (10/14). Sorry to be slow. Can we get rid of what is currently on the page and reinstate this?

Also, I'm concerned that we are gathering a laundry list of controversies. It's like an advocacy ramble instead of an encylopedia, reminds me of what you said...."every :article would be as big as the blogosphere itself..." What can we do about this? The true controversies are getting lost in the ideological disagreements.Megwd (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-sources

In section 8 Controversies "The act is widely supported by organized labor.[24]"

The link goes to the AFL-CIO Union website. The fact that the AFL-CIO supports it is not the same as "organized labor widely supports it". I deleted the sentence and the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It was also a clear case of WP:SYN, so I agree with your edit. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing unencyclopedic material based only on C of C's website

For much of its length, this article reads like an endorsement of what the C of C says about itself, yet I see no sign that WP:RS or encyclopedia-quality attempts at neutrality were involved. Those who want to read a promotional Mission statement, list of officers or official history can easily find those on the Chamber's own website. Why are we hosting an "article" that reads like an endorsement of the Chamber? Either find some neutral third-party sources to talk about the group's history or leave it out. betsythedevine (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Does anyone know who added the new section on controversy? Should this be broken down into smaller topics--it seems like a catch all. What about the paragraph before it? It's a good attempt at beginning the NYT/Foreign contributions discussion. Also, some aspects of the "controversy" heading are not controversy- the author just did not agree with the CoC's standpoint. The Chamber was anti-Card check...the are against environmental regulations, etc, but these are not "controversies," just political and ideological differences. The term is exaggerated and the section is bogged down. Again, some of the sources are not up to par with Wikipedia's standards. Mother Jones. and #4 is a blog.

My current suggestion for this heading is to remove some of the bias, improve the citations, and shorten the laundry list.

Suggestions? Thks {{helpme}} I don't know how to read the edits page. Does anyone know who added the new section on controversy? Are the sources adequate? Thanks Megwd (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a new section - you just look at the history page here - this is the start of the section "Revision as of 06:52, 6 October 2009". I'll leave the helpme up, more may answer with ref to suitability of sources.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You can search to see when a specific piece of text was added by using a tool called "Wikiblame".

I checked for "Controversies", and discovered that it was added in Oct 2009, with this edit.

This is the search I used.

For the manual, see User:Flominator/WikiBlame.

If you are reasonably confident that the section needs editing, then please just go ahead and edit it. If someone objects, later, then you can discuss it with them. See WP:BRD.

If you are not sure if a reliable source is acceptable, then please ask on the reliable sources noticeboard. Chzz  ►  19:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate section on the Chamber's electoral activities. The controversy over using foreign money for that purpose should be integrated into the section on electoral activities. I'll do that and add information about actual spending now that the numbers are in. JamesMLane t c 12:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone's going to start a thread on Morther Jones on the notice board, I'll remove the tags on the references to it. A source can be partisan based on what it covers and still be reliable, and looking at past comments on MJ on the board, most suggest it is ok. Bennetto (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversies since 2010

Is anyone going to write up about the Controversies involving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and assortment of private military firms collectively called “Team Themis”? It was leaked that they where planing to hack/sabotage websites critical of the US Chamber's goals and ruin their reputation http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/18/298081/hbgary-federal-us-chamber-persona/ If you look at their sources which include links to the leaked info there is strong evidence that this was going on. I am not the best writer so any help with writing this would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingman543 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat controversial that The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is hosted on Canadian servers. Is this a way to avoid any legal inquires much like the Bush/Cheney administration did when using the Republican National Commentate emails instead of The White House email system as a method to hide email communications? Wkt37211 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ThinkProgress is not a self-published source

There is a persistent misunderstanding among some editors, a phantom Wikipedia policy to the effect of "blogs are not reliable sources and if it's labeled a blog it's a blog for this purpose and therefore may never be cited." Here's what the policy actually says:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. (excerpted from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources)

The critical point is that the policy does not lump together all blogs. It refers to "self-published media". Most blogs are self-published, and most books are not, but that does not mean that you can just grunt "book -- good, blog -- bad" and stop thinking.

ThinkProgress is called a blog but is not self-published. It's edited. It's an online publication like Salon or Slate or National Review Online.

For that reason, I am reinstating my edit with information about the Chamber derived from a ThinkProgress piece. JamesMLane t c 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)