Talk:United States Chamber of Commerce/Archives/2013

I'm surprised

that this article has gone so long without being edited.

I'm going to make a few changes - including some weasel words in the summary. There is very little describing the vast reach or activities of the chamber of commerce, and I'm assuming there's someone that's happy that it's being kept that way. Also, nothing mentions major detractors of the US Chamber of Commerce, sites such as www.fixtheuschamber.org (that sites every article it quotes in its findings, and source watch). Matthias7490 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who just put a bunch of weasel words into the summary. Some of your edits were okay, but unfortunately, for technical reasons I've had to undo them all. Let's give one example of a terrible edit: the whole foreign donations thing. You added it without a source. There's absolutely no evidence supporting that claim, just lots of insinuation by left-wing groups. All of the sources you list here on the talk page are not reliable sources. The exact percentages to republicans vs. democrats is an example of something you added that might be worth including, but I would caution against just including it haphazardly. I've spent a lot of effort cleaning up this article from drive by editors such as yourself who include random bits of information without checking to see where it makes the most sense to include it and how to fit it within the framework of a neutral and coherent article. If you look at previous versions of the article, for instance, you'll see that there was a haphazard collections of facts relating to the amount of money the chamber spent on lobbying. I went through and collated the numbers for the past 10 years into a table so it fit coherently into the article without a bunch of useless prose containing random numbers for various years. Please discuss substantive changes to the article before you make them... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please list every technical reason for a mass revert. The wording of your response leads me to believe you didn't even look over the changes; as you likely wrote the entire article, you're fine with it how it is and don't see a need for anyone to edit your work. I'm straining to assume good faith. I didn't stop by to start an edit-war, I came upon a page, saw some things that needed improving, found articles to source, and listed them. I put a good deal of time into it. Thank you for the condescending slap and revert and label as a "drive-by editor." You just defined wikipedia. Is there a way of disagreeing that remains slightly more polite? I'm very glad you've cleaned up the article, but I added things that are printed elsewhere and aren't original research. Your opinion is that they are left-wing and unreliable, those same facts are printed elsewhere in journals and I'll be happy to re-cite. We can discuss where best you'd like them printed. Or are you insinuating that opensecrets.org and factcheck.org are left-wing and not reliable (that are quoted by the NYT, time magazine, CNN, and fox news)? I won't include sourcewatch, that's fair. Matthias7490 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First edit that confuses me: "The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is an American lobbying group, claiming (which is a better word that "does," or "is" - demonstrated by thousands of wikipedia articles) to represent the interests of many businesses and trade associations. Although headquartered in Washington D.C., it is not in any way officially endorsed by the U.S. Government. (Absolutely valid statement, it is incredibly common for the USCC to be associated with the government due to it's co-location with D.C). It maintains status as a non-profit organization; as such retains the right of non-disclosure with regards to its membership companies. It denies responsibility and authority over any actions taken by membership companies, claiming to be a company's "voice in Washington." " All of that is directly quoted from the FAQ on the USCC website. Did you even click the link? Weasel words are things like "some, many, all, them, they" that do not specify an actual noun or name - which I didn't use anywhere in there. Another - you had no reason for reverting changes to the section on climate change, just because you didn't like them. They were well-sourced and of encyclopedic value. Even the title - "Climate Change" has very little value or referencing relevance to the section's content. "Climate Change" is the title of a section in a science textbook. It was changed for a reason. Matthias7490 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Like I said, some of your stuff was possibly worth including. But other parts were seriously problematic. You made huge changes after saying no mention of fixtheuschamber.org, which is clearly an attack site and not remotely suitable as a source of information. So I was expecting badness and perhpas I saw it too readily. Let me go through your edits bit by bit and and explain where I'm coming from.....

My lede Paragraph 1:

The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is an American lobbying group representing the interests of many businesses and trade associations. It is not an agency of the United States government.

Your Lede Paragraph 1:

The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) is an American lobbying group, claiming to represent the interests of many businesses and trade associations. Although headquartered in Washington D.C., it is not in any way officially endorsed by the U.S. Government. It maintains status as a non-profit organization; as such retains the right of non-disclosure with regards to its membership companies. It denies responsibility and authority over any actions taken by membership companies, claiming to be a company's "voice in Washington." [1] It is well-known for controversially accepting both domestic and foreign companies' memberships, contributions, refusing to disclose donation amounts, and then re-distributing donations into well-funded electoral ad campaigns that are not limited by campaign laws.

Commentary on Paragraph 1:

My opening paragraph is simple and factual. It's a business lobbying organization and not part of the government. You add "not in any way endorsed by the US government" but that's worded in such a way that implies that they falsely claim endorsement (hit piece). Then you add that they are "claiming" to represent business, implying that wikipedia doesn't quite believe them. But no serious source doubts that they represent big business. See for example this recent WaPo piece [1] that has some good background material for expanding the history of the USCham. "It is well-known for controversially accepting both domestic and foreign companies' memberships, contributions, refusing to disclose donation amounts, and then re-distributing donations into well-funded electoral ad campaigns that are not limited by campaign laws." There are so many things wrong with this sentence that I'm not sure where to start. First, it spends far more money on lobbying than elections ($130 mil vs. $30 mil), so elections are definitely not what belongs in the lede like this. It may be worth having a neutrally worded mention of election spending, but here you make it sound like they're nothing but corporate election money launderer, when they're a smaller fish in that game (compare $152 mil for Restore Our Future for just president vs. $30 mil for the UsChamb spread out over many congressional races). It might, however, be worth mentioning explicitly somewhere in the two lede paragraphs that they do also try to influence elections. Your sentence, however, is pretty much the worst possible way to do so....

My Lede Paraph 2:

The Chamber is staffed with policy specialists, lobbyists and lawyers. Politically, the Chamber is generally considered to be a conservative organization. It usually supports Republican political candidates, though it has occasionally supported conservative Democrats.[1][2] The Chamber is one of the largest lobbying groups in the U.S., spending more money than any other lobbying organization on a yearly basis.[3][4]

Your Lede Paragraph 2:

The Chamber is staffed with policy specialists, lobbyists and lawyers. Politically, the Chamber claims to be a conservative organization, but historically supports Republican political candidates It has occasionally supported conservative Democrats.[2][3] The Chamber is one of the largest lobbying groups in the U.S., spending more money than any other lobbying organization on a yearly basis.[4][5] In the 2012 election cycle, the US Chamber of Commerce spent over $35 million dollars in "independent expenditures," a new term referring to ads that overtly urge to vote for or against a candidate. This was a change from the 2010 election cycle, in which the US Chamber of Commerce only spent money on "electioneering communications," in which a candidate was merely mentioned - without urging a vote one way or the other. [6]

My thoughts on paragraph 2:

Your added sentence here is problematic only in the wording and placement. Something similar could easily go in the history section. Or maybe there needs to be a separate section for electoral activities? The wording is bad because you use "new term." -- "new" is a terrible word to use on wiki because it isn't always going to be new.

re: climate change

Totally doesn't deserve it's own section. It's a fairly prominent controversy, but in the overall history of the organization it's not at the level of deserving its own top level section in my opinion. You added a bit about Nike and Apple leaving over climate change, but that's already mentioned in the big climate change paragraph along with all of the other companies that left over the issue. This is one reason why I didn't feel that you read my version of the article before beginning sweeping changes.

Anyway, does this help clarify where I'm coming from? If you're worried that your edits are lost forever, never fear, you can retrieve your version of the page here. Anyway, please try to see where I'm coming from here.... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

much appreciated. It took me four times to get my signature right. Heck of a first day. I'm going to re-read and try one at a time on the talk page. Matthias7490 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess for now - let me leave these here and let's hear your opinions on them:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/the-chamber-and-foreign-contributions/ http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&cycle=2012 and sure, we can get rid of "new." I realize that's a ridiculous word. However, I am trying to specify that because of the way the law changed, they changed how they did attack ads starting in 2012. It's notable. It was also raised on this talk page (and dropped for no reason?) that President Obama commented on the foreign funding matter - and it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. The controversy section reads like criticisms, it's why I changed it. The only real controversy mentioned was the climate change one. It was a matter of cleaning up how everything was worded - it wasn't a matter of what warranted it's own section. You should see some other pages endless lists of pointless "controversy" sections - I think having one major notable controversy is worth reading - and then you list several prominent criticisms of the group. I don't see why it's a problem to re-label the sections?

as for the "claim" part - I've read on numerous talk pages (I've lurked for years) that people, entities, and organizations lay claim to things, state things, or say things - they "aren't" things, unless it's a matter of physical principle. On their FAQ, they do exactly what I listed - they claim to represent the interests of businesses. You do not know, nor can you prove - that they actually do. I'm not arguing semantics, this is rhetorics. Agreeing that they do actually do what they claim to do is POV. They ARE one of the largest lobbying groups, thus we state so. However, they CLAIM to represent businesses, but we can't state that they actually do. This really isn't worth a fight to the death for me on this one (it's one word), but figuring that it means that "wikipedia doesn't quite believe it" is not really correct. It's just a way of refraining from siding with the mission statement of a corporate entity and parroting its claims. I'd remark the same of any business stating something about itself - it's just claiming something (and in this case, famously not releasing any information about itself). I swear I'm not a drive-by editor - I just found the topic interesting. First day. Not trying to drive you nuts. :-D Matthias7490 (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthias, welcome to Wikipedia! I only skimmed your most recent comment because I need to get some sleep, but I think we can work together on making this article better. :) I see where you're coming from now and think we can have a productive discussion that will result in a better page! Sailsbystars (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)