Talk:United States Chamber of Commerce/Archives/2014

Social Legislation

I removed the item "Neutral on social questions such as abortion and gay marriage." from the Positions Taken -> Legislation list. Foremost, nothing related to these subjects can be found in the source, unlike the other list items that cite it. Additionally being 'neutral' is the opposite of taking a position by definition. There are countless legislative proposals unrelated to commerce, such as social issues, that the Chamber is 'neutral' toward by default. AveVeritas (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. It might be relevant to include if one of the sources explicitly calls it out, and I thought one did.... but not that one apparently... But that line has been in the article for longer than I've been watching it (3 years)... Anyway, thank you. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was the See Also section deleted?

• American Chamber of Commerce in Azerbaijan AmCham Azerbaijan

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium (AmCham Belgium)

-

• American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Croatia AmCham Croatia

-

• American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU)

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia AmCham Georgia

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham Germany)

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong AmCham HK

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Jordan (AmCham Jordan)

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Moldova AmCham Moldova

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Russia AmCham Russia

-

• U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce

-

• American Chamber of Commerce in Morocco AmCham Morocco

Was deleted with the suggestion that it was deleted because of "See Also", but the Wikipedia rules do not disallow a list of relevant external links. Section should just have been retitled "further reading". Richard LaBorde (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(with a bit of cleanup) Richard LaBorde (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that these belong under external links section, but that would create a link farm, imho. Maybe with major clean up, revisit. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a list of links is a better alternative than Wikipedia having no references to these sub-organizations existences what-so-ever, and it looks like those will likely be the options. No mention, or a slightly unsightly mention. 76.99.57.196 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The proper solution would be to find a page on the USCham website linking to affiliate organizations and add that as a see also/external link. That way we avoid an ugly link farm and still leave it covered. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Like here [1] which lists Afghan and Saudi arabia chambers, as well as the local Virginia chapters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailsbystars (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Supported the XXX act

If these positions are notable then some 3rd party RS will note them, no? Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, might be worth mentioning the USCC in the articles on the individual bills, but I think the list of bills here should be sort of "major issues" or landmark legislation. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done I nuked the obscure ones. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Burstein edits

Daveburstein (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC) removed unsourced claims of bipartisanship. Removed "The Chamber is staffed with policy specialists, lobbyists and lawyers." Meaningless. Of course a large lobbying group in DC does this.

Removed "More than 90 years later, the Chamber claims a direct membership of 300,000 businesses, and 3 million through its various affiliates such as state and local chambers.[1] Some of the Chamber's members and donors are Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Texaco, and Aegon.[2]" Link was dead and I did not find any evidence for the current direct members. Claim of 3M throuch "affiliates" would only be meaningful if the 3M had proportionate influence. A look at the board suggests otherwise.

Removed "The US Chamber is different from local and state chambers of commerce located in many cities, towns and states nationwide. The US Chamber focuses on national issues on the federal government level. Local and state chambers of commerce are independently started and operated organizations. Local chambers focus on local issues, and state chambers on state issues.[8]" Source link dead. Not clear the issues the national chamber lobbied about don't include local.

Removed unsourced "but the Chamber views health care reform as necessary, preferably with market-based solutions." removed "of its coffers or " as non-neutral and adding little removed "It has been reported that the Chamber has falsely inflated its stated number of members, claiming 3 million versus actual membership of 300,000.[1] The Chamber says this is a "misunderstanding of the U.S. Chamber's structure", as the membership of the US Chamber of Commerce is 300,000, but the membership of all of its regional affiliates combined is 3 million.[2]" Unneeded because original member claim removed as above.

Removed "In 2010 the U.S. Chamber created a page on their web site to respond to controversies that arise.[1]" insignificant and smells of pr.

added "for some immigrants" to amnesty section, which as edited was not clear it discussed immigration.

Hi Dave, most of your edits were fine, but I restored part of the stuff about local vs. us chamber, because it's an obvious question. But I also rephrased and kept some of the unsourced bits deleted. I also fixed the URL. The other thing, which I haven't done, is figure out where to work in the membership numbers. It seems like the membership number would be a useful and relevant piece of information, so I may try to find a way to work it in somewhere in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)