Jump to content

Talk:Chatham House Rule

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

what will be hapened if anybody didnt do the rule . i mean what is the penalty ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.237.51 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham House may revoke your membership, other organisations may have their own rules, and other than that I think it's meant to be morally binding rather than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.242.146 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig and Lefty come around, and break your legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.32.28 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

community of practice

[edit]

Article contains "The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation, while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations." which seems opaque, confusing, and unneccessary. Can we just delete it, or is it trying to say something relevant ? Rod57 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codification

[edit]

Where exactly is the Chatham House Rule codified? Is it part of a larger Chatham House rulebook? Does it just float out there in the ether? 71.57.41.180 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Chatham House Rule be categorized under "Parliamentary procedure" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Parliamentary_procedure) or listed under "deliberative assembly"? I'm not familiar enough with the segmentation to suggest that the Chatham House Rule (or set of rules, really) should be a style of debate or collaboration or discussion or whatever, but it should formally be listed in one of these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.113.103 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chatham House Rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentence

[edit]

'Having stated this, several thought leaders contest that there is in fact a series of rules, commensurate to the pirate code set down in by Morgan and Bartholomew, however, these are more guidelines than an actual rule.'

Who are these 'thought leaders'? Who are Morgan & Bartholomew? Is the pirate code set down 'in' or 'by'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean1954 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense removed here. For Morgan & Bartholomew see Pirate code. TSventon (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher relevance?

[edit]

@Blairall Not sure why Margaret Thatcher exiting the building is relevant to this article on the Chatham House Rule. Understand that it *is* relevant to the Chatham House article, where it also appears. Did she have a specific angle in evoking the rule? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your message. I selected this image for here not because Margaret Thatcher had a specific angle in evoking the rule, but because she would be the type of high-profile public figure who could benefit from the rule. So instead of having the exact same image from the top of the Chatham House article, I thought it might be somewhat more interesting to include a historical figure like her in addition to the Chatham House doorway. However, if you object to this image, then please feel free to change the image back to the previous one. -- Blairall (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blairall Seems ironic to associate a specific person with the Chatham House Rule, when the whole point of the Chatham House Rule is to avoid attribution. Anonymity is key. Think we have to depersonalise and revert to the picture of the building only. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your point, and your proposal is fine with me. -- Blairall (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chatham_House_Rule&oldid=1222211137"