Talk:Parliamentary procedure

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parliamentary Procedure (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles

Archive Index

Merge rationale

I've been requested to provide a rationale for the merger of parliamentary authority and parliamentary procedure. The content of "parliamentary authority" describes how these tomes are integrated into parliamentary procedure, and much of the content of "parliamentary procedure" describes which authorities are used where. It is unclear to me that there is a useful-to-readers dividing line between these two articles, given the 50%-75% overlap. -- Beland (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger: While there is some overlap, these are two different subjects. One is the overall body of law, the other is the type of book used in that body of law. Neutron (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger: Parliamentary procedure refers to the many processes themselves, while a parliamentary authority is a written work adopted by deliberative assemblies. These are separate concepts and should be kept separate. Squideshi (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of the *Oppose merger*: and I bet you think your so smart hm? Merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.134.152 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger: The publishers and the contents of the procedures are different subjects. Considering that the topic has already been broken down so there are individual articles on many various parts of parliamentary procedure and different parliamentary authorities, the parliamentary authority itself *must* also be broken out for consistency. See the {{Parliamentary Procedure}} navbox for plenty of examples. Ikluft (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger: Though I have nothing to add that hasn't been said above, here is my vote for the record. —ShinyG 23:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two topics seem different. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger: "Rules of Order" redirects to this page. Those are generic to all sorts of meetings eg. corporate and social. The Parliamentary Authority article seems to be aimed at how Governments (ie. Political bodies) do this -- a valid topic, but sheds no light on smaller, non-governmental boards of directors. It might increase the distinctiveness if this page were renamed "Rules of order", with "Parliamentary Procedure" as an alternate. "Governance" is not the same as "Government". 173.206.176.14 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken WikiTrust by Absense of Link

The Application WikiTrust for FireFox, breaks when the link for 'Weinbergs..' is tripped upon.

WIll rever tif any objections, but until another solution is found, the removal of the broken link seems aapropriate at this time. Will follow up with what happened to 'Weinbergs..' in WIkipedia. Richard416282 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in" or "for" the House of Commons?

My recent edit to Parliamentary_procedure#History made a link to House of Commons of England, which I believe is the appropriate WP article on the House of Commons. Also, I replaced the "in the House of Commons" by "for the House of Commons". Was the original intent to say that there is a book called "House of Commons", if so, my edit needs to be reverted. I presume the book was primarily written for members of the House of Commons, hence used the phrase "for..." instead of "in". My "research" was minimal -- I just looked at the cited Encyclopedia Britannica article. This is way outside my expertise, though I am fascinated by it.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary procedure → Legislative Procedure – Almost no countries in the world have a parliament, but nearly every country in the world has a legislative body. "Parliamentary" procedure refers specifically to procedure of a parliament (which most countries do not have), while legislative procedure refers to the procedure of any legislative body, meaning that it is inclusive of the term "parliamentary procedure". Changing the article title would mean still referring to and being descriptive of the procedure of the few parliaments in the world, while also being descriptive of the procedure of every other legislative body. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the move request doesn't seem to grasp what the article is about. "Parliamentary procedure" is the common name in English for the rules governing deliberative assemblies of many kinds. The name reflects the historical origins of the subject, not that it is restricted to parliaments. Jonathunder (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see here and here עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I struggle to find anything accurate in the nomination. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder. The name comes from the parliamentary system and is historically entrenched, regardless of whether deliberative assemblies are actually called "parliaments". It's also a wider term than "legislative procedure" as this refers only to passing legislation, not the wider range of things parliaments and other assemblies do. jamacfarlane (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

proposed changes

I would like to make some significant changes to the Parliamentary_procedure page. I introduce the proposed changes here. If there are not substantial arguments against the proposals, I will make the edits in a few weeks time. Natefin (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wikipedia Parliamentary_procedure page edits:

CURRENT: In the United States, parliamentary procedure is also referred to as parliamentary law, parliamentary practice, legislative procedure or rules of order.

PROPOSED: In the United States, parliamentary procedure is also referred to as parliamentary law, parliamentary practice, legislative procedure, rules of order, or Robert’s rules of Order [footnote-A].

footnote-A – Edwin C. Bliss’ introductory note “To the Reader”, in Alice Sturgis’ (revised by the American Institute of Parliamentarians) The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure – third edition – McGraw-Hill, 1988. “The term ‘Robert’s rules of order’ is commonly used today as a synonym for parliamentary procedure.”

– discussion – I suggest adding “Robert’s Rules of Order” as a phrase that commonly refers, in the US, to Parliamentary Procedure. I cite an authority (Sturgis) to justify this.

CURRENT: Members bring business before the assembly by introducing main motions, or dispose of this business through subsidiary motions and incidental motions.

PROPOSED: Members bring business before the assembly by introducing main motions. “Members use subsidiary motions to alter a main motion, or delay or hasten its consideration.” [footnote-B]

footnote-B – Alice Sturgis’ (revised by the American Institute of Parliamentarians) The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure – third edition – McGraw-Hill, 1988, pg. 16.

– discussion – I suggest dropping mention of “incidental motions” here. While there is such a thing as an incidental motion, it is best not mentioned in this very brief summary so as not to distract from more fundamental points. – I suggest replacing the current wording, on “subsidiary motions”, with a direct quote from a published authority. I think the current wording is confusing at best. In almost all cases, disposition of a main motion requires a vote (or unanimous consent) on the main motion itself.

CURRENT: Parliamentary procedure also allows for rules in regards to nomination, voting, disciplinary action, appeals, dues, and the drafting of organization charters, constitutions, and bylaws.

PROPOSED: Parliamentary procedure also allows for rules in regards to nomination, debate, voting, disciplinary action, appeals, and the drafting of organization charters, constitutions, and bylaws.

– discussion – I propose adding “debate” to the list things parliamentary rules might be in regards to. For example, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure contains a chapter titled “Debate”. – I propose removing the word “dues”. While parliamentary procedure would be used to decide on dues, no guide I am familiar with contains provisions specific for deciding dues in any different way than for deciding other issues. For example, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure contains a chapter titled “Methods of Voting”, but none of its chapter titles include the word “Dues”.

CURRENT: The most common procedural authority in use in the United States is Robert's Rules of Order.[12] Other authorities include The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (used by some medical and library organizations) [13] and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure.[14]

PROPOSED: The most common procedural authorities in use in the United States are guides written by General H. M. Robert, and derivations and updates of those guides by various authors and editors.

– discussion – The present text is highly objectionable. The link, who’s text is “Robert’s Rules of Order”, links actually to a Wikipedia page which is about “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised”. That linked Wikipedia page is wrongly titled, in that the title omits the words “Newly Revised”. The footnote numbered “12” contains a quote incorrectly implying that a prescription to use “Robert’s” is in effect a prescription to use a “Newly Revised” edition, edited by Robert’s descendants and others. There is nothing cited to support that parliamentary authority is something that can be inherited. I am skeptical that anything justifies suggesting “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure” is more especially for “medical and library organizations” than it is for organizations in general.

On further consideration, I've decided the claim that "Robert's Rules of Order" is most common is too imprecise and too uncertain. Imprecise because "Robert's Rules of Order" can mean a number of related, but far from identical, things. Uncertain because there appears to be a trend towards procedures of "consensus", because "in use" by whom is not clarified, and because there is not, as far as I know, an authoritative survey on the matter. Instead, I will clarify that there are guides ranging from the more comprehensive to the more concise, and I will list some guides that Amazon rates as best sellers. Natefin (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT (external link): The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site

PROPOSED (external link): The Robert’s Rules Association

– discussion – the linked website appears to be the official site of “The Robert’s Rules Association”, and the official site for recent editions of their “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised”. Other Parliamentary Procedure associations have their own official web sites. General H. M. Robert is no longer among the living, so we can not ask him which web site he recognizes as the official “official” one. To be neutral, this Wikipedia page should not identify any particular Parliamentary Procedure web site, or book, as being generally “official”.

PROPOSED ADDITION: Contemporary Need [as a subheading to be placed before the “History” subheading] Parliamentary Procedure is needed, by contemporary organizations, to prevent the sort of decision making process breakdown illustrated by the following description of some Occupy Wall Street movement meetings.

"Spokes Council meetings were so chaotic that one activist, Meaghan Linick, likened them to Jerry Springer shows. 'There are a lot of angry people,' she told me. A few screamers - paranoids was another term - were blocking serious proposals. . . . Brooke Lehman, who had actively promoted the Spokes Council idea, was dismayed. 'It was a shock to me to create the Spokes Council,' she told me, 'and have it be a total [expletive deleted] show.'" [footnote-C] footnote-C – Todd Gitlin – Occupy Nation: The Roots, the Spirit, and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street – It Books, 2012.

– discussion – Some visitors to Wikipedia’s Parliamentary Procedure page may be more interested in the history. Probably more visitors, among those not already knowledgeable in the procedure, will be asking: why is Parliamentary Procedure relevant today? I propose adding a new section, with a new subheading, to address that “why” question.