User talk:Parlirules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:WPPP
Image:Gavel.jpg Parliamentary Procedure
Portal
Archive Index

Contents





[edit] Parliamentary procedure

Thank you for reworking that page, it is a great improvement, though I agree the article still needs work. I agree with your change to the sentence about "consensus", though I thought it best to refer to "consensus decision-making" because that seems to be an alternative process whereas "consensus" is more generic and, as you say, is a desirable goal of any procedure though it is often not possible. I think we are basically saying the same thing. In any event, I would agree with eliminating that sentence and putting a "see also" to the Consensus decision-making article. Neutron (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsider

Please take a look at what I have done with this article today. In part, it was inspired by your comments at Talk:Main motion#Merger proposal. I did not finish what I started, but I am trying to integrate the section on TSC into the main article, and then I put all the legislative stuff at the end, along with something else that I found. At least this way, it is clear which part of the article is about what, and it does not contain statements that are true only under Robert's without clearly identifying them as such. What do you think? I am also wondering whether to do the same thing at Table (parliamentary), the current structure of which was created by me several months ago. I think it might not be necessary because the "table" motion is much simpler than the motion to "reconsider" and there are fewer differences between the authorities. Neutron (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you ready?

Thanks for asking my opinion. However, you might end up with more feedback than what you expected - I will try to keep this short. (Not likely short enough.) First, you obviously know how to write well (much appreciated) and you are excellent at cleaning up (which you may do behind me at any time, no explanations needed.) The research you incorporated was exactly what I think is needed. We seem to be of similar mind.

A) An Article Structure is Needed: A standard list of (optional) headings usable on every motion page. These headings could be pre-placed in the article, when appropriate, to encourage others to fill them in. This suggested list is just a suggestion to encourage comments:

  • Definition of Motion (in non parliamentary terms aimed at the novice)
Reconsider is one of several motions available for a group to correct a mistake made earlier in the meeting. It is sometimes referred to as Oops! or a Take Back Motion. If a meeting makes a too-hasty or ill-formed decision, some parliamentary authorities allow the group to re-visit that decision if new information becomes available. An example is when a group votes to purchase a new computer for the club, but later in the meeting someone realizes that there is not enough money in their checking account. A motion to reconsider, if adopted, says: Stop, let's talk about this motion again (because of new information) and re-take the vote. In effect, it nullifies the earlier vote and opens the motion up to debate once again.
However, this motion is counter to the parliamentary principle that once a group makes a decision in a meeting, it should be considered a done thing. Therefore many parliamentary authorities put restrictions on who can make this motion and when this motion can be made (See RONR). Some deliberative bodies, such as the British House of Commons, do not have a specific motion such as reconsider because they do overtly correct mistakes. Instead they pass a new motion.
  • History of Motion
Provide details on how it came about and why (which political party was in control) in the United States, what similar work-arounds there were before this. Some motions have evolved and have a lengthy history. Wait until you get to 'Previous Question'.
  • Treatment under RONR (probably should go first)
  • Treatment under TSC
  • Treatment under xxxx (as needed)
Break these out in separate headings only if there is reason. For Reconsider it probably would take a separate paragraph for RONR and TSC, then one for others.
  • Differences among PA (PA=parliamentary authorities)
Sometimes the differences can be incorporated under the above headings. For Reconsider, this discussion probably deserves its own heading, possibly even a table under that heading.
  • Motion as used in Legislatures
  • Motion as used in other countries or systems
Describe Mason, and any references from the Senate, House, state legislatures, and possibly foreign (to the US) legislatures/parliaments. Use these headings as appropriate
  • Contrasted with Similar Motions
Reconsider should be contrasted with Rescind - one is for immediate use, one is for later use, etc.
  • Further Reading
Articles, books, websites

B) Note RONR clearly: When material is from RONR we need to designate that specifically. The motion box on the upper right is from RONR, therefore it should be labeled something like Reconsider (RONR). TSC and Demeter give this class a different heading/name. If possible, we should 'float' this box to be in the RONR section. Elsewhere on the project is an INFOBOX List of Subsidiary motions which is straight out of RONR, so we should label it RONR. On a number of the smaller motion pages, the explanation is pure RONR, so that article should be noted clearly as RONR only - at least until the page is further filled out.

C) Full vs. Short Citations: In researching the Wiki citation suggestions, I found a comment about 'short citations'. Instead of referencing the complete book information for each reference note, it has been suggested to only do that the first time. The next time the same book (but different page) is referenced, use the short citation format. It would clean up the long list of citations on this page. That may lessen the effective use of the cite_parl template, but perhaps we can look at reprogramming that. There is also guidance on using both Notes and Reference headings, which may work for these motion articles.

D) TSC vs. RONR: While TSC (4th) edition lists some major differences between the two, I have study material that lists many more. Contact me offline if you would like a copy to use while editing these pages.

E) Use of non-PA as sources: As I have overstated before, most of these motion articles are straight out of RONR (not copied, but limited to what is in RONR; in other words, just a re-statement.) You have been able to add TSC which helps, and a noticeable difference occurred when you found and added the other research material. At some time, I hope the editors can use one more class of sources -- there are 100's of books/articles written about these parliamentary authorities and their rules, as opposed to a similar PA with a simplified or slightly different version of the same thing. Adding these non-PA references will give the insight that cannot easily be gained by just what is contained inside a PA. [Oops, I am showing my preference that this project not just be another version of a Robert-type PA book.] Again, contact me if you want suggestions on some of these titles. [My assumption is that you don't live near me otherwise you could just visit my 'library.']

Overall, the information in the article is good, accurate, etc. I know the work it takes to write these articles so I hope you can keep adding to this one. I believe the page could be improved by following a set structure, similar to my suggestions above, so I hope you have the energy/time to restructure it, if not, let me know, and I'll make an effort. I am in favor of starting out each motion page with an introduction that is non-technical, that used non-parliamentary language, etc. It may take some research to find citations to back up what I wrote in the demonstration paragraph, but I found most, of not all, those observations in other books.

Caution: I am not suggesting that every motion page be fully filled out with history, differences, legislative, etc. - instead I would like to see a 'structure' of some sort that will make it easy for other editors to operate within and give direction to lessen major re-writing in the future. ...and, of course, headings like this will tend to lessen the RONR biased approach which we can all fall into too easily. Parlirules (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

''Parli'''''rules''' (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commit (motion)

I have made some additions to this article, some of which are under the "Explanation" heading that you added. I believe that all of this material applies under all authorities, therefore I did not put it in the RONR section. Please feel free to modify if you think that is incorrect. And thanks for all the work you are doing on these articles, especially under the somewhat difficult circumstnces that others have created. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting basis

You are a whirlwind on these parliamentary procedure articles. I can't even keep up with reading all that you are doing, but what I see all looks good. I can only dabble here and there. Speaking of which, I basically re-did the above-linked article. Please tell me what you think. I am still not completely happy with the order of the material and I think the title could be better as well, but I am done with it for right now.

Also, what would you think of merging Principles of parliamentary procedure (after perhaps condensing it a bit as it seems somewhat repetitive) into Parliamentary procedure? It seems that a good goal for us would be to get the latter article on the way to at least "Good article" status, since it is the foundation article of the whole project, and this might be a first step. Please let me know what you think. Neutron (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You much improved the Voting Basis article. Much of the previous writing style (and for many of the other parliamentary procedure articles as well) was colloquial which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. You also increased the citations. I hope you keep doing what you have been doing - making the articles better by adding citable material, organizing it a little, and getting rid of both the unverifiable material and the conversational style. I'm a big fan of letting the articles evolve -- it's hard to find the best order and structure until you have enough solid material.
I've been reading the parliamentary articles more than I've attempted to do substantive editing and therefore most of my edits are form, formatting, and functional. I make little improvements (deleting erroneous and inappropriate material) and I may go after all the unverifiable material (those without citations) by either finding citations or moving them to the discussion page until citations can be found. The biggest issue I have is that most of the articles were written as extracts of RONR and then editors plopped in other factoids here and there. That's okay, but to make them good articles is going to require a substantial rewrite at some time. I am also reluctant to write anything that I can not get directly from a cited source.
I'd like to see them "Parliamentary Procedure" and "Principles of Parliamentary Procedure" as two separate articles in the 'final' version but merging them now would be fine. The lead article on this subject should be parliamentary procedure -- it should provide an introduction that touches on the basic areas; it should show the big picture to the uninitiated. The "principles" are the most important part of parliamentary procedure, more important than the rules. The rules are arbitrary functions of the principals. Once you understand the principles, you can correctly apply the rules. That is why I would like to see a separate (great) article on principles.
However, I'd rather see a dozen good articles then three dozen stubs. Quality over quantity. I understand why some want to create a stub article on every unique aspect - "if you will start it, the editors will come", that sort of thing. I think we will get there just as fast with fewer articles, and once an article gets too big or has two or more focual points, then it should be split. Feel free to combine any articles -- they can be split apart later if necessary. ~ Parlirules

[edit] WikiProject: Parliamentary Procedure

Thanks for signing on and I welcome your involvement. If you have a special interest or expertise please let us know. I noticed your admin work on 'cleaning' up Wikipedia -- I appreciate your efforts in raising the quality of Wikipedia! ~ Parlirules (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I wouldn't say I have a special interest or expertise so much as a lack of expertise in anything that isn't RONR. Parliamentary procedure hasn't caught on as much here in Ireland. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are not many Irish books on parliamentary procedure (even under non-American titles such as "chairmanship", "conduct of meetings", "Chairman's Handbook", "company meetings", etc.), but I assume that the British books on the subject are available. There is O'Conner's "The View From the Chair: The Art of Chairing Meetings" but that is a book of 28 interviews with board chairmen. By chance, are you anywhere near Galway? I have purchased a number of parliamentary practice books (via the Internet) from Kenny's Bookshop and Art Gallery (http://www.kennys.ie/) but I heard they may have closed down their retail book shop and sell books mainly on the Internet. Let me know if you peruse used book shops in Ireland as I have a list of British books that I am looking for that may be sitting on their shelves. ~ Parlirules (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion that brings a question again before the assembly

Hello, I just wanted to point out a few things about your most recent edits to the above article and I decided to do it here rather than there. Technically the article now has no intro, since Wikipedia defines the intro as the material before the first heading. What you seem to have done is to write a new intro and put a heading on it, which would be fine with me personally but is non-standard on Wikipedia. I am inferring that your intro heading, "Restoratory motions", is probably what you would prefer as a new title for the article. In any event, you have placed that name for this category (from Demeter) first, with Robert's name (Motions that bring, etc.) second and Sturgis' name (Restorative main motions) third. Is there a particular reason for that? I can see some value in consistency, and most (if not all) of our other motion articles have Robert's first, Sturgis second and then everything else. Although I know you have expressed a concern for the "Robert's-centric" nature of the articles, a concern which I share (though probably to lesser degree), if we need to choose an order, the order of usage of the respective authorities seems to be as fair and logical an order as any. In other words, Robert's first, followed by Sturgis, followed by anything else, seems to make sense to me. Therefore, although I like both Sturgis' and Demeter's names for this class of motions better than Robert's, I am not sure on what basis Demeter gets first billing. Neutron (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:EdmundCushing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EdmundCushing.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:US House Floor Procedures Manual 109th.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:US House Floor Procedures Manual 109th.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cushing Manual 1876.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cushing Manual 1876.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:RONR 10th.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RONR 10th.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)