Talk:Committee

"Fast acting committee - a contradiction in terms" (quote by unknown) Gorm 09:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * A committee is a deliberative assembly subordinate to a larger deliberative assembly. It seems unlikely that a larger parent assembly would act as quickly as a smaller subdivision; so by definition, a committee is fast acting, when considered in context.  In any case, it is not accurate to describe all committees as inefficient; although, many are.  It would be better to describe what a committee is intended to be, with a note indicating how most committees normally function.  Squideshi 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Major Problems
I really don't understand how this article could get to the state it is. It's so bad it almost seems like vandalism. I mean seriously, it sounds like committees are only used in communist dictatorships and banana republics and are solely used to detriment work. I'll try to fix it after sleep, if I have time, but this article shouldn't be hard to make a decent stub out of (and it's not like this is a niche topic!). Tagged with cleanup. Telso 10:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the main part. I'm in two minds about the examples of famous committees, so I've left (most of) them. I haven't removed the factual accuracy tag (I removed the, though) and it might still want a stub tag. --Squiddy 11:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be nice if whoever contributed to this could cite where the info came from. I'm not saying it isn't necessarily right, it just isn't credited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.58.16 (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ad hoc" and "unofficial" are definitely not synonyms! The way that section is written it makes it look like Ad hoc committees are organised "under the table" and equated to "cabal", "junta", etc. Roger (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A commitee or representatives,To represent an idea in a democratic way.. james 2008 feb 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.28.232 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "Tabling" in the list of uses is problematic. In the US, to table a suggestion means to defer and not discuss it. In the UK, to table a suggestion means to put it on the table for discussion... the exact opposite. One might have thought that a verb 'table' should indeed mean to put something on a table, rather than take it off a table, but such is linguistic history. I would suggest "Deferring a decision" or just "Deferment". Also, the first sentence in the article is rather jumbled (looks like it was designed by a committee). The specific issue of what happens when an issue needs to be considered by a whole body sitting as a committee is quite abstruse and has no place in the first sentence. Peter Counter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.128.157 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia
Wouldn't the 'Federal Executive Council', as stated in the Australian Constitution, count as a committee? Seeing as it the legal instrument of the Cabinet. Even though it is appointed by the Governor General, it is still convention for the GG to appoint the Council from the leading men/women who can command a majority in the House of Representatives. Thus, de-facto, it is responsible to a larger deliberative assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.134.241 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New Famous Committee
I entered a new famous Committee, it has been formed in Melton Australia, It is farly well known in the Melbourne/Melton area. If you find it useless pls tell me before editing, at least give me a chance to explsin properly, as im not going to now because its a long story.-- -T he Gr eat   One   00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your addition to the article. Unfortunately it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for organisations,which can be found here. To meet the standard for inclusion, an organisation should generally have been "the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If the group you mention have been covered in reliable independent sources (such as major newspapers or media outlets), please feel free to re-add it along with references to prove your claim. Thanks. Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As this clearly doesn

Propose merge-in of Conference committee
Having merged in Standing committee, and anchored and explained things like working and executive committees, I'm no longer feeling bold enough to merge in Conference committee since it is so US centric, and this article has no tagging indicating a interested governing wikiproject.

That's me thinking // Fra nkB 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nonetheless, since the proposed "redirect-to-be" is very terse and short, and I don't figure it for a topic with much in the way of expansion possibilities (Historic conference committee bills? Members? What??) and since Subcommittee can be subsumed, no reason it can't as well.
 * 2) Moreover there's precedent since the article had already the  section.
 * 3) I've no idea of how extensive either term is used in the world, but if things get messy and unweildy, believe it's easier to split out a topic, than find stuff to add to what is essentially a dic-def.
 * Note I've incorporated the page already in the article as a included page (acting as if were a template)... don't let that throw you!
 * I have no opinion about committees, but it has been over a year now with no further comments. I removed the merge notice.  Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the transclusion. The reason is that transclusion should only be used for pages actually designed to be transcluded, i.e. templates, pages in the Template namespace. Transcluding an article leaves the target article violating the usual layout guidelines e.g. references followed by a content section, followed by more references. To do a proper merger, please use Proposed mergers.
 * I've reinstated the merger templates. If you have any comments, please discuss the merger here. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment below moved from Talk:Conference committee because it seems pertinent to this discussion. Astronaut (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So this article seems like it just a repeat of United States congressional conference committee, which is much more detailed.

Should we just merge/redirect this article with the other?

I'm still relatively new at this, so I'm not sure what the proper procedure is (though I am working my way through the documentation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocryphal Libertarian (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 December 2009


 * Rather than mess with the merge templates again, I think it is better to collect the discussion in this one place, come up with some consensus on the matter, then effect any move/merger.
 * I agree with Apocryphal Libertarian's comment. Conference committee does appear to be a cut down version of United States congressional conference committee.  Therefore I would like to propose instead that those two are merged (with Conference committee turned into a redirect), then a brief summary of United States congressional conference committee can be placed in an appropriate section of Committee with a see also link to the larger article.   Astronaut (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally have no opinion on the matter. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That seems like the best option. -  Proto Fire →talk 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131522465300/http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html to http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian language
About the new article (2018), without having studied the article that existed around 2005-2010 at all, and as "initiator" of this new "version" after having read Richard Pipes. Even though "ispolkom" apparently in Russian somehow means "executive committee" - I think we need to have an article on this specific executive committee. Richard Pipes uses "Ispolkom" without explanation, as if it was a name. I wouldn't object to an other name, if linguistically or otherwise required. The main thing, as I see it, is to have an article on this specific committee. As it has a historical significance. However "The executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet" - isn't that a too long article name ? No other name comes to my mind, not currently at least. Boeing720 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC) I also think this discussion could be moved to talk-page of Ispolkom, for the moment at least. Boeing720 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Legislative committee" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legislative_committee&redirect=no Legislative committee] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)