Talk:Parliamentary procedure/Archives/2008-03

Factual Accuracy and lack of neutrality

 * Unsupported Facts: The first two sentences "...growing controversy...parliamentary procedure.. helpful or harmful." and "...many organizations...are opting to dispense with parliamentary procedure..." are not supported by references and appear to be opinion. These statements are made to set up an argument.


 * Bias with selective references - Unsupported assumption that parliamentary procedure equates to formality: Then the section selectively references snippets from RONR and TSC concerning formality, but only the sections that appear to bolster the opening opinion by setting up the lone premise that these books promote formality only in larger groups. The selective use of references is misleading and is done to bolster a misleading assumption.


 * Lack of neutrality by presenting a one-sided list of 'bad' things about parliamentary procedure: After setting up this straw man scenario in the middle, (the straw man being that parliamentary procedure is formal, the author then provides a biased list: that it is only necessary in large groups, parliamentary procedure can cause illegality if not used correctly, it can hinder the group when the majority is ignorant of parliamentary procedure.


 * Contradiction: The last section then provides a solution to the opening premise and provides an answer why organizations are opting out and why parliamentary procedure may be harmful. The solution presented is to use informal proceedings which the author has equated to not using parliamentary procedure. That is an erroneous assumption because parliamentary procedure can be and is promoted to be used informally.  The author then introduces a contradiction by advising the use of selective parliamentary means (which means using parliamentary procedure) but in a context that says don't use parliamentary procedure (which he has defined to be something that is only formal, as in formal voting.)


 * Biased use of words: Usefulness is pejorative in this context, particularly when harmful is used in the first sentence. If this section where about appropriately using parliamentary procedure, it would be a much different section.

Further reasons

 * Parliamentary Procedure is not equated with formality, despite this author's assumption. Parliamentary procedure is appropriately used on a continuum from very informal to highly structured.


 * This section is structured as an argument; it is to advance an opinion. The premise is that parliamentary procedure is formal; therefore it lacks usefulness in many settings and can be harmful. That is an opinion, based on personal assumptions, and not appropriate for this article.


 * This article should not contain a debate, and this section is the opening to a debate.


 * It should be noted that the author failed to sign in, so this is an anonymously posted section.


 * This article should describe what parliamentary procedure is and do it in a factual and unbiased way. It should not contain a section that inaccurate depicts parliamentary procedure and then beats this straw man down, in order to advance one's opinion.

Parlirules (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Parlirules - sorry to steal your thunder on the issue, but I've already deleted it because it was inserted by a banned user. I agree with your arguments, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, Ya, steal my thunder, but I love that you deleted it so quickly. I wrote all that stuff above partly as a personal exercise - so I don't feel my effort was wasted. Of course, that personal exercise was about seeing if I could write objectively while being 'angry' at what I felt was the author's effort to abuse rather than to educate. Parlirules (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it had not been removed due to the sockpuppet issue, I would have removed it for many of the reasons that you state. The section was a combination of original research and just a confusing juxtaposition of statements that, in some cases, belong somewhere in some article, but not all mixed together like that.  As I'm sure you know, Parlirules, RRO and TSC both do support the idea that a lower degree of formality is often appropriate in smaller groups, and RRO provides for specific modifications for "small boards."  As of yet, I don't believe we have any article that mentions this.  Perhaps a section of this article should discuss the "continuum" of formality/informality.  But not in a "personal essay", which is basically what this was.  Neutron (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)