Talk:Hoist (motion)

Requested Move

The Hoist motion is a specialized motion used in the House of Commons in Canada and some provincial legislatures (Nova Scotia House of Assembly for example). It a one example of a parliamentary group known as dilatory motions, so called because they cause delays. The hoist motion has a restricted use -- in legislatures, Canadian, only on a second reading of the bill, etc.

Rather than have an article on each possible dilatory motion with a unique name, this and other similar dilatory motions should be placed in one article title Dilatory motions. ~ Parlirules (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article Dilatory motions and tactics, with Dilatory motion as a redirect to that article. The article as it now stands is somewhat confusing, as it tries to deal with two different meanings of the term "dilatory". The main meaning that the article is about is the sense in which Robert's uses the term, that is, the improper use of otherwise proper motions, particularly by a small minority, to delay or obstruct business. At the end of the intro, and then again at the end of the article, is some material (that apparently appeared since my last contact with the article) about "delaying motions", and it mentions "postpone indefinitely", but "hoist" would fall into that category as well. (Or perhaps even better. They are, in effect, virtually the same motion if you ignore the "legal fiction" in the hoist motion where they insert a number of months, but with no real intention to bring up the bill again.) One distinction that I think needs to be made much more clearly is that "dilatory" in the Robert's sense means to obstruct the will of the majority, whereas in "dilatory motions" such as the hoist, the motion is the will of the majority. So I think we need further discussion on this. Neutron (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object changing this article to re-direct to postpone indefinitely, with an explanation of the hoist in that article. Failing that, I actually don't see a problem with it being here (I confess to a certain attachment to this article; I was going through the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for some other article work I've been doing, and stumbled across this motion, of which I'd never hitherto heard). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Robert's has usurped the word dilatory and given it a bad connotation as Neutron has identified. In most parliamentary systems, a dilatory motion is simply a delaying motion. These delaying motions can be used for obstructive or constructive purposes. Some authorities use the term dilatory tactic to identify using a parliamentary maneuver for an obstructive purpose. I see two issues for WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure:

1. Should this continue to be a Robert centric project -or- a parliamentary procedure project (that does recognizes the significance of Robert's Rules without centering on that one system)? If the latter, then we should rewrite Dilatory motions and tactics not to be a Robert-centric article -or- add a Dilatory motions article about dilatory motions and both their constructive and destructive uses. (We should re-write the existing Dilatory article anyway.)
2. Should we leave Hoist as an article? If so, it will likely only remain a stub article. (Then we should consider also having stub articles about the 100's of other uniquely named motions.) Even if we leave it as its own article, it might be of more encyclopedic value to also have an annotated list of all dilatory motions so one can compare them 'side-by'side' in one article.

I favor having a Dilatory motions article created to focus on delaying motions. The current Dilatory motions and tactics article can remain (but renamed and rewritten to acknowledge its mainly Robertarian view) -- until it is decided whether or not to incorporate it in the new Dilatory motions article. I could see putting Hoist under Postpone indefinitely, but we may want Postpone indefinitely to remain intact as a RONR subsidiary motion article, therefore I favor moving Hoist under the new Dilatory motions article. ~ Parlirules (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions; separate articles on "obstructive" dilatory motions and "delaying" motions, with "Hoist" merged into the latter and Postpone indefinitely remaining as its own article but linked from the article on delaying motions. Keep in mind that there are currently redirects at Dilatory and Dilatory motion (without the "s" at the end), and I believe both now redirect to Dilatory motions and tactics; we just need to make sure that after articles are added/renamed, these existing redirects end up pointing to the correct place (wherever that might be.) Neutron (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More Examples

~ pass on

There is another dilatory motion that was added as a stub article last month - the motion to Pass on. That is another interesting (perhaps), but obscure motion - that might be used occasionally in the House and some state legislatures. Mason has a single paragraph on it but little detail; one has to research back further (Mason cited it from Hughes' American Parliamentary Guide, 1926, where it was called the Motion to Informally Pass.) The motion is only applied to a bill on a legislative calendar and only before the third reading of the bill. The effect is to leave the bill on the legislative calendar but not discuss it at the time. The motion to Pass on would be another candidate for a Dilatory motions article.

~ take from the desk

Recently I moved the stub article Take from the desk into the article Table. Another obscure motion, but rather than delete it, I moved it.

~ and many more examples

There are hundreds of obscure motions and motions with different names throughout the world. The motion to Pass on is not disserving of an article by itself - but it might be a section in an article on dilatory motions. I am fascinated by these obscure motions too, but I'm not sure if they need an article. How about the Kangaroo or the Guillotine, both currently used by the government side in the British House of Commons? Motion to Dispense with Constitutional Reading, motion to dispense with call of house, motion to agree, motion to recede, motion to adhere, etc.

I'm sure I have overstated my point by now (thanks for reading this far), but to wrap it up, I favor more articles on classes of motions, not only the standard Robertarian ones such as subsidiary, incidental and privileged, but others like dilatory, voting (which we have), perhaps amendatory, declinatory, complemental (those last three classes coined by Rufus Waples, 1883) and etc. etc., rather than more stub articles on each motion.

~ Parlirules (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mason references tend to be incorrect

Note: many of the Mason page references - such as the Mason citation on the article Pass on are incorrect. I haven't corrected them all but the page references cited are actually Section numbers in Mason, not page numbers.

~ Parlirules (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)