Talk:Chatham House rule

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Journalism sourcing#"On the record"|on the record]] The anchor (#"On the record") has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

what will be hapened if anybody didnt do the rule . i mean what is the penalty ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.237.51 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham House may revoke your membership, other organisations may have their own rules, and other than that I think it's meant to be morally binding rather than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.242.146 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig and Lefty come around, and break your legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.32.28 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains "The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation, while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations." which seems opaque, confusing, and unneccessary. Can we just delete it, or is it trying to say something relevant ? Rod57 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the Chatham House Rule codified? Is it part of a larger Chatham House rulebook? Does it just float out there in the ether? 71.57.41.180 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Chatham House Rule be categorized under "Parliamentary procedure" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Parliamentary_procedure) or listed under "deliberative assembly"? I'm not familiar enough with the segmentation to suggest that the Chatham House Rule (or set of rules, really) should be a style of debate or collaboration or discussion or whatever, but it should formally be listed in one of these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.113.103 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227111229/http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/blogit/eri-mielta/verkossa-sk82011 to http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/blogit/eri-mielta/verkossa-sk82011

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Having stated this, several thought leaders contest that there is in fact a series of rules, commensurate to the pirate code set down in by Morgan and Bartholomew, however, these are more guidelines than an actual rule.'

Who are these 'thought leaders'? Who are Morgan & Bartholomew? Is the pirate code set down 'in' or 'by'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean1954 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense removed here. For Morgan & Bartholomew see Pirate code. TSventon (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall Not sure why Margaret Thatcher exiting the building is relevant to this article on the Chatham House Rule. Understand that it *is* relevant to the Chatham House article, where it also appears. Did she have a specific angle in evoking the rule? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your message. I selected this image for here not because Margaret Thatcher had a specific angle in evoking the rule, but because she would be the type of high-profile public figure who could benefit from the rule. So instead of having the exact same image from the top of the Chatham House article, I thought it might be somewhat more interesting to include a historical figure like her in addition to the Chatham House doorway. However, if you object to this image, then please feel free to change the image back to the previous one. -- Blairall (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall Seems ironic to associate a specific person with the Chatham House Rule, when the whole point of the Chatham House Rule is to avoid attribution. Anonymity is key. Think we have to depersonalise and revert to the picture of the building only. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, and your proposal is fine with me. -- Blairall (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]