Talk:Alice Sturgis

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

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Parliamentary Procedure Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Sturgis as 'primary' author of the current edition.[edit]

I favor citing the AIP as the author of the 4th edition but would not be concerned if both AIP and Sturgis were listed. However, in my opinion, listing Alice Sturgis is the 'primary' author *may* be misleading.

This 4th edition is the second edition published after Sturgis' death. The first non-Sturgis revision in 1988 (3rd edition) changed little content and the title page still states "by Alice Sturgis". This despite the fact that right above her name it states "new and revised" implying, if one reads the title page only, that she revised this edition. She did not do the revision. Still I have no issues with keeping Alice Sturgis as the author on the 3rd, as that is what the AIP revision committee probably wanted since they put "by Alice Sturgis" on the title page.

However, the 4th revision in 2001 was further revised by a committee from the AIP. The title page of the 4th edition now specifically states first, "Revised by The American Institute of Parliamentarians", followed by "Original Edition by Alice Sturgis".

Whether of not Alice Sturgis should or should not be listed as the 'primary' author may be more of a matter of opinion than fact, and that opinion may be based on what one thinks 'primary' means. Unless one can agree on what primary means (first?, authored the major part?, etc.) it may be better to use a different citation.

Based on the Title Page of the 4th edition, I believe it is more appropriate to follow the lead of the authors of the 4th edition, who did not use the phrase "primary author", who did not use "by Alice Sturgis", but instead used "Original Edition by Alice Sturgis". To me, this implies that they felt that enough had been changed in the 4th edition, that it was no longer Alice Sturgis's original book ... and that it is now a collaborative effort (if one assumes that one can collaborate with a past person.)

One can also look for guidance at the current "Mason's Manual" which now lists NCSL as the suthor, instead of Paul Mason. Parlirules (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to "an author". Is that ok? In coming up with "primary author" I was going by the cover which has her name, and by the listing on amazon.com which says "by Alice Sturgis", although I understand that is not definitive. I think the current version covers all bases. Incidentally, our citation template for the book has her as the author, so I'm not sure what (if anything) we need to do about that. Neutron (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]