Talk:Parliamentary ping-pong

Image copyright problem with Image:House of Lords2.jpg

The image Image:House of Lords2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Brexit Bill 2017

I note the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017's journey on 13 March 2017 is marked "ping pong" on the Westminster website, despite only making one trip (from Commons to Lords) that day. I suppose one might say the trip from Lords to Commons was on 13 March, even though the Lords amendments had happened on 7 March so de facto it took 6 days, which s rather slow for ping-pong. jnestorius^(talk) 16:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Lutte a la corde

I believe the 'fact' that 'lutte a la corde' was an older term for ping-pong to have been added mischiveously, without citations, in 2006, to both the main article and the redirect, by the same editor. I

I have been unable to find any proof that this term was ever used to describe Parliamentary Ping-Pong, and the only references to this term are dated AFTER this untruth was added to the encyclopedia - a regrettable instance of Circular reporting.

I firmly understand this to be an untruth that was added in jest - I am unsure how to 'prove' this exactly, given that this has now been repeated in media outlets over the past 12 years since the redirect's creation, and the inclusion of the lie in the target article. I understand I cannot cite my expertise on wikipedia, but for what it is worth I am a Parliament and Constitution expert working for Parliament. I have removed the lines in my most recent edit due to there being no citation prior to its inclusion in the encyclopedia (and the media outlets reproducing it at later dates appear to have been using wikipedia as a source, with very similar wording).ShieldMaidens (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition, a quick search will show the phrase has never been used in Hansard as far back to 1803. ShieldMaidens (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Pace

The official parliament site ought to be referenced [1] [2]. It doesn’t mention the to and fro being speedy which seems to be the mainstay of this article. Lineslarge (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)