Talk:Robert's Rules of Order
|WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure||(Rated C-class)|
Is anyone aware of any documentation that supports the following claims?
- "[RONR] is the most commonly adopted parliamentary authority among societies in the United States."
- "Being widely accepted, and being based for the most part on long-standing traditions of parliamentary procedure, however, the current edition of the book is a reliable reference."
- "RONR, is the most widely used parliamentary authority in the United States, according to the National Association of Parliamentarians"
Upon what is the National Association of Parliamentarians claim based? How do we know that RONR is really the most widely used parliamentary authority in the United States? Has an independent study been done? How do we know that the current edition of the book is really a "reliable reference?" What test was used in order to determine if the book is "reliable?" It seems to me that these claims are often made; however, I have never seen evidence that prooves that they are actually true. Squideshi 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe these statements are based on surveys the NAP has run. I'll see what I can do for supporting documentation. I don't know that anyone else has run surveys (except possibly the AIP); the subject is not one that gets a lot of interest.
- As for being a reliable reference, about all I can say is that, for societies that have adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority, it is, by definition, the most reliable reference. I am not aware of any substantial claims otherwise. I can say, as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, that RONR is the only standard accepted by the NAP. Jay Maynard 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to clean up the first sentence a bit. Although I believe that RONR is (by far) the most used authority, I also cannot find any good reference to a real study. The article makes this claim again in a later paragraph with a reference to a jim slaughter article, i will keep that, maybe someone can re-locate the link (which is currently broken) Rjljr2 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Robert's Rules is "a book containing rules of order intended to be adopted for use by a deliberative assembly." Yet it is also "designed for use in ordinary societies rather than legislative assemblies."
How is this not contradictory? LordAmeth 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- A deliberative assembly is not necessarily legislative. The US Senate is a legislative assembly that also deliberates. A board meeting in BP is a deliberative assembly (they deliberate and decide), but it's not legislative. krikkert (Talk) 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete sentences on Student Government and NFL Congressional Debate
These statements mention "Robert's Rules" in a generic way and are not specific to the focus of this article which is about the book, Robert's Rules of Order.
- Many Student Government Associations at colleges and universities across the United States not only use Robert's Rules but are required to do so as part of their Student Government Constitutions.'
Vague statement; "required to do so" is an overreaching generalization. Even if a student government constitution has a provision adopting Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority, using the phrase "but are required to do so" is misleading. Constitutions, Bylaws, Special Rules of Order, can all override many provisions contained in Robert's Rules of Order.
- It is criticized in practice on the collegiate level depending on how leniently or strictly the rules are enforced.[neutrality disputed],
This is a POV statement, not verifiable. Citation needed. One-sided statement; it implies that Robert's Rules is negatively criticized if it is either too lenient or too strict, but doesn't provide any guidance on what is "just right".
- In addition, Robert's Rules are a staple of the National Forensic League event known as Congressional Debate, wherein competitors must abide by parliamentary procedure if they wish to speak.
The rules promoted for the NFL "Congressional Debate" depart considerably from Robert's Rules of Order. The last statement about 'parliamentary procedure' again indicates the author is talking about their view of a generic form of "Robert's Rules" and not about the book, which is the focus of this article. Therefore I propose that these statements be deleted from the article because they are not cited, not verifiable, and they are generalized statements not germane to the purpose of this article. Parlirules 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)