Talk:Robert's Rules of Order/Archives/2018

This is an archive of past discussions about Robert's Rules of Order. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No, Robert's Rules of Order is not the short title

Robert's Rules of Order appears within the title of the manual, but it has not been the official "short title" for over a century. We could

rename the page Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to reflect the book's current name
go back to calling it the "informal short title"
call it the "popular name" of the book.

The reference to General Robert in the first sentence adds to the impression that the article is only about the first three editions.

Thoughts? Klundarr (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

>> I think it would be a good move to rename the page for the current book, and create a new page for "Robert's Rules of Order" which would describe more generally the body of work of General Robert and successors. Then the disagreement about "official" status could at least be isolated to a single statement describing the disagreement.

There are reliable sources that say that there is an official version of Robert's Rules. Please provide reliable sources that say otherwise.Ronruser (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

>>Official according to who? Official means they've been designated as such by someone other than themselves. There can certainly be an official version for a particular organization. But Robert's Rules is unquestionably public domain and there is therefore no official version of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E1C5:851E:275C:221A (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

>>If you want an article about RONR, then make one by all means, and link to it from the Robert's Rules of Order article. However, Robert's Rules of Order is not the same as RONR. What you could say truthfully is that RONR is the official version of the Robert's Rules Association.

>>Your claim of "official" status is actually meaningless and therefore false. Please define it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E1C5:851E:275C:221A (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

>>For something to be official, it has to be designated as official by someone. Who has designated RONR as the official version of Robert's Rules of Order, and by what authority? Dictionary.com: "a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties. adjective. 2. of or relating to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E1C5:851E:275C:221A (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

>>I think you're creating a confusion here between "Robert's Rules of Order" and RONR. They are not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E1C5:851E:275C:221A (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an official version according to experts on parliamentary procedure. References can be found at the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians, the two main organizations dedicated to promoting knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

>> Please provide links from these two organizations indicating that RONR has official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E454:8BB3:9AC7:A0AE (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

See http://www.parliamentarians.org/about/faq/ and https://aipparl.org/become-a-parliamentarian/. These organizations have published educational material referencing RONR as the official version of Robert's Rules of Order. You can also reach out to them and they can confirm that RONR is the official version. Ronruser (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

>>Thank you for your reply. Your referenced AIP page fails to make any mention of RONR, let alone any kind of designated official status. NAP comes closer but they don't offer "official" designation. But for the sake of argument let's say that the NAP language comes pretty close.

Major League Baseball has an official rulebook. That rulebook is the official rulebook of Major League Baseball. It would be foolish to claim that it's the official rulebook of baseball, a game which is played around the world and has a history of almost 200 years. Similarly the IEEE issues electrical standards. They are widely recognized as the official standards in many international jurisdictions. But they're not the official standards of electricity, except where designated, and they don't claim to be. They only claim to be the official standards of the IEEE.

If the NAP were by formal action to designate RONR as their official standard of Robert's Rules, RONR would now be their official standard. It wouldn't become the official standard of Robert's Rules, it would only the standard recognized by the NAP. You could say RONR is a widely recognized standard, and the official version of the NAP. You still couldn't say that RONR is the official standard of Robert's Rules. Robert's Rules is public domain and there is no body with the authority to designate an official version.

You also haven't addressed the confusion between Robert's Rules of Order, which is what this article is about, and RONR, which is what you seem to want to make it about. They aren't the same.

Why don't you just make an article for RONR and reference it / link to it from the Robert's Rules article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E454:8BB3:9AC7:A0AE (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RONR is Robert's Rules of Order as already referenced. Please provide any reference to the contrary. Ronruser (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

>>> Robert's Rules of Order refers to many publications, including RONR. RONR is deserving of an honored place in that list. But Amazon shows a multitude of editions: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/134-9689540-0928919?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=robert%27s+rules+of+order. In addition, the public domain texts by General Robert remain in use: there are links both in the references section of the article, and on the Amazon page. I've tried to propose a resolution to your concerns that would maintain the Wikipedia standards of neutrality. Your response, that "RONR is Robert's Rules" is plainly false. I suppose intervention from higher authority will be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E454:8BB3:9AC7:A0AE (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site (http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html) states that there is one official version of Robert's Rules. If this is not true, please contact that website to change the references to it being official. Ronruser (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

>> That's not a realistic request. They use the word "Official" to describe their own publication, but don't have any authority to claim the designation. They clearly see commercial advantage in the designation. Maybe they feel they're morally entitled to the designation as the descendants of General Robert. That doesn't mean they're right. The copyrights on the original works are gone now, and the works are public domain. There is no more "official". Calling my carbonated fruit juice blend the official soft drink of 2018 doesn't make it so, delicious as it is. Wikipedia rules require a neutral point of view, and this article is failing that test.

Wikipedia also requires citing references to reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source which questions the official status. Ronruser (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

>>"So when there is a reference to following Robert’s Rules – as in “(l)et’s follow Robert’s Rules of Order” or “(o)ur bylaws require us to abide by Robert’s Rules” – there is legitimate ambiguity." http://www.forpurposelaw.com/robert-nonprofits-follow-rules-order/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:386F:DDFC:ACB2:739C (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This source refers to "recognized parliamentary experts" in the middle of the page. This hypertext is a link to the Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site. Ronruser (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>>"There are many guides to Robert’s Rules. If you’d like a reference, go with an abridged version such as Webster’s New World Robert’s Rules of Order, Simplified and Applied. Sticking to a few simple rules can make meetings more pleasant for everyone, from the president to first-timers." https://www.ptotoday.com/pto-today-articles/article/402-roberts-rules-what-you-should-know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:386F:DDFC:ACB2:739C (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>>Why are you so wedded to the word "official"? Why not use a more defensible word, such as "standard" or "recognized"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:386F:DDFC:ACB2:739C (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The above source refers to many guides. The Amazon link provided earlier in this discussion also shows many books. One of those books on Amazon is this one - https://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Order-Revised-Paperback/dp/030682020X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1520821015&sr=8-3&keywords=robert%27s+rules+of+order . The first words of the product description for this book say, "The only authorized edition". Perhaps those words could be used instead. Ronruser (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>> Does it say who it's authorized by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:386F:DDFC:ACB2:739C (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The product description states, "This newly revised edition is the only book on parliamentary procedure to have been updated since 1876 under the continuing program of review established by General Henry M. Robert himself, in cooperation with the official publisher of Robert's Rules." Ronruser (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>>Well, that's something at least, if there was a program established by Robert. So why not say that it's the official publication of that program? Talk of the "official publisher" is entirely circular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:386F:DDFC:ACB2:739C (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>>You might take note that under parliamentary law, statutory law is superior, and statutory law says that Robert's Rules is public domain. The "official publication" of the Robert's Rules Association only applies within its jurisdiction. They are the official publisher of RONR, which is under copyright protection. No one is questioning that. They have no standing for Robert's Rules.

>>The RRA has every right to claim official status for RONR, and they should do so. They have no right to claim public domain content, or an official position with respect to other versions of Robert's Rules. This article is about Robert's Rules, not about RONR.

The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site states that there is one official version of Robert's Rules. Who has disputed this statement? Where is it written that it is being disputed? Please provide reliable sources. Ronruser (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>> They're claiming official status for themselves without backing it up. I get it. Everyone gets it. So what? They have no standing to do so. I've provided you contrary links above. Please stop repeating yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:E4AF:71B4:C491:DB75 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

>> You're asserting that Wikipedia should endorse the RRA's self-declared official status. That doesn't conform with the neutral point of view policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:6CFA:EBFF:4D7F:2E46 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source states that there is an official edition among the many versions of Robert's Rules. The provided links state that there are many versions of Robert's Rules. This does not appear contrary to what the reliable source has stated. One of the provided links even has a link back to the reliable source. Wikipedia should summarize information from reliable sources.

It appears this discussion has stalled. Perhaps a third opinion from an uninvolved Wikipedia editor may help. Ronruser (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And for future reference, Wikipedia requires that a consensus be reached on the talk page before making contentious edits to an article. Please refrain from making such edits until a consensus is reached. Ronruser (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

>> On what basis are you claiming that RobertsRules.com is a reliable source? Because they call themselves without foundation "the Official Robert's Rules"? That actually disqualifies them from being considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:B9F5:2A00:3BCE:E9D1 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

>> No consensus can be reached because you are protecting a commercial interest and will continue to block a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:B9F5:2A00:3BCE:E9D1 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A few things that could help here. One, WP:NPOV has a very important caveat: WP:DUE weight. We don't represent viewpoints in exact equality but instead give more weight to viewpoints with more reliable sources. Therefore, the judgement about whether the Newly Revised version of the rules are "official" or not resides in what the preponderance of reliable sources think. Second, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Our sourcing will come from secondary reliable sources that are ideally independent. See WP:SECONDARY. Lastly if you two can't get an agreement after reading what I linked in this comment, perhaps try WP:DRN.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on this discussion. Here is an independent secondary source: http://www.jimslaughter.com/roberts-rules-of-order.cfm . Ronruser (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

>>Appreciate your assistance and perspective Jasper. Here is another independent secondary source: http://www.forpurposelaw.com/robert-nonprofits-follow-rules-order/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:B882:5B8A:D7FA:F8D4 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

>> There are numerous citations on the Internet for RONR. It's a well-respected authority. Yet there are very few sources that are willing to follow the publisher's claim that the book is "authorized" or "official". There are also many authorities who reference Robert's Rules without regard to a specific version. For example, of RONRuser's first two citations, https://aipparl.org/become-a-parliamentarian/, discusses Robert's Rules in the context of other parliamentary authorities without mentioning a specific version, let alone designating any dubious "official" status. Furthermore this is far from the only problem with this article, which seems designed to serve as a commercial advertisement for the book. Aside from the simply false claim that there can be an official or authorized version of a book which is in the public domain and has many competing versions, the article is heavily biased against the other works, and has very little to say about them except to denigrate them, while frequently propagandizing for their version's unsubstantiated "official" status. This is entirely at odds with the ethic of Wikipedia which calls for balance as well as a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:1C66:3ABF:A680:B0AE (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

>>For better communication I have created an account with the user name Sakuranohi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuranohi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

>> Dispute resolution notice opened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuranohi (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What about these independent secondary sources?

1. http://www.jimslaughter.com/roberts-rules-of-order.cfm

2. http://www.dummies.com/careers/business-skills/what-are-roberts-rules-of-order/

3. https://jurassicparliament.com/which-roberts-rules-should-i-buy/

Ronruser (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

>> According to your Dummies link, "The Robert’s Rules Association, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians recognize Robert‘s Rules of Order Newly Revised as the authoritative work on parliamentary procedure whenever Robert’s Rules is designated as the parliamentary authority." I'm much more comfortable with this language than I am with your unfounded claims of "official" and "authorized", though you have indeed found two sources willing to use those words. There's the further issue of the extensive bias in the article, which focuses only on RONR to the exclusion of the other works. In addition to the other versions of the Rules, there are numerous guides and shorter versions that deserve attention. RONR is indeed regarded by many as the authoritative doorstopper, but it is not the only Robert's Rules in use, and is not synonymous with Robert's Rules of Order.Sakuranohi (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that the authors of the extensive library of Robert's Rules works would strongly disagree with the characterization that RONR is the one true version and they have nothing to offer. In any case the core set of parliamentary rules described by General Robert have changed little since his time. The great expansion in size to RONR is largely a reflection of expanded subject matter. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The neutrality of the Roberts Rules Association and this article are further belied by their description of their abbreviated version, RONR In Brief. "The In Brief book is the only authorized concise guide for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and is intended as an introductory book for those unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. The authors say, "In only twenty minutes, the average reader can learn the bare essentials, and with about an hour's reading can cover all the basics." What they don't say is why they are claiming an official brief version when there are so many others to choose from which are suitable as an "introductory book for those unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure", and even they don't claim their own version to be authoritative. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The Official Owner of Robert's Rules of Order is the Copyright Holder. Produce the copyright and we can stop talking. But the Robert's Rules Association doesn't have one, only a copyright to RONR. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your comments in the Request for Comments section:

The need for a formally designated version of Robert's Rules is addressed by the Robert's Rules Association, editors of RONR, here: http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html. Calling for "Robert's Rules" is insufficient specificity when there are so many versions, which is why an authority such as RONR must be specifically adopted. The Wikipedia article doesn't address the need for a specific authority to be officially adopted, confusing Robert's Rules with RONR, a mistake the RRA website doesn't make. The cited sources are not representative, omitting the large universe of sources that reference RONR and other publications without these unsupportable or unsupported claims.

Specifically, Nancy Sylvester states states that "If the bylaws of an organization state that the organization’s parliamentary authority is “the current edition of” Robert’s, then the 11th edition is now that organization’s parliamentary authority. It is also the parliamentary authority for organizations whose bylaws establish Robert’s Rules of Order, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, and Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised." This is really bad information. As the above RobertsRules.com page makes clear, the authority should be indicated as the "current edition of RONR" in order to designate RONR, since there are multiple versions of Robert's Rules. The incorrect information reflects badly on the author and is potentially harmful to anyone relying on the claim. Sakuranohi (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The author of Dummies states "The Robert’s Rules Association, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians recognize Robert‘s Rules of Order Newly Revised as the authoritative work on parliamentary procedure whenever Robert’s Rules is designated as the parliamentary authority." This statement at least doesn't go so far as to make the wrong claim that Sylvester makes, but it's bad form to quote the RRA as an authority on their own book, and the other claims are not supported. Again, if you provide actual support from the NAP and AIP for this claim, I won't object to using it, but please provide a direct source.

Slaughter, your first author, claims official status for RONR, while the RRA properly states that RONR has to be specifically cited as an organization's authority (implicitly acknowledging that the claimed "official status" lacks practical meaning). Sakuranohi (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Two additional authors for consideration:

Doris P. Zimmerman, the author of Robert's Rules in Plain English, "is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and a member of the NAP and the AIP." She writes, "[The book] is the distilled knowledge of twenty years experience as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. [It] is written for the busy layman who does not have time to wade through the 643 pages of RONR. Only the essential rules and motions needed to prevent meetings from going astray are presented."

Darwin Patnode, Ph.D, the author of Robert's Rules of Order, the Modern Edition, "is a past president of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, a Certified Professional Parliamentarian, and a Professional Registered Parliamentarian." He writes, "when an organization's bylaws designate as parliamentary authority Robert's Rules of Order without specifying an edition, there can easily be disagreement as to what a particular rule says, not only because several different printings contain somewhat different rules, but also because Robert was not always perfectly clear or consistent within a given printing. An organization wishing to follow the spirit of the original rules of Henry M. Robert but needing a definitive printing for reference would do well to adopt as its parliamentary authority the Modern Edition of Robert's Rules of Order." Sakuranohi (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Darwin Patnode also published a book in 2008, "Teaching Parliamentary Procedure, 3rd Edition" (https://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Parliamentary-Procedure-Darwin-Patnode/dp/0741450887/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464401044&sr=1-1&keywords=teaching+parliamentary+procedure). On page 6, he writes:

1. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), now in its tenth edition. This book is the most popular and best parliamentary manual in the United States. For most full-length courses at the basic or intermediate level, it is the best textbook. Approximately ninety percent of American organizations use it as the parliamentary authority.

On page 9, he writes:

Other possible textbooks are Robert's Rules for Dummies by C. Alan Jennings and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules by Nancy Sylvester.

Ronruser (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree on some points. For full-length courses, RONR should certainly be used. I'm not sure if Patnode is aware of Sylvester's erroneous statement that I quoted, but I wouldn't recommend her book. The authorities I've mentioned are more appropriate for smaller and less formal organizations that don't have the wherewithal to undertake the study of RONR. As I'm sure you're aware, there are many organizations that claim to use RONR but actually have little mastery of it. Organizations like that may be better served by briefer authorities. Can you acknowledge that?

Where does the 90% usage figure come from? (85% according to Slaughter, IIRC) Sakuranohi (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In his "Teaching Parliamentary Procedure" book, Patnode refers to RONR, the RONR In Brief book, the Dummies book, and the Idiot's book. No other Robert's Rules book is specified. Ronruser (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Of those, only RONR is an authority. The others are guidebooks. He wasn't disavowing his own work. Do you think Patnode's "Modern Edition" book is a legitimate Robert's Rules authority? Sakuranohi (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there someone else who has written about it? Ronruser (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Here are some citations. Many or most indicate the volume as the authority for an organization. Two use it as a college text.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Who_is_a_presiding_minister.pdf

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1024&context=law_and_economics

https://s3.amazonaws.com/bhpub/edoc/DOC-Church-Officer-Committee-Guidebook.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1FAF154W9TVZ6M3REZG2&Expires=2088695591&Signature=LK0FBrzhVXNmlgfL7nUBEt0slkI%3D

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=facpub

http://www.havasugoldseekers.com/constitution-bylaws/

http://www.neahead.org/constitution.html

https://www.grinnell.edu/about/offices-services/ombuds/resources

https://www.wesleyan.org/d/3IDCeXP/August-2016--Kingswood--Leadership-Mgmt--Elliott.pdf

https://members.nationalexchangeclub.org/sites/default/files/attachements/Roberts%20Rules%20copy.pdf “Superior in usability”

https://bsbproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/portals/1034/docs/ssc%20constitution.pdf

https://conbio.org/images/content_groups/FreshWater/FreshwaterWorkingGroupBylaws.pdf

https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/inf/E-CoP16i-01.pdf

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Syl/212Syllabus.htm Required reading for college political science class: “American Policy System”. Darwin Patnode, Robert's Rules, Modern Edition. "Much more readable and smarter version of the classic rules of debate, valuable for policy debates and for student leadership in clubs and student government."

Sakuranohi (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What do parliamentarians say about this book and its usage? Ronruser (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Patnode is obviously highly respected. You've quoted him yourself. Plenty of groups have adopted his book as their authority, in the manner directed by the RRA. Is Modern Edition a legitimate authority or not? Sakuranohi (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Patnode said that about 90% of organizations use RONR. He didn't mention his book as a tool for teaching parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

>> His book is not a teaching aid. It's a shorter authority, an updated version of Robert's 1876 edition. He recognizes that for a full-length course, RONR is the better authority. The book is used by organizations that want to use a shorter Robert's Rules authority, and run their meetings without taking a full-length course.

What do you consider to be the purpose of Patnode's book, if it's not to serve as a parliamentary authority? If you agree that that's the purpose, on what grounds are you challenging the legitimacy? Again, in his own words, "An organization wishing to follow the spirit of the original rules of Henry M. Robert but needing a definitive printing for reference would do well to adopt as its parliamentary authority the Modern Edition of Robert's Rules of Order." Sakuranohi (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The authors of RONR are all respected parliamentarians who have experience with parliamentary procedure outside of their work on RONR. The statements in RONR are supported by secondary sources who are also highly credentialed, professional parliamentarians. What do other parliamentarians say about Patnode's book? Ronruser (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's do this a little differently, since you don't want to answer the question directly. Is Robert's Rules Revised by Henry M. Robert (1915) a legitimate parliamentary authority? Sakuranohi (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no question that Patnode is a respected parliamentarian. After all he was voted president of the AIP, and Modern Edition is not his only widely used parliamentary publication. I have not been able to find comment by professional parliamentarians about Modern Edition, but it has been a top seller for decades and is in significant use as an authority, as recommended by the author. You seem to suggest, without coming out and saying so, that his book lacks legitimacy without acclamation from other professionals. I have presented counterargument, which you haven't responded to. So I have attempted to approach the matter of legitimacy from a different angle: is it possible to use any Robert's Rules authority, even one by the Master himself, to run a meeting legitimately, other than RONR 11? Crickets. Sakuranohi (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, Robert's Rules itself clearly states that it is up to the organization to select an authority, they have every right to do so, and since Robert's Rules is public domain, an organization may select the original version or update of its choosing. Sakuranohi (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Robert's Rules for Dummies:

If I've accomplished my goals for this book, then you can keep Robert's Rules for Dummies handy and use it as it were your own personal consulting parliamentarian. But it comes with a very important caveat: When you need to make a point in a meeting, be prepared to cite the real Robert's Rules. That is, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th edition).

The author is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and current member of the Parliamentary Research Committee for the National Parliamentarian. Why would he make such a statement? Shouldn't he be aware of Patnode's book? Why would Patnode recommend the Dummies book with this statement in it? Ronruser (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Because he's either unaware of the phrasing, or he was willing to overlook it. This is getting very tedious. Why don't you address any of my points? Sakuranohi (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

>> You can't even bring yourself to say whether or not ROR (Robert's Rules of Order Revised) is a legitimate authority. Ridiculous. Sakuranohi (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Nancy Sylvester wrote:

If the bylaws of an organization state that the organization’s parliamentary authority is “the current edition of” Robert’s, then the 11th edition is now that organization’s parliamentary authority. It is also the parliamentary authority for organizations whose bylaws establish Robert’s Rules of Order, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, and Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

Nancy Sylvester is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and had served two full terms as the Parliamentarian for the National Association of Parliamentarians. That means that at meetings of their organization, which is made up of parliamentarians, she served as the parliamentarian for those meetings and the president of the organization would look to her for advice on matters of parliamentary procedure. Wouldn't someone with those credentials know what is Robert's Rules? Ronruser (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Apparently not. You think you (or she) can just claim whatever you like, with no basis, and it will be accepted as fact? What is the basis of her claim? It's a simple question, but of course you won't answer. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> If an organization adopts in its bylaws that ROR is their parliamentary authority, who is Nancy Sylvester to say it isn't? It's not consistent with ROR, and it probably isn't consistent with the law. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> RONR specifies that the most current edition of RONR should be used. So does RONR in Brief, about RONR. So you would be following the instructions of the authority by using the latest version. There is no such instruction in ROR or any of Robert's original publications stating that RONR of any flavor is the authority, and it's wildly presumptuous for anyone to claim otherwise. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> With this statement, Nancy Sylvester is essentially trying to rob the rights to Robert's Rules of Order from the public domain. Robert's Rules is public domain, and RONR can't have it, as much as Nancy Sylvester and the RRA may wish it and falsely claim it. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Patnode is a former president of the AIP. He says that Modern Edition is a perfectly good authority. He outranks Sylvester, so he is ipso facto correct and Sylvester is wrong. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does Patnode recommend RONR, RONR In Brief, the Dummies book by Jennings, and the Idiot's book by Sylvester as teaching aids when they all contain similar statements about what is Robert's Rules? Doesn't he want students to have the correct information? Ronruser (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

>> I can't speculate on his motives any more than I can speculate on the motives of those making false statements. What is the basis of the claim that an organization that adopts ROR as its authority has adopted RONR? It's a simple question. It's at the core of our disagreement. It's at the heart of this article, but you won't answer. Sakuranohi (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

>> This is what General Henry M. Robert had to say on the subject, in ROR (1915). "Societies should, therefore, adopt some generally accepted rules of order, or parliamentary manual, as their authority, and then adopt only such special rules of order as are needed to supplement their parliamentary authority. Every society, in its by-laws or rules of order, should adopt a rule like this: "The rules contained in [specifying the work on parliamentary practice] shall govern the society in all cases to which they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with the by-laws or the special rules of order of this society." You are saying that Gen. Robert's statement is wrong. I'm sure it would be a surprise to him that an organization adopting his work as a parliamentary authority has actually adopted some other book, and, contrary to his text, are NOT governed by the rules of their designated authority. Sakuranohi (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did Robert revise his books? Did he plan a future revision? Did he want his family to continue his work?

In 1971, an official re-printing was made of Robert's Rules of Order Revised in paperback form. Here is a quote from the foreword:

This edition of Robert's Rules of Order Revised has been made by direct photographic reproduction from the 1915 edition, keeping the same pagination so that all page references to the 1915 edition apply equally to this book.

A more fully explicated statement of these rules will be found in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1970).

Henry M. Robert III

Chief Advisory Editor

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised

>> A forward written in 1971 is not germane to the text that I have quoted from 1915. Besides, it doesn't claim that an organization that adopts ROR as its authority has adopted RONR, only that a different book expands on ROR. So it is doubly irrelevant. Robert's text is crystal clear. Please speak to it.

>> What is the basis of the claim that an organization that adopts ROR as its authority has adopted RONR? It's a simple question. You have written extensively about parliamentary law. Surely you can answer this simple question. What was Gen. Robert's error when he wrote in ROR that the authority which is adopted is the authority that governs? Sakuranohi (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

>> Here's a proposal: Since we have two conflicting sources on the matter, why don't we just include both? We'll quote Gen. Robert's position on the matter, and then we'll quote Nancy Sylvester's. Sakuranohi (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no conflict. Here is Henry Robert's position on the matter followed by Nancy Sylvester's position:

Henry Robert wanted organizations to specify a set of rules to follow. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is Robert's Rules. If organizations specify Robert's Rules, then today, they are following the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Ronruser (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok you are clearly not discussing in good faith. Sakuranohi (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (you may have heard of it), "If the [organization's] bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of 'Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'". Even RONR doesn't claim that an organization that specifies ROR is specifying RONR. You ought to take a look. Sakuranohi (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

New York Times source

I would like to discuss the latest edit to the article. The phrase "in order to maintain copyright" was added to "Complete reworking of the book" in the box for the 7th edition under the section, "Changes between editions". Then the following citation was added: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Donadio-t.html?ref=books. It seems to be appropriately cited with the source saying, "In order to maintain the copyright, the committee rewrote almost the entire book, enlarging it more than twofold and adding explanatory material." This source also makes these statements:

"Although the name “Robert’s Rules” passed into the public domain in the 1990s — prompting a wave of knockoffs like “Robert’s Rules in Plain English” and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Robert’s Rules” — the original content remains under copyright and is a perennial strong seller."

"The original set of rules is still controlled by descendants of Brig. Gen. Henry Robert"

"The most significant revision of Robert’s Rules, however, was the seventh edition, published in 1970."

It seems that this source addresses some of the questions brought up previously in the above discussions. Ronruser (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1970 original content is under copyright. The copyrights on the original Henry Robert works have lapsed, and those books and their reworkings are also strong perennial sellers. I certainly agree that the 1970 revision was a major revision. The NY Times article obviously has flaws. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with my minor contribution. I thought it was clear and uncontroversial. But if you want to remove it in light of the article's inaccuracies, I don't mind. We have more important issues. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1970 edition is the seventh edition. Is there disagreement with this statement? Ronruser (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Lede

Which of the following sentences should be included in the lede paragraph of the article concerning the status of Robert’s Rules of Order? Please provide your !votes in the Survey. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is regarded by experts to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

B. The original works by Henry Robert are now in the public domain, and remain in use. There are a number of updated versions of Robert's Rules, including Robert's Rules of Order Modern Edition and Robert's Rules of Order in Plain English, which have been composed to provide a more accessible manual of meeting rules. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a reference work of over 700 pages, is widely considered to be the most authoritative version, but draws criticism for being difficult to use. All sources agree that adoption of a specific chosen authority for meeting rules should be formalized by the organization using them.

Survey

C - neither The assertion of 'most authritative' or that 'all sources' agree is not supported in the article and not appropriate as a WP:LEAD summary of the article. Also the phrasing "work on Roberts Rules" would be to something like a review of the book and not the book itself. I think the start of 'B' does reasonably in summarizing up to that point. Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I want to review what sources have said:

1. http://www.jimslaughter.com/roberts-rules-of-order.cfm As noted on the website, the article is excerpted from the following book: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Parliamentary-Procedure-Fast-Track/dp/161564220X/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521870365&sr=1-11&keywords=parliamentary+procedure The excerpt containing a statement on the book could be found on page 3.

2. http://www.dummies.com/careers/business-skills/what-are-roberts-rules-of-order/ The author of this article also wrote the "For Dummies" book: https://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Dummies-Alan-Jennings/dp/1119241715/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1119241715&pd_rd_r=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH&pd_rd_w=3BFd7&pd_rd_wg=WToWN&psc=1&refRID=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH On page 2, the author makes a strong statement about the book.

3. https://www.nancysylvester.com/articles-scripts and the article, "The New Version of Robert's and Why You Should Care", which is a link to this: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/671d4f_2d064ad497c94168abca4131f8803ab3.pdf

I also want to consider the credentials of the authors: http://www.jimslaughter.com/credentials.cfm, http://www.alanjennings.com/?page_id=68, https://www.nancysylvester.com/about Ronruser (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Point of order: This discussion section is for independent editors to weigh in. Please use the standard talk space above, continuing our previous exchange. I will reply to your comments there. Sakuranohi (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see talk section above for dialogue, especially at the end, indicating that (in my opinion) Ronruser is not engaging in good faith, but rather is seeking to promote a particular copyrighted book at the expense of the public domain and other copyrighted versions, even to the extent of misrepresenting Gen. Robert himself. Sakuranohi (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion of not acting in good faith. I also would like others to read what was written above. I have provided reliable, independent secondary sources which clearly indicate the status of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. These authors are prominent experts and hold the highest possible credentials in their field. So far, I have not seen a viewpoint challenging these authors to be written anywhere (except this Wikipedia talk page). I believe that such a viewpoint is original research. Ronruser (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have provided contrary sources. I won't rehash them here. No source is higher than Gen. Robert himself, who has been deliberately misrepresented by Ronruser. Be skeptical of anyone claiming control of public domain works. Sakuranohi (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think review of the provided sources supports my belief that it is original research. Ronruser (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, and offensive, to claim that the highly qualified authors, even General Robert himself, who have produced the works that you disfavor have no claim to legitimacy. Who do you think you are, to misrepresent and invalidate the work of Gen. Robert? Sakuranohi (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think these authors are being misrepresented by suggesting that they have an opposing point of view. Ronruser (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sylvester is contradicted by RONR itself: "If the [organization's] bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of 'Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'". Sakuranohi (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are original research, and while they might be interesting in a blog, they've taken up enough of this talk page. Let's move on. Jonathunder (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment @Jonathunder:. Your position is with @Ronruser: that "Robert's Rules of Order" refers to Robert's Rules Newly Revised (RONR), and not to the public domain works, and the strong-selling copyrighted works from other authors?

I'm not taking a position and that's not what this talk page is for. This is not a debate society. Jonathunder (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're much more experienced at this than I am. But I have seen debates in this space on other pages, and I don't really know how the conversation can be advanced without people taking positions. I'm trying to improve serious problems I see in the article. Appreciate your contributions. Sakuranohi (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your survey comment @Markbassett:. Any chance you could propose suitable revised language to describe RONR for the lede? Sakuranohi (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sakuanohi - I would suggest replace the last two lines of B, either with the simple line of lead ‘the 11th and current version was published in 2011’ or the line from Contents of current ‘The contents of the current (11th) edition of....’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to go with the suggestion of the independent editorial proposal. @Ronruser: Can we agree on consensus with this proposal, or do we need to move on to the next stage of dispute resolution? Sakuranohi (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like input from more editors. Ronruser (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So would I, but it's been a month already, with almost two months of discussion, and you're still making the outrageous claim that Robert's Rules of Order is the same as RONR. Sakuranohi (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what sources say. All else is original research. Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: This link shows the results of a search on Amazon for Robert's Rules of Order. As you can see there are numerous titles that have nothing to do with RONR. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/131-5696868-7572158?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert%27s+rules+of+order These works are dismissed with two short sentences, not mentioning any of them by name, in the Wikipedia article. Sakuranohi (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

According to this link, "The Robert copyright expired long ago, so there are copycat parliamentary guides that now use parts of the title, and some of the original ideas. So when there is a reference to following Robert’s Rules – as in “(l)et’s follow Robert’s Rules of Order” or “(o)ur bylaws require us to abide by Robert’s Rules” – there is legitimate ambiguity." https://www.forpurposelaw.com/robert-nonprofits-follow-rules-order/ Sakuranohi (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Darwin Patnode, Ph.D, the author of Robert's Rules of Order, the Modern Edition, "is a past president of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, a Certified Professional Parliamentarian, and a Professional Registered Parliamentarian." He writes, "when an organization's bylaws designate as parliamentary authority Robert's Rules of Order without specifying an edition, there can easily be disagreement as to what a particular rule says, not only because several different printings contain somewhat different rules, but also because Robert was not always perfectly clear or consistent within a given printing." Sakuranohi (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

RONR itself: "If the [organization's] bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of 'Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'".

Henry Robert (Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, 1915): "Every society, in its by-laws or rules of order, should adopt a rule like this: "The rules contained in [specifying the work on parliamentary practice] shall govern the society in all cases to which they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with the by-laws or the special rules of order of this society."" Sakuranohi (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But Ronruser quotes Nancy Sylvester: "If the bylaws of an organization state that the organization’s parliamentary authority is “the current edition of” Robert’s, then the 11th edition is now that organization’s parliamentary authority. It is also the parliamentary authority for organizations whose bylaws establish Robert’s Rules of Order, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, and Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised." This position is at odds with with forpurposelaw.com, Dr. Patnode, RONR as quoted above, Henry Robert, and the plain language of numerous organizational bylaws that I could produce. If Nancy Sylvester says that an orange is a grape, it's still an orange. Sakuranohi (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder, thank you for your engagement with this. Sakuranohi (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This article may be of use: WP:SYNTHESIS. Ronruser (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no synthesis, there are just two incompatible positions. Sakuranohi (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the article here, not editors, and do not make ad hominem attacks. Jonathunder (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the offending language. @Jonathunder, you have stated that my arguments are original research. I have organized the sources above. Do you still feel that they constitute original research? If so, I'd appreciate a specific explanation.

The Robert's Rules article needs to be reconstituted, with most of the current article going to a new article about RONR. As the first sentence indicates, this article is about RONR, not Robert's Rules. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Reconstituting" or Splitting

User:Sakuranohi - If you think that the article needs to be "reconstituted", or split into two articles, please resume the discussion here rather than on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the article

To avoid confusion between the numerous versions of Robert's Rules, I propose moving the content from this article which is specific to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) to a new article, with this article focusing on the history, function, and publications related to Robert's Rules of Order by Henry M. Robert.

I propose the following ledes for the two articles:

Sakuranohi (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert’s Rules of Order:

Robert’s Rules of Order (or simply Robert’s Rules), is the most widely used manual of parliamentary procedure in the United States.[1] It governs the meetings of a diverse range of organizations—including church groups, county commissions, homeowners associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, and trade unions—that have adopted it as their parliamentary authority.[2]

The manual was first published in 1876 by U.S. Army officer Henry Martyn Robert, who adapted the rules and practice of Congress to the needs of non-legislative societies. Robert published two revised editions under the original title, “Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies: Robert's Rules of Order”, followed by a thorough revision in 1915, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised (ROR). These books are now in the public domain, and remain popular. Other authors have published a number of newly revised works based on them.

Robert’s heirs have also published a series of revised works. The current work in this series, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), was first published in 1970 by the Robert’s Rules Association (RRA). The current 11th Edition is considered the most authoritative and widely used version of Robert’s Rules, but at over 700 pages is difficult to master. For this reason, the RRA has also published the short guide, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief (first publication 2005).

Because there are so many versions of Robert’s Rules in use, there can be confusion of which is the controlling version in a meeting. In addition, of the many Robert’s Rules publications, some are intended to be authorities for meetings, while others are only intended to be guides. All versions of Robert’s Rules of Order recommend that an organization adopt in their bylaws a specific authority for parliamentary procedure.

Sakuranohi (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised:

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) is the most authoritative and widely used version of Robert’s Rules of Order, the widely used manual of parliamentary procedure. RONR was first published in 1970 as the 7th Edition of the original publication by Henry M. Robert, which is now in the public domain. The current version of RONR was published in 2011, as the 11th Edition. The copyright to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is owned by the Robert's Rules Association, which selects by contract an authorship team to continue the task of revising and updating the book.

In 2005, the Robert's Rules Association published an official concise guide, titled Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief. A second edition of the brief book was published in 2011.

Sakuranohi (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Saying "claims status" suggests that there may be doubt on whether the 1970 edition is the 7th edition. Are there reliable sources which have expressed such doubt? Ronruser (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RONR is a new title. The language indicates such, and is not questioning the claim. Sakuranohi (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It was a major revision, not a new title. I don't see a need to fork the article. Jonathunder (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, it goes under a new name, and all of its editions are known as RONR (c.f. "Ronruser"), not RRO or ROR. There is also the obvious copyright issue which is addressed so poorly in the current article. How do you propose handling the identity issue of the name "Robert's Rules of Order" and the public domain and other derivative works that carry the name? Sakuranohi (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There's already a section dealing with the public domain status of some of the early editions and derivatives of those. Jonathunder (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in a trivial, dismissive way. The article itself, right in the lede, announces that it's about RONR, not Robert's Rules, and makes no mention of the very important fact that Robert's Rules is in the public domain, while rattling on about the RONR copyright. What exactly is the point of that? Sakuranohi (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So if you guys think the article should be about RONR, then let's call it RONR, and let Robert's Rules have its own article. The public domain and non-RONR derivatives are worthy of balanced and respectful consideration by Wikipedia. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is on Robert's Rules. The 7th edition of Robert's Rules is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Ronruser (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the article says that it's about RONR, right in the first sentence. Sakuranohi (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The article plainly says that it's about RONR, not Robert's Rules. There are many other titles that are also Robert's Rules. For example, Robert's Rules of Order is Robert's Rules, and Robert's Rules of Order, Modern Edition is Robert's Rules. So let's discuss how best to develop the two articles. I appreciate your input on the "status" phrase. Sakuranohi (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers the various versions of Robert's Rules, the newest several of which are known as RONR. I don't see enough to material at this stage of development to have multiple articles. Perhaps if expanded. Jonathunder (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have two primary issues with the article. The lack of fair coverage with regard to public domain and other publications is relatively easy to address with a new or expanded section. I will propose modifications / expanded text as you suggest, and a list of issues with other sections to make them more balanced. But the part of the article that I find especially egregious is the lede, which is about RONR and its ownership, rather than being about Robert's Rules as a complex body of work with multiple strands and an important public domain component. I will work on expanded text preparatory to splitting. Sakuranohi (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to provide reliable sources which directly cover what is proposed. Ronruser (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder, can't you find common ground with any of the points I have made? Sakuranohi (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing the words "it claims status" if that's preferable, with appropriate grammatical correction. I'll make the change. Sakuranohi (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW there are similar issues related to the article on Webster's Dictionary, which may be instructive to review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Webster%27s_Dictionary Sakuranohi (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a completely different situation. "Webster" became generic generations ago. Jonathunder (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What "parliamentary rules of order" are standard/dominant outside of the United States?

In the rest of the English-speaking world? In non-English speaking countries? (The only thing that I've found is the Canadian French Morin code - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Morin -; neither article has any references.) Is North America so peculiar that such standards only exist in North America? Acwilson9 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)