Talk:Administrative Review Board

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Definition [?]
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Politics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English
To do.

Metadata here

Fountain pen.png
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of this version, barring a couple of typo fixes.
George Swan 17:01, 21 November 2007 (CST)


This article should probably be at plain old Administrative Review Board, no? J. Noel Chiappa 10:03, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

This article is based on the version at another big wiki, up to the point where I was no longer the sole contributor. That other article was named plain old Administrative Review Board.
And then someone created a stub, for another Administrative Review Board. They renamed the existing article and gave Administrative Review Board (Labor) the top billing.
At that point hundreds of articles linked to the OARDEC Board under the name Administrative Review Board, and they now all pointed to the wrong place. Cleaning up after this was a big headache. I decided it had been a mistake to give the article I started a name that wasn't already disambiguated.
I have no objection to a change to plain old Administrative Review Board, so long as someone else commits to the cleanup if there is a name collision.
Cheers! George Swan 12:27, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
I guess I'll do it then. I need the practice anyways :) John Dvorak 16:23, 26 April 2008 (CDT)
Wohoo! All seems successful. I'm getting better at this cleanup. John Dvorak 16:27, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Sourcing needed

If "human rights workers" claimed something, the identity of the workers and the source of the cite is clearly neeeded.

How current is this? Should it be merged into a historical policy article and deleted if no longer operative?

This reads as if it is current policy. To what extent has this been superceded by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the rulings of Susan Crawford, and the directives of the Obama Administration? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)