Jump to content

Talk:Administrative Review Board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I left a note on the talk page of the guy who applied the cleanup tag, asking them to explain why they placed the tag. -- Geo Swan 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup tag

[edit]

Disambiguation is needed: Administrative Review Board can also refer to a US Dept of Labor Board: http://www.dol.gov/arb/welcome.html Administrative Review Board (Labor) Being a (relatively) new wikipedian, i'm not sure how to go about doing this other than creating a stub for the ARB. (In fact, i'm not even sure i've put this comment in quite the right place either...) Clemwang 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that disambiguation was needed -- here at least.
Instead of changing [[Administrative Review Board]] to [[Administrative Review Board (military)]] a [[Administrative Review Board (disambiguation)]] should have been created, to point to any other Administrative Review Boards with significant numbers of links.
Note: Almost four hundred of the links to Administrative Review Board refer to the Guantanamo ARB. While there were only two links to the previously nonexistent Labor page. Note: Administrative Review Board (Labor) is just a stub, with no meaningful information.
I think discussing a move of the widely linked Administrative Review Board would have made more sense, after the Labor ARB article was more than a stub, and had more than two links.
The difficulty now is that anyone can move an article to a new name, but only an administrator can delete an article.
There are automated tools, that allow for the semi-automatic editing of articles, which would reduce the work of changing all the references to [[Administrative Review Board]] to [[Administrative Review Board (military)|Administrative Review Board]]. But, I don't know how to use them. Without using them, changing all the references would be more than an entire day's work.
So, I moved the current disambiguation page to [[Administrative Review Board (disambiguation)]]. That left a [[Administrative Review Board]] that was a redirect to [[Administrative Review Board (disambiguation)]]. I changed it to point to [[Administrative Review Board (military)]].
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert the things to the previous state (i.e. move the Guantanamo ARB to the main ARB article and add link to the labor one at the top). Guantanamo ARB seems to be, at least in Wikipedia, the primary use. No prejudice against repeated Requested Move; however, 2-item dab pages are normally avoided, as the top-page dab links ({{for}}) suffice. Geo Swan, you can apply for AWB download here if you want to get hold of that tool; I use it myself for boring jobs such as fixing dab links. Regards. Duja► 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

All CSRT and ARB pdf links on dod.mil are now dead

I don't know when this happened, but the URL directory tree was changed from www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees to www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee. As an example, Mohamed Jawad's CSRT testimony used to be at: foi/detainees/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33

Now the URL is: foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33

I would think that a bot could be constructed to fix this. Anybody know how? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSRT and ARB use in articles

[edit]

From the time that they were released starting in 2005, documents on Guantanamo detainees have been very important - and controversial - sources. I'd like to start two discussions about their use in articles on detainees. The first, under this heading, could be a broad discussion about how and when CSRT and ARB should be used as sources.

The only point I'll make initially is that it is now six years since the first documents were released. While at one time, these documents were the only public information available about most of the detainees, the situation has changed dramatically since then. Besides the many released detainees, who are now available for news sources to cover, journalist have used the release of names and basic details of all the detainees to track down more information about them. I hope that all of you know about Andy Worthington's work in this regard. But the more notable detainees have had news coverage published about them. Thus, the CSRT and ARB information has become less important over time.

I'm sure there are discussions already out there somewhere that deal with this subject directly. Please post links to them here if you know where they are. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSRT and ARB articles, templates, and use of templates in detainee articles

[edit]

My second discussion topic is more technical in nature. First, the CSRT and ARB articles haven't got much attention lately. They could use a review. Second, the templates for CSRT and ARB's are in the same state. Third, how should these templates be used in detainee articles?

Years ago for most detainees, the CSRT and ARB was the only information available. At that time, it made sense to develop a long template to be used in articles that explained what they were and provided a form to fill in the basics from the hearings. Now, it doesn't make much sense to do so, in my opinion. Sometimes, just a Main article template to CSRT or ARB would suffice and information contained in those documents can come from news reports. The two different approaches are exemplified in Mohamed Jawad#Combatant Status Review (which I'm currently working on) and Omar Khadr#Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri#Combatant Status Review. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Administrative Review Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Administrative Review Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Administrative Review Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Administrative_Review_Board&oldid=1204540435"