Talk:Blue-ribbon committee

Implication?
"The designation "blue-ribbon" is often made by the appointing authority, and may be disputed by others who might see the panel as less independent, or as a way for an authority to dodge responsibility.

Recent examples of high-level so-called blue-ribbon panels in the United States would be the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy Assassination, the 9/11 Commission investigation the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Iraq Study Group assessing the Iraq War and the Clinton Administration's panel on health care reform. In each case, the panel did not have authority to indict or legislate, and their brief was to investigate and issue a report on the facts as they found them with recommendations for changes for government policy in the future."

Is there an implication underneath these two paragraphs? It seems as though the given examples are being portrayed as blue-ribbon panels that are some of the less independent panels or were ways for an authority to dodge responibility. Perhaps the illusion of an unbiased view is created by calling them 'so-called' and the author hadn't intended to imply anything. JapserHarris (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-US use?
I've not heard this term used on contexts other than the US. It's certainly not used in the UK. Is there any other country in which this term is used? If it isn't, the article should clarify its US-only status. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree on adding a note to provide cultural context. This is an American term and we don't even use it here in Canada. Gsenechal (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)