Talk:Standing order

Eleven General Orders (U.S. Military)
This was inserted in the middle of the article in a most disjointed manner. I split this off into it's own section with heading (along with some minor style cleanup (changed to proper ordered list, etc). I think eventually, this should become it's own article. Bhuston 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Standing order (Military)
This article should be moved to Standing order (Military) and the content of Standing orders (a disambig page) should be moved here. Then the plural form should be redirected to the singular form. -- Emana 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. There is no reason to talk in detail about military issues, and there is no reason at all to explain details of standing orders of one national army in the world. The focus on the military is seriously misleading; it suggests that standing orders are a particularly military thing, which they are most definitely not (they are pretty important in parliamentary prodecure). -- Cyprinius

Given the brevity of this article and General order, and the similarity in topic, it seems to me a better idea to merge these two. I have proposed this and directed the discussion to the General order talk page. Supporting or opposing views welcome. Euryalus 06:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on police issues
The section on Police directives has been flagged as POV for some months. I agree that it may lack neutrality but more importantly it is unrelated to this topic.

The protections outlined in this section are either constitutional or enshrined in legislation. They are not "standing orders" in this sense of the word - they are generally the law. They also generally apply only in certain countries, which makes this material a little specific for an article of this type.

On the basis that this material is not relevant to this topic, I have gone ahead and removed it. As always I would welcome a discussion here if there are opposing views. Euryalus 06:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)