Talk:Executive Order 11110

message: Why was the conversation here archived? It was only a couple of pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.2.236 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the conversations were about issues that have been resolved. So I archived them to get a fresh start in light of the fact that the article has been significantly expanded and improved. --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived?

message: The entire Background section is copied. The original copyrighted text located is here: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html
Apart of the copyright violation, the source website is not written in the neutral voice, it has a clear agenda to refute some cliams, and it states a clear POV. While trying to refute the claims of Jim Marrs, the source website expresses justp the opinion of the writer of publiceye.org. John Hyams (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a bit (week or more), but I'll see if I can rework parts of that section.  I had brought that up before (see the last section in the archives), but didn't really make major changes or double-check later, and should have.  Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Despite Dr. Edward Flaherty's POV, all of his factual claims are based on  G. Thomas Woodward's Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality - CRS Report for Congress, No. 96-672 E. --Loremaster (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Dr. Flaherty mentions Public Law 86-36. Does anyone have a reliable link to this? He says it was passed in 1963, and the only thing I found about P.L. 86-36 was an NSA act passed in 1959. http://intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1959.htm 216.183.70.13 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: What I find interesting is that Congress needed a special report telling them what the Federal Reserve really is, meaning that the people in Congress themselves didn't exactly/already know what's the status of the Federal Reserve and who owns/manages it. They needed a report to refute a conspiracy theory? They actually didn't know what the Federal Reserve is?... It's like sending to Congress a report explaining what the position of the President really means, or what one of their own laws really mean. Very strange in my view. John Hyams (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In many countries, politicians and political scientists are continuoulsy debating the extent of the role, powers and limits of an institution in light of the vagueness or silence of the constitution, admendments, and laws on some issues. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But not to refute some conspiracy theories, unless they themselves (Congress) suspect such theories may be true. John Hyams (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything is possible since we do have some lunatics in Congress (Michele Bachmann being the best example). ;) However, I think you are reading too much into what is simply a case of much needed mythbusting because, as political scientist Micheal Barkun warns, if we ignore the existence of virulent conspiracy theories and do not argue against them, there is a real risk of them breaking out of their intellectual and political ghetto, and becoming capable of challenging the premises of public life in the United States... --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It is the most reliabe source we can use for this article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a way to re-add the source. --Loremaster (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Background" section

message: How is the conspiracy theory debunked?  There is no summary, and not even a link, just the claim that it is a dubunked.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.43.245 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a good point. I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally unclear article

message: I reverted a series of changes this morning that altered the revocation section and added a few references.  The changes include some weasel words ("Some...") about the revocation and add some incorrect information about Reagan's .  It also mentions  - I haven't looked into those statements, but with the rest of the information being wrong I just did a blanket reversion.
To the IP, you are incorrect about the effects of 12608.  It does not mention 11110, which is correct.  11110, however, modified the existing  by added a new sub-paragraph (j) to 10289.  Reagan's 12608 revoked that subpara, which effectively revoked all changes made by 11110.  Your claim about it not mentioning the section added by 11110 is false.  If you view the text of the order and search for 10289 you'll see it specifically revokes section 1(j), the section added by 11110.  
This information is in the article, and all information I've linked is either in Wikipedia or is linked from the Wikipedia article, plus is available in the talk archives of this page.  It seems we need to make this point again, hence my talk page post.  Ravensfire (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be that IP editor, and I apologize for not knowing how to work wikipedia very well, and would've joined this discussion sooner if I did. I apologise for missing the way it was indirectly revoked, and hereby retract my revisions. (Also I apologize for the weasel word use, but it was to say that your beliefs existed, and to intro a counterpoint.) 2:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem - glad you did look through the material and post here!  I do wish Reagan had simply included 11110 in the list of EO's revoked, not just the section it added.  It would have made this article much simpler!  Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revision

message: This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not true. As discussed in the article, the executive order was not explicitly rescinded until 1987, although changes in the underlying law rendered it ineffective in 1982. —KHirsch (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this true?

message: I wanted to get people's opinion about deleting the links to the "Kennedy" bills.
First, they link to images of United States Notes, not Silver Certificates, which is the subject of the EO
Second, calling them "Kennedy notes" is simply not accurate, and I think that it gives weight to the incorrect idea that somehow 11110 was an attempt to try to curb the Fed.  Yes, they are Series 1963, but that was simply the year that series went into production, replacing the Series 1953 bills which had been printed.  There were also Series 1963 FRN's (printed, BTW, in much larger numbers than the USN's) so the date on them is meaningless as any sort of "proof".
If I don't get any solid objections within a week, I'll take the links out as unnecessary.Almostfm (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I deleted them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Some recent edits discussed if 11110 was revoked or not.  I've reverted those edits as they give a false impression to the reader.  There is some discussion on this in the talk page archive, but with the recent edits, I thought I'd create a new section to explain.  EO 10289 is an existing order that delegates certain powers of the President to the Secretary of the Treasury.  When Kennedy signed EO 11110, it did two things.  It revoked two sections (2(b) and 2(c))of EO 10289, but the main point was to add a new section (j) to the end of paragraph 1 related to issuing silver certificates.  In 1987, Reagan signed EO 12608 which included "Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 10289, as amended, is further amended as follows: ... (e) By revoking Sections 1(g) and 1(j), and renumbering Sections 1(h) and 1(i) as Sections 1(g) and 1(h), respectively".  This revokes the section added by EO 11110, meaning everything added or changed by 11110 has been revoked, hence why we describe 11110 as "effectively revoked".  Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EO 11110 revoked 

message: The section "Conspiracy Theory" automatically injects a negative connotation to the "theory" of why and how the President was assassinated.
I submit that any theory of President Kennedeys' Assassination is a Theory of Conspiracy against the President and the United States and therefore this title is a redundancy. 
Because people who are interested in this subject should be able to read it and form there own opinions, negative connotations should be withdrawn.
the title should be Assassination Link Theory or the like.
Furthermore, Jim Marrs is a journalist by profession and should be labeled as so. Labeling him as a conspiracy theorist is a direct assault on his character by today's social dogma
I move that the section title and label of Jim Marrs profession be changed and locked to non-biases wording.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhunter32 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias is not going with what the majority of reliable sources call it, hence your changes have been reverted.  Ravensfire (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ravensfire. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources. If reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias inducing Title 

message: I have added some new sections with more background. It may be a bit long, but given the conspiracy angle I thought I need to be very explicit to show that 11110 is actually the opposite of what is claimed. I've doubled up on all the references, too.
Please note that the CRS report Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality is a "work of the United States Government" and is thus not copyrighted, so there is no infringement by including a long quote. The quote might be a little long for other reasons, but I've edited it to what I consider the essential points.
—KHirsch (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to say something after I first saw the changes, but nicely done.  I'd hope that it will reduce the various nonsense that keeps showing up, but that would assume that the editors actually read what's there and not go only with their own assumptions.  I think your changes do a much better job of covering the background of the EO.  Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you KHirsch. --Loremaster (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

text: +1 Fat&Happy (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the positive feedback. Between that and the cash prizes, it makes all the work worthwhile. —KHirsch (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New background sections

message: The order allowed the Secretary to issue silver certificates, if any were needed, during the transition period under President Kennedy's plan to eliminate silver certificates.
I assume the 'transition period' means the time to go from issuing Silver Certificates to phasing them out?  The authority to issue Silver Certificates was given to the Secretary of the Treasury, did the President still retain that authority? Finally, has the Federal Reserve ever had power to issue Silver Certificates? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transition period, issuing authority 

message: This is a non-conspiracy-related question, for once. :)
The article quotes the text of Kennedy's 1963 Economic Report of the President:
I again urge a revision in our silver policy to reflect the status of silver as a metal for which there is an expanding industrial demand. Except for its use in coins, silver serves no useful monetary function.
This sentence confuses me. Except for its use in coins, does any metal "serve a useful monetary function"? I can't think of any "monetary functions" for metals other than coinage. Obviously some metals (including silver) have "useful functions" in industry, but Kennedy's previous sentence indicates that he didn't consider "industrial demand" a "monetary function." So, what did Kennedy mean? What are some examples of "useful monetary functions" that silver might have served in the past, but that were no longer being served by 1963? —Quuxplusone (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of "useful monetary functions"? 

message: There is an unsourced statement that says, "during the transition period under President Kennedy's plan to eliminate Federal Reserve Notes and use Silver Certificates". That's a controversial statement and I don't know if it's true. Thinker78 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, that's from a very persistent IP-hopping vandal.  I'm going to revert back to before their edits, which will revert yours, but you were spot on with your comment. Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

text: , And thank you for spotting it! Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential issue in the lead section 

message: Reverted because the information that was deleted was part of the summary of sourced information contained within the article, and the new information that supplanted the deletion did not have any citation. Thinker78 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert