Talk:Executive Order 11110

Archived?

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)

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)

The "Background" section

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)

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)

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)

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) Willee

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don't pussyfoot around with copyright violations. I've removed the whole section. In the process I removed this website as a reference which may actually be a reliable source; please do use it to expand the article if it is deemed reliable. Fences&Windows 01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the most reliabe source we can use for this article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a way to re-add the source. --Loremaster (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands is heavily biased towards discussing and refuting a particular (historical?) theory. Needs rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.97.36 (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Totally unclear article

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)

That's actually a good point. I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How would one manage to twist this information around and suggest that JFK was working to give the federal reserve MORE power? This article is self contradictory and a complete perversion of logic! when typing "executive order" in google search the numbers 11110 are the first to come up automatically, suggesting that at least some people are looking for the same information i am. And while it is no surprise that opinions and information on this order have been filtered and eliminated by:(i will let you guess) the core words of the exact order still remain and any half witted person can figure out for themselves what this order was about: for the treasury to issue its own money and not borrow with interest from the fed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infowarrior082407 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent revision

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 Executive Order 12608. It also mentions Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 97–258 - 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 Executive Order 10289 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)

Good job. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.236.220 (talk)

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)

Is this true?

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)

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)

External links

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)

Good point. I deleted them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

EO 11110 revoked

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)

Bias inducing Title

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)

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)

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)

New background sections

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)

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)

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

+1 Fat&Happy (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

False statement/bad source

The excerpt from G Thomas Woodward's CRS report states, "...E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes..."

This appears to be easily falsifiable. EO 11110 delegates to the US Secretary of Treasury the authority vested by "...paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933..."

The Act of May 12, 1933, otherwise known as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 clearly states in paragraph (b) of section 43: "...the President is authorized-- (1) To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts ... United States notes..."

The text of the Act of May 12, 1933 may be found in its entirety here: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/farmbills/1933.pdf (paragraph (b) of section 43 is found on page 23 of the pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.209.88 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Keep going on your quote from 1110. "... to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption". In other words, the only power delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury by this EO was related to Silver Certificates, not to US Notes. The EO did not alter the original Act in any way, just allowed the Secretary to act as if the President approved the action. Ravensfire (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While the EO 11110 refers to silver, the authority it refers to in the Agricultural Adjustment Act is absolutely the authority to issue United States notes. Is EO 11110 referring to some other section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933?

It's referring to that section, but the only power that 11110 delegates is related to silver certificates. Powers related to US Notes are the same after 11110 modified the existin EO. The Secretary couldn't suddenly issue US Notes against silver bullion or silver certificates against US notes on their own after this change. They could only issue silver certificates against silver bullion. That's it. Nothing about US notes. The President was granted fairly broad powers in the 1933 Act but this EO only delegated powers related to silver certificates. What was delegated is very specifically enumerated. Hence the comment about not affecting US notes. If you're trying to say that 11110 mentions section 43, which mentions US Notes, means that 11110 affects US notes, even though 11110 very specifically lists what it affects (which does NOT include US notes), that requires some serious contortions beyond logic. Look at the text for 11110 - do you see ANYTHING in the list of the powers delegated to the Secretary about US notes? Ravensfire (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not see anything in EO 11110 referring to US notes. Neither do I see anything in paragraph (b) of section 43 of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act which refers to silver. Since the legislated authority outlined in the 1933 Act is what the President was delegating to the Secretary, I don't think it's such a contortion of logic to say that EO 11110 was referring to the issuance of US notes. Honestly though, I do not understand the discrepancy: why does EO 11110 reference the May 12 1933 Act (which authorizes the President to issue US notes, not silver certificates), and then go on to delegate powers related to silver? Am I looking at the wrong May 12, 1933 Act, was JFK seriously confused, or did he intend to issue silver certificates backed by US notes instead of bullion? What was this all really about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.210.14 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that that executive order says "paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended". The Act was amended several times. As part of the Gold Reserve Act, (Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 12, 48 Stat. 342), the following paragraphs (among others) were added to the end of subsection (b):

The President, in addition to the authority to provide for the unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio so fixed, under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, is further authorized to cause to be issued and delivered to the tenderer of silver for coinage, silver certificates in lieu of the standard silver dollars to which the tenderer would be entitled and in an amount in dollars equal to the umber of coined standard silver dollars that the tenderer of such silver for coinage would receive in standard silver dollars.

The President is further authorized to issue silver certificates in such denominations as he may prescribe against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars or subsidiary currency for the redemption of such silver certificates.

This is source of the authority referenced by the executive order.

—KHirsch (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why then does the President reference section 43, paragraph (b) specifically, instead of the Thomas Amendment? Also, the Thomas amendment appears to directly authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the EO delegates: "The Secretary of the Treasury shall cause silver certificates to be issued in such denominations as he deems advisable to the total number of dollars for which such silver was accepted in payment of debts. Such silver eertificates shall be used by the Treasurer of the United States in payment of any obligations of the United

States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.203.188 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

From a technical view point, if law A is modified by amendment B, you should still refer to law A. It's been changed, but it's still law A. Welcome to the wonderful world of US law. Yes, this is actually quite normal. Note that the text of 11110 refers to 31 USC 821 (B) - that would normally be a good place to start looking, except of course the law has been amended several times since then. If you're getting confused by all of this, so was I. KHirsch pulled in some info that I didn't catch which helped explain a lot of this. Take a look at the United States Code article (or USC). So law A, changed by amendment B could be referenced by saying X USC Y, which should be the current version of the law, reflecting all current amendments. So 11110 referred to a particular USC which would be the law and all subsequent amendments to that law. Ravensfire (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see I was looking at the wrong text indeed! Thank you for clearing that up for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.208.236 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point that you brought up. I remember being confused by that many months ago, when I started researching this. It's hard to track down unless you have a copy of the U.S. Code from that era. There doesn't appear to be a free one online (unless you're at a university that has access to HeinOnline or equivalent), so it's definitely not easy to check what the law was at that time. —KHirsch (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This entire articles intention is to counter the idea that Kennedy was trying to restore the power over currency to the US government. This is not wiki's mandate regardless of your repetition that this is the predominant point of view. A rebuttal cannot be a majority point of view. The article does not attempt to disguise this. The paragraph that begins "E.O. 11110 was not reversed by President Lyndon B. Johnson " is so obviously a rebuttal that this entire article should be rewritten from an impartial, non POV, non rebuttal perspective. I am not arguing the accuracy of this statement but that this statement reveals the articles purpose and bias- to refute a specific point of view. The semantics used to argue that this order had nothing to do with US notes is so patently biased and POV that I find it hard to believe that the article has been allowed to remain. The statement "First, E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes, and did not affect any section of law referring to them" is disinformation, as it purports to rebut that Kennedy was taking the first tentative step towards returning the power to issue currency to the government. This is disinformation, plain and simple. Loremaster even admits his purpose is to debunk rather than inform. When told the article failed to debunk the conspiracy theory he devotes himself to this purpose. This is bias on the face of it. Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.58 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC The facts indicate both Robert and John Kennedy had the courage to make changes they deemed beneficial to the interests of American people against the wishes of the power elite. They had restored executive military decisions to the presidency, fired the head of the CIA and refuted the FBI's claim that the mafia did not exist. It strains credulity to believe he would of done anything to strengthen the Fed. I find it likely he would have seen the clearly unconstitutional delegation of the authority over currency to the Fed as harmful to the interests of the American people. The order clearly establishes the principal of the US treasury issuing currency. That these are "silver certificates" and not US notes is merely semantics. The silver certificates would of immediately become the choice for currency as they were backed by a physical reserve of real value, while the Feds notes were (and are) fractional reserve currency of no intrinsic value, the "reserve" being more currency. The silver certificates were bills- currency- which was swiftly taken out of circulation after the assassination. As with many things to do with Kennedy and law in general, interpretations are essential, and fact are not necessarily truths. It is important to consider "we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view" with regards to the Kennedy legacy, and the federal reserve, that there is a lot of verifiable data from reliable sources to suggest much of the mainstream POV has been not only inaccurate, but deliberately constructed and orchestrated to prevent truths from being developed from facts. This article is fairly obviously in this mold and has no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.58 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement it is not bias to report the majority viewpoint as fact is ridiculous. Examples abound where majority viewpoint is completely at odds with the facts and verifiable reality. Genesis is the consensus viewpoint of evolution in the United States. This does not change the fact this viewpoint is grossly biased by religious dogma, completely at odds with virtually all the verifiable information, and impossible on the face of it. We need to be a little more vigilant than to allow this kind of disinformation from being spread simply because the authors claim many people believe it to be so. Some- even many people- do believe Marrs is a conspiracy theorist, but everyone who has specific knowledge of him knows he is a reporter. To call him the former without including the later is clearly bias, and meant to bias the issue at hand without introducing any verifiable information to support the conclusions. A less biased way to state this about Marrs would be that he is a reporter who investigates controversial conspiracies. This would be a consensus POV. This entire article seeks to use and abuse semantics, majority consensus (on an obscure topic) to invert the meaning of the act. The conclusions fly in the face of verifiable facts about Kennedy's previous and subsequent behavior. The only point which needs to tainted with the conspiracy theory label is the idea that the Fed was involved in Kennedy's assassination, this by definition is a conspiracy theory, and practically impossible to prove or disprove.64.251.64.58 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Transition period, issuing authority

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)

Yes, the transition period was the time between when PL 88-36 was signed and when the first $1 FRNs could be issued (they had to engrave printing plates and print enough of the notes that they could be released, and it took about five months). The last of the silver certs and the first of the FRNs were issued in November 1963

IANAL, but my understanding is that because the power was granted to the President, he could still have issued them even if he delegated it to the Treasury Secretary. Even if he couldn't, all he would have to do to get the authority back was to issue another EO revoking 11110.

To the best of my knowledge, the Fed was never involved with issuing silver certs.Almostfm (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Examples of "useful monetary functions"?

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)

By that point in time, it was really just used as a backing for silver certs. If they were 100% backed, it meant that for every dollar's worth of silver certificates in circulation, there was a dollar's worth of silver set aside in the Treasury for it's redemption. But the nature of paper money had changed, so that other than the $1 silver cert, it wasn't backed by any tangible asset. Particularly in view of the price of silver rising since the mid 1950's, it no longer made sense to limit the amount of dollar bills to the amount of silver you had.Almostfm (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory label

Is there any way the part labeled 'conspiracy theory' could be changed to something else? I hate that term and the extreme negative connotation that word has. It can turn people off entirely to reading parts of, or whole articles altogether. How about 'Possible ties to assassination of John F. Kennedy'. Thanks.

2607:FB90:2707:AA9A:2485:8595:9BC3:CCD8 (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The current heading is clearly inadequate. A more accurate reflection of the section would be "Whack-job assassination speculation based on misstatements of fact and ignorance of the law". 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Using the language "possible ties" would seem to imply that Wikipedia endorses the idea that the theory might be valid. That would not be appropriate.

The term "conspiracy theory" is denotatively correct as used in the article. The fact that the term has a negative connotation is not, in this case, objectionable.

The term is used throughout Wikipedia to accurately describe theories about conspiracies. Neutral Point of View does not mean straining to eliminate these kinds of things.

For example, in an article on Adolf Hitler, it is appropriate to refer to him as a "Nazi," even though that term has very negative connotations for most people. It's an accurate use of the term -- just as "conspiracy theory" is an accurate of that term in the context of the material in this article on Executive Order 11110.

And, in my view Wikipedia should not be trying to avoid using a term based on some nebulous theory that its use "can turn people off entirely to reading" parts of articles, etc. Famspear (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential issue in the lead section

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)

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)

@Thinker78:, And thank you for spotting it! Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert

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)