Talk:Executive Order 10925

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukelcf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Executive Order No. 10925 of March 6, 1961
re: en.wikipedia.org contribution to Executive Order No. 10925 President John F. Kennedy issued this order and brought about a new era in liberalism. For the first time, modern liberalism broke with classical liberalism by engaging the state in the task of implementing the constitution. The constitutional principle it tried to implement is known in legal terms as "the implementation of the rule of law" – as opposed to the rule of the market.

A contribution on Executive Order No. 10925 has already been posted in en.wikipedia.org under URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925.

I recommend that the wikisource item be removed, since we have incorporated this suggestion in the body of the text.

The allegation that this contribution is devoid of citations, references and source material is not only unfair, it is also untrue.

Nonetheless, the page should be supplement with material regarding the implementation of the rule of law regarding the end to discrimination. Does anybody have any idea about how to do this?

What needs to be supplemented in, above all, the fact that Kennedy gave a substantial and exhaustive justification of his presidential act -- as opposed to the presidents before and after him.

I hope that, in the course of the day, I will be able to provide the page with the explanations regarding this substantiation.

Luis --Psychonaut01 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikisource lists nearly all of the 13,546 numbered Executive Orders ever issued & has over 3,000 of these Executive Orders in full - that is it's purpose. No subjective analysis whatsoever is acceptable for Wikisource -- just the actual content as it appeared when signed and issued. Wikipedia is where any 3rd party analysis should made and referenced, using WikiSource whenever needed to back-up positions. Ex.


 * The committee was setup to insure all Federal entities did not discriminate in their employment practices...
 * the interlink taking the reader right to Section 306 of the order stating this was Committee's purpose


 * Actually, it is this title that should be changed to something reflecting the subject matter and NOT the formal name or numbered designation used by Office of the Federal Register, National Archive and Records Administration. It seems this topic should be a sub-section under something akin to the history of Equal Opportunity Employment practices of the U.S. Federal Government and not some abandoned random stub personally (not to mention E.O. 10925 was superseded by E.O. 11246 and it's section 403 abolished Kennedy's committee 4 years later in reality anyway. George Orwell III (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be seriously redacted to include only the basics of this executive order. It should point to other, more lasting executive orders and legislative actions, but that's it. This is insanity. Sanzoneja (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Without the substantiation, the order cannot be understood. People need this information in order to follow what was being done in the year 1961. Kennedy was the only president who substantiated his anti-discrimination measure to the full. --Psychonaut01 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but there is a flagrant misuse of grammar and professionalism. The article needs serious revision, namely clearing up the intensely subjective nature of "substantiation of presidential measure", which breaks almost every precedent set forth by the Elements of Style, the MLA, and over two centuries of American grammar school. Sother (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be a little bit more precise on this matter. --Psychonaut01 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree w/both of the above.
 * In addition, even the basic info is mostly innacurate. This committee, the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, was completely abolished in Executive Order 11246 and all records and property in the custody of the Committee at the time was transferred back to the Civil Service Commission and/or the Secretary of Labor. This Committee may have been similar, as was the President's Committee on Government Employment Policy and the Civil Service Commission's Fair Employment Board  before it, in its designated purpose when compared with the later established Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but their scope and function were not very similar, if at all.


 * The EEOC, an independent agency, was established by Section 705 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (an Act of Congress) and went well beyond the Federal agencies under the Executive branch and any Government (sub)contractors at the time to include interaction with local & state governments, corporations and even individuals; the Committee(s) and Board dealt strictly with setting Federal agency and Federal contract policy. Many other differences exist - all pointing to the establishment of the EEOC nullifying the practice of using Boards or Committees to prescribe or enforce the regulations concerning Federal employment and contract policy.


 * There also nothing extraordinary when it comes to the preamble Kennedy used as his authority when you compare EO 10925 to the similar EOs linked earlier issued by Ike and Truman, but without 'getting lost in the weeds' of delegated legislation and its basis in the understood/cited authority for issuance, there is little chance most folks will see past the admittedly inspiring language used here. George Orwell III (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

disputing the neutrality of the contribution
If somebody wants to dispute the neutrality of the contribution, then he or she should state who this person and under what grounds the person disputes the neutrality or the correctnes as regards to the conveyance of information regarding Executive Order No. 10925. Any other behavior is unfair – also with regards to the general public. --Psychonaut01 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "substantiation" section is a clear violation of the rule against original research. Please see WP:NOR. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article
- I'm thinking this article would be improved by having a section where different viewpoints are discussed. Specifically, attitudes towards the implementation of EO 10925. The source President Kennedy’s E.O. 10925: Seedbed of Affirmative Action has a section on page 50 that talks about some opponents of the EO and disputes its claims that the EO actually made any impact in job opportunities.

- Perhaps a section that breaks down the official text of EO 10925. There are parts, subparts, and sections that can be simplified into plain language so a reader wouldn't have to go line by line in the actual text to find information. Lukelcf (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you use WP:RS sources and stay on point; it does not need just a brunch of opinions or trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

- The link to the actual text of Executive Order 10925 leads to a "not found" message. 204.229.12.168 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)