Jump to content

Wikisource talk:WikiProject United States Executive Orders/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikisource

Needs Further Investigation

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments2 people in discussion

Oddities, inconsistencies, and similar unanswered questions concerning specific Executive Orders.

Executive Order 980
expert/customization − Done
  1. Rather than applying standard table to content of Article II hoping to mirror the one found in the below source. Table might not be the original & may be different in other versions. Verification would be nice using other sources (if any).
There are copies of many different editions of the Manual for Courts-Martial here. I looked at a couple from that era; they all seem to use about the same table format. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Geriatric font sizes be damned !!! - that looks better than the original Article II table.George Orwell III (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Executive Order 1-A
ARCHIVED

  • Hmm... most sources I see say the EO #1 was on February 14, 1862. I have also seen the date of October 20, 1862, per snippets in this book and elsewhere. There is supposedly an Executive Order 1-A in 1863 somewhere, and an Executive Order 2 in 1864. Not sure about the March 10 thing, though supposedly the Statutes at Large listed it that way. this PDF seems to indicate Lincoln had three (numbered) orders, based on the Congressional book I listed above. Not sure what the official #1 is, but... doesn't seem to be March 10, according to more modern research. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

    It matches the list from Presidential Executive Orders: Index, Historical Records Survey (New York, N.Y.), 1944, which I've been told mirrors the CIS index numbering. The next 4 match the Statute at Large as well (though #2 may in fact be the General Order mentioned) George Orwell III (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • most sources I see say the EO #1 was on February 14, 1862.
      • doesn't jibe - Secretary of War issuing a order per President (3rd Party) would eventually get numbred as one attributed to Lincoln? Looks like a General Order no? EDIT: Besides-its Roman Numeral I (capital " i ")- not number 'one'.
    • I have also seen the date of October 20, 1862,
    Heh. Yeah, I think the Feb 14 was labeled "No. 1" *at the time* -- so may have been a War Department thing, and is unrelated to the numbered series. [1] But, the Oct 20 date is in several places -- here and here. I don't know what to make of that 1944 book having two "No. 1"s. Ah... the asterisk on the March 10 order has this footnote: "This order appears as No. 1 in 12 Stat. L. 731, although it does not appear in the official Numbered Series." So... seems like the Oct 20 is the one the State Department started numbering at. Since I guess some people consider proclamations a type of executive order, the numbering can get confused -- I think the 1944 book has one EO listing which is also numbered as a proclamation. That will be fun. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

    I can go with Oct. 20, 1862 being the first EO as of the 1907 numbering but after that it gets too convoluted.

    • Volume 13 is the only one that I can find that has Proclamations AND Exec. Ords listed.
    • Volume 12 page 731 is a March 3 1863 Act Calling Out Forces --. not a proc or an EO (though Sec. 26 outlines the same text as found in 3/10/1863)
    • Numbered Procs. always seem to have the part about the seal [L.s.] or [L.S.] or [SEAL.]
    I'm guessing 3/10/1863 is technically an un-numbered Proc. not an EO, but what is EO 1-A in 1863 then? George Orwell III (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    Not sure... I haven't found much on that one yet. Will try to search more. There is going to be a lot of messy stuff with pre-1907 EOs and proclamations, as the numbering will be completely hit-or-miss, and things like the accepted form for executive orders really wasn't nailed down until a lot later. The L.S. (locus sigilli, or place for the seal) should be there on most/all old proclamations, as those were typically sealed, until I think in the 1960s or 1970s sometime. But, I have run across some (numbered) executive orders which were sealed, so that is not impossible. That 1944 book has one somewhere which got both an EO number and a proc number, as mentioned. The EO numbers were not always in strict order of the dates, too -- I have found some out of chronological order (EO #54 and a couple others). Determining what was an "executive order" can be rather difficult... some (like procs) were signed by department heads and not the president, etc. The Feb 14 one probably does count as an executive order (it has "by the president" on it), but the forms will probably vary widely, and it may be hard to distinguish what is an EO and what is a departmental order. (If the UCSB site or donnelly collection has them as EOs, go with that, though we haven't gotten to the un-numbered ones yet). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    Ah... the book which calls it 1A (linked above) says "Does not appear in Numbered Series but appears as no 1 (12 stat. 731)".[2] So... 1-A would be the March 10 one, if we consider it an EO as these two books did (and I guess the statutes at large did). Or, treat it as a proclamation, and just skip it and have just EO 2 (April 4, 1865 according to the 1944 book) be Lincoln's other (numbered) one. No idea what the CIS ordering has, but if it is not officially part of the Numbered Series, then not sure. The slightly incorrect Stat. L. citations are interesting -- maybe that other book just copied the info from the 1944 book, which cited the law asking for the EO/proclamation rather than the EO text itself. So, those "numberings" predated the official State Department numbering it looks like, but it does seems as though #2, #3, etc. listed there do follow the official Numbered Series (#2 is listed in the 1944 book as being signed by the Secretary of State, and I see it was sealed as well). The March 10 one certainly has the form of a proclamation, which may be why the State Department in 1907 didn't give it a number (or maybe they just didn't have it). And in one sense, proclamations are a type of executive order, so it may just be a terminology thing with that original numbering. On the other hand, proclamations usually deal with subjects outside of government, and that one has elements of both -- a direct order to soldiers, which would seem to be executive order-ish, and also a plea to citizens, which would be a proclamation. It does seems as though UCSB deemed it a proclamation. Well, we could always link it as both -- Executive Order 1-A, and a proclamation (numbered or not). Or, just skip it for now and go to Executive Order 2. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    Oh, and this source, and this one, this one, and others, have an additional sentence at the end and indicates that the 1862 order was sealed with the Great Seal as well, and also had Seward's name on it. (And the Secretary of War did certify a copy three days later, apparently.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

    Alright I finished strightening out Executive Order 1 but I held off on adding the likeness of the seal until you tell me which is the best one for the year(s) 1862 thru about 1866.

    Also- are you saying EO's No. 2 thru 5 match the ones given in Volume 13 (that 12 Stat. 731 must be a typo) of the Statutes at Large or not?

    Oh - and your final thought on including the "proclamation" of March 10, 1863 as EO 1-A or not. I cross referenced the Proclamation database and it does mention the subject as un-numbered Proc by Lincoln on that date (no other mentions either way as a numbered proc or (re)numbered EO anywhere else as far as I can tell). George Orwell III (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

    There does not seem to be a drawing-style image of the 1841-1877 seal. File:1841 US Great Seal die.jpg, File:1841USGreatSealDie.jpg, and File:1841USGreatSealDieImpression.jpg are the images we have of it to this point. However, the 1877-1885 seal was a virtual copy of the same design, and we do have File:US Great Seal 1877 drawing.png of that, which will look the same unless you are looking really, really closely, so I think that would be best if you want that style. Easy enough to fix if we ever get a similar style image of the 1841 die.
    I don't think 12 Stat. 731 was a typo, precisely, more of a mistake -- I think they just had the citation for the law which prodded the EO/proclamation instead of the text of the EO itself. And it would seem the second 1970s book simply copied the reference ;-) The 1944 book has EO 2, 3, and 4 matching that Volume 13 link, yes. EO 5 is apparently sometime in 1866, regarding closing of public offices on April 14, the first anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. Ah, April 13, 1866, and also signed by Seward.
    I'm torn on that supposed 1-A. There seems to be a single book giving it that number; the 1944 book also just says "1", but a secondary one. It was not officially given that number, so presumably the CIS index doesn't have it either. I don't think the number in the Stat. L. text is all that relevant -- they were probably just numbering the five orders they were printing at the time. In its form it is part executive order (giving orders to military personnel in the first half), and part proclamation (message to the people). It would, I'd guess, be considered an unnumbered executive order -- though UCSB deemed it a proclamation instead. There will be at least one situation where a numbered executive order was also given a proclamation number, so that will end up listed in two places with a redirect, so it may make sense to list this one in both places as well eventually. And, I don't think anything else could be named "Executive Order 1-A", so given that there is at least one reference, we could at least make that name a redirect. Seems like, for now, maybe best to skip it until we get a better handle on unnumbered EOs and proclamations. I don't feel strongly about it at all though, so if you have a different idea, go for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    I get that the Stat numbering isn't official - just curiously lines up with that 1944 listing. I don't (or can't) "see" any other EO after that 1862 No. 1 listed in the 1944 Google book until the repeated No. 1 of 1863 (both page 9) comes up. Do you?
    There are plenty of numbered and un-numbered EOs that eventually (post 1976 re-numbering) have become officially numbered proclamations (Proc 278 1/2 comes to mind though I can't find it right now).
    EO 1-A would be the only instance that I know of where a seemingly un-numbered Proc (Official) has an Official EO numbering that I know of (if the 1944 list was the template for the CIS listing holds true). Creating it would give us the 3 Lincoln EOs mentioned elsewhere this way too. George Orwell III (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I can see them: [3] [4] [5] It is odd that they match up (well, #5 doesn't), but probably just a coincidence. Probably the reason why the March 10 was mentioned as an alternate #1 though. According to the Donnelly listing, the Proc 278 1/2 you mention was also Executive Order 25. Same is mentioned here. But yes, the three Lincoln EOs I put on the reference page I pulled from the cato.org PDF linked higher up the page, and they deem the March 10 one to be 1-A and to be one of the three (they took it right from the 1970s Congressional book also linked, which calls it 1A). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    Whoa - back up. I see what you linked as well but do you see anything before those but after Number 1 of 10-20-1862? George Orwell III (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    Nothing between them. They have the 1862 #1 (they give a cite of "VI R 122" whatever that is), then the 1863 alternate #1, then the 1865 #2 on April 4. The full text of the 1* entry is, from doing text searches:
    1863
    1 : Mar 10 * Deserters from the armed forces ordered to return to duty ; clemency promised; faithful citizens urged to oppose treasonable crimes committed by disloyal persons who enticed soldiers to desert, thereby weakening the army and prolonging the war, and to support the proper authorities in prosecuting and punishing such persons.
    * This order appears as No. 1 in 12 Stat. L. 731, although it does not appear in the official Numbered Series.
    The very next thing is the "1865" header and EO #2. There is also nothing between the two #1s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order 8802
ARCHIVED

  • Sourcing? −
    1. Somebody queried elsewhere about this EO and the NARA scans of the original 2 pages (.JPGs and/or PDFs). Wondering if his suggestion is really worth an uploading and if so what the best format/layout/index for something so short might be? Thoughts?
    Seems like that would be interesting. Executive Order 9981 is a related EO with the two page images uploaded, which you reformatted a while back, and looks OK. en-wiki has some vertical image stack templates which may look better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    I never liked that 'floating' thumbnail approach first applied by some folks in the later military service medal related EOs. The pages (or the medal replicas) should have been created on commons and indexed (or whatever they call it) so that the source tab appears and links to them between the page and discussion tabs normally created by default imo. I'm just concerned that doing somrhing like that would set an 'uneven bar' for some EOs already properly sourced/cited via edition/textinfo templates. George Orwell III (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    Eh, they are just illustrations, and seem to be squarely within WS:IMAGE guidelines that way. I don't know much about the source tab, but that seems slightly different, and definitely inappropriate for the medals ones. I guess because so few images are really relevant, they don't turn up much, but something like this I think is fine. I would gnerally prefer the "thumbnail" type of images though to make clear they are not actually part of the source text, even though that would be obvious in this case. (the table-with-border works too I guess). And, such a thing probably wouldn't work for long EOs :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well if I'm correct in assuming bullet 2 of Criteria for inclusion at WS:IMAGE is the one in play here, then I still don't see how including the scanned pages, regardless of type (.jpg, .tiff, .pdf, etc.), on the front & along or within the text is in fact satisfied. It is not illustrative or an illustration of subject matter (such as a map of a reserved national forest may be off the top of my head for example) and it is not "the norm" (or the "consensus generally prefered" might be better here) in trying to enhance proofreading or transcription - which is the thing I was refering to above with index → source tab method(s). An example of indexing the image or file with validated transcription of the content ultimately all automatically linked back to in the margin for page by page comparisons if need be and/or the addition of the source tab linking the index of pages themselves as a whole. Also - it's the opposite of long EOs (too short) that concerned me at first George Orwell III (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's an illustration of the actual source document -- fairly interesting. That one even has a handwritten word inserted. It wouldn't apply to most texts, but items with unique source documents like this may well be interesting, as would (say) editing versions of a speech. Maybe the novelty would wear off if we suddenly got scans of all EOs, at which point the source tab idea may be better (especially once more developed) or maybe subpages with a link from the main page, but for a few it seems fine. Not a big deal though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's an illustration of the actual source document ← <can't stop chuckling at that one>
    I can live with one or two instances such as these just fine too (though I'm not a reetardd and know the thumbnails aren't part of the original). Hopefully time will just dis-intrest him enough to make 'this' go away. I keep saying "... well get involved", but they never seem to.
    Thanks, as always, for the feedback CL. George Orwell III (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order 6668
(re)verification− Done
Subject: Veterans' Regulation No. 1(e): Veterans' Regulation No. 1(d); Entitlement to Pensions Cancelled (06 April 1934)
Executive Order 6669
(re)verification− Done
Subject: Veterans' Regulation No. 12(b): Veterans' Regulation No. 12(a); Presumption of Entitlement to Pensions for Spanish-War Veterans and Certain Widows, Children and Dependent Parents of Deceased World War Veterans Cancelled (06 April 1934)
  • Seems to be in several volumes at HathiTrust, including here.
Executive Order 6670
(re)verification− Done
Subject: Transfering Functions of the Veterans' Administration Pertaining to Retirement of Government Civil Employees to the Civil Service Commission (07 April 1934)


Executive Order 9683
(re)verification − Done found and added entire missing content.
  1. Seems like the current online archived versions are incomplete (cut-off mid-sentence in preamble - little meaningful content).
Executive Order 10214
(re)verification− Done
  1. Table showing the Key to References missing at source.
    Copied the one found at EO 11430's cited source.
  2. Nearly certain that huge amount of content missing after 76. SENTENCE.
    1951 Manual found HERE, (PDF). Too large & of quality suitable for normal 'copy & paste'. Considered better to delete and point to PDF instead. Better to index using .djvu files at some point down the road.
  • EO 10214 from Truman Library
  • Minimal entry with no(?) content in .sgml file at Archive.org


Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Executive_Orders/Archives/2012&oldid=14619371"