Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 3

Introduction of Segregation
It strikes this reader that this article's introduction is rather hagiographic in that it fails to even make mention of that great stain on Wilson's presidency - his introduction of racial segregation into the federal government. Indeed, I have just noticed, rather ironically, that one of the articles cited in the introduction is 'Woodrow Wilson and Racial Segregation', yet no mention of the word appears in the body text. Cripipper (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many other racist threads running through Wilson's career, such as his denying blacks admission to Princeton, his support of the film "Birth of a Nation" and Dixon, author of The Clansman, the novel the film was based on. See http://reason.com/archives/2002/12/18/dixiecrats-triumphant. The article as currently written seems to drastically underplay Wilson's racism. I'm not a Wilson scholar or historian, but clearly there seems to be an awful lot that's not documented in the Wikipedia article. Freond (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * there is a lot of misinformation and POV about Wilson and race. on Birth of a Nation, for example, Wilson was the first person to see the movie and he privately denounced it, saying that he had been set up by Dixon, an old college friend. Princeton, like the great majority of elite colleges, never admitted blacks.  Wilson kept the same policy, but did not introduce it or change it.  As for segregation of the federal government, that was permitted by the Supreme Court, and was not Wilson's idea, but rather the Southern cabinet members that he appointed.  Wilson in fact reached out to blacks in the 1912 campaign, even though the great majority were Republicans, and he did make sure that they were drafted and given the same pay scale in the Army during the war. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see this discussion. It's possible to present the facts and a nuanced evaluation if we avoid argumentative sources. I struggled with some similar issues regarding racism, antisemitism, and homophobia in the career of Harvard president Abbott Lawrence Lowell. Mostly, instead of "racist threads", we need facts relating to how Wilson engaged on the issue of race. I'd consider the Reason article cited above a bad source, though a good place for a list of issues that require research. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of whitewashing (pardon the pun) of Wilson's record on segregation. I don't think we can take the claim that Wilson endorsed "Birth of a Nation" seriously, as it was obviously a ploy to promote the movie. What should be of more interest is the extensive quoting from Wilson's History in the movie either endorsing the KKK, or at least showing sympathy for them. As far as segregation is concerned, the fact that the Supreme Court allowed it isn't the point. If the Supreme Court had ruled the Administration's attempt to "Jim Crow" the Federal Government illegal, would that have proved that Wilson was against racism? Hardly! The Court didn't MAKE Wilson introduce segregation, nor is talking about Southerners in his Cabinet being the drivers of the policy the point either. Wilson, after all, appointed those people to his Cabinet, and as President, he would have had to authorize such policies - which he would hardly have done if he opposed segregation. What next? That LBJ had no responsibility for sending combat troops to South Vietnam because McNamara was Defense Secretary? Whilst Wilson shouldn't be painted out as the embodiment of original sin because of this, there is no getting away from it either. For one thing it proves that progressivism and racism are not mutually exclusive thought patterns, particularly at that time.


 * I believe the articles main emphasis needs to be on Wilson's segregation policy as President, since that had military implications. As President Wilson was commander in chief of the Armed Forces and could enforce segregation by using the military. Wilson believed in the federal power to enforce segregation and was not a "states rights" President. The Nobel Peace Prize commission at that time may have endorsed Wilson's segregation policy, or refused to acknowledge, since he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Wilson in the KKK?
Actually, I've heard that both Wilson and Calvin Coolidge were members of the Ku Klux Klan (the Klan had millions of members at this time and was considered more of a fraternal organization like today's service clubs, and the Klan controlled several state legislatures so it's conceivable, but their membership rolls were secret). Warren G. Harding was supposed to have been our first black President (Harding even said one of his ancestors "may have jumped the fence"), thus predating Obama. If Wilson was in the KKK, that may explain his segregationist stance. Does anybody have any hard evidence as per Wiki guidelines? This is certainly a subject worthy of some research. Remember, Lincoln said that he would preserve slavery if it kept the country together. These politicians are always sitting on the fence.71.157.182.68 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock
 * No RS says Wilson joined the kkk--he was an invalid out of the White House at the time. Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The original Klan was effectively destroyed by Federal troops acting under President Grant's orders in the early 1870's. The "Second Klan" wasn't formed until 1915 by which time Wilson was already President, so it is highly unlikely he was ever a member as he would have been underage for the first Klan, and the President when the 2nd formed. Also I would point out that you do not need to be a member of the KKK to be a racist! You don't need to be white either! Wilson was a white southerner of his time, and segregationist views, negative connotations of the Reconstruction Era (and consequent sympathies with the KKK and the other groups that opposed it) were widely held by southerners (and many northerners too). Obviously he believed in Segregation. It's one thing to not act against established Jim Crow laws in the South, but quite another to bring in segregation into the Federal Government - as he did. I would suggest that he's views were conventionally racist by the standards of his time and society. I think he is evidence that being "progressive" and being "anti-racist" are not synonymous, and certainly that you cannot claim that all racists are conservative, or uneducated and ignorant (Wilson was certainly neither).


 * Wilson was a federal segregationist having used his power as President to enforce segregation in Washington D.C. Although not a member of any racist group, possibly there were none to join at the time, however, his segregation policy was popular in the South. Wilson was anti-progressive in terms of race relations. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize/Time Magazine cover succession boxes
If being on the cover of Time qualifies as an award/honor worthy of a succession box, then so must winning the Nobel Peace Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.149.37 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

misuse of quote
I read this recent addition: When he was asked, in 1914, "can't you let anything alone?" he answered: "I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill."

In fact Wilson said in a 1914 speech that he had once been asked this during his college years and had given this answer. The speech is here. And the context is not about his desire to tinker with the economy and society. His point is that leaving things alone doesn't leave things static, that you have to attend to things because otherwise they will deteriorate on their own: "There isn't anything in this world that will not change if you absolutely let it alone, and therefore you have constantly to be attending to it to see that it is being taken care of in the right way and that, if it is part of the motive force of the world, it is moving in the right direction." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I didn't make any change because I do not want to screw this up but I have a hard time believing that the following elements are true:

-Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1994 – February 3, 2008) -28th President of the United States In office March 4, 1994 – March 4, 2011 -13th President of Princeton University In office 1994–2011 Preceded by 	Francis Patton Succeeded by 	John Stewart (Acting)

Especially considering that: Born 	December 28, 1856 Staunton, Virginia, U.S. Died 	February 3, 1924 (aged 67) Washington, D.C., U.S.

For those of you in the United States that care about your country's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsibo047 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there anyway to have this article proteted to keep this from happening? This is an important person and should be treated as such.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hegel
Not a SINGLE MENTION of Hegel's influence on Wilson to be found in the entire article.

Wikipedians, you fail us miserably as always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you be bold and add it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggalo1010 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not many historians think Hegel had a direct influence--only Ronald J. Pestritto makes that argument. Was Wilson a Hegelian in the 1880s? keep in mind that he was a conservative at that point, not a "liberal" or "progressive". By 1910 there was little Hegelianism left as Wilson gave up his conservatism and became a progressive; like most intellectuals by 1910, was more aligned with pragmatism. Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of racial view point Wilson was a Virginia conservative and his segregation policy never changed. Wilson, like Jefferson, held enlightenment ideals, but this did not apply to race, particularly to African Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Military Intervention in Latin America
We need a section on this. Juggalo1010 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Incapacity
Does the article address the incapacity issue adequately? Who was running the Presidency? Was Wilson's wife, Edith, making all the decisions for Wilson? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Southerner?
I find "Wilson was the first Southerner in the White House since 1869". It occurs to me that Andrew Johnson, who LEFT OFFICE March 4, 1869, was a Southerner. But Wilson was from New Jersey when he became president (although he ORIGINALLY was from Virginia). So maybe qualify by saying "Wilson (as a native of Virginia) was ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempt for third presidential term
The article about the 22nd amendment of the constitution mentions the following: "Wilson himself tried to get a third term in 1920, by deadlocking the convention. Wilson deliberately blocked the nomination of his Secretary of the Treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo." Nothing about this is mentioned in the article about Wilson. magraggae 00:38, 17 July 2012 (CET)

Possible Bias
In some parts there are hints of bias that the author liked Woodrow Wilson. Particularly in the first and last few paragraphs. I don't have the time to revise certain areas of this page. Maybe one of you could go and remove any hints of bias? This isn't a debating website its a website of facts presented in an easy to read fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.192.230 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a revisiting of this issue. 76.102.160.203 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Depression of the 1920's
This Wiki article fails to even mention the depression of 1920. It doesnt speak on the government intervention which made things worse. Warren G Harding brought America out of this Wilson depression, by limiting govt involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.246.114 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * there was indeed a sharp short cyclical recession in late 1920- summer 1921 but Wilson was not himself involved (he was an invalid) -- nor was Harding--the recession ended itself by summer/ fall 1921. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The early 1920 Deppression, I believe, had to do with the End of WWI that created a slump in manufacturing production. Thousands of GI's came back to the U.S. and there was not enough jobs to keep them working. This was not the result of any Woodrow Wilson economic policy. There is debate on how much Warren G. Harding's "normalcy" policies had to do with getting out of the Depression. Harding put Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover in charge of this Depression. Harding went to Alaska to try to get GI's to migrate their and start their own businesses. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Scandal section
Any objection into putting a scandal section under President Wilson? There was collusion and fraud in the Office of Alien Property Custodian. There was corruption charges in manufacturing aircraft production. Wilson suppressed Borglum's preliminary report on corruption on January 21, 1918. William Jennings Bryant, Secretary of State, profited from making speeches. Wilson let him do this for two years. There is James M. Sullivan scandal in transfering deposits from the Dominican Republic. Wilson's Attorney General James McReynolds was accused of delaying prosection of the Mann Act. Wilson's Secretary of Labor had urged McReynolds to postpone the prosection of the Mann Act. I believe these are signifigant to be put in the article, even if considered minor scandals. Seems unfair how President Grant gets figuratively pummeled for his scandals, but President Wilson is touched lightly. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No i don't think these mini-scandals get mentioned in the major biographies of WW. Historians never group them together -- and accusations were a dime a dozen in those days. They should go into List of federal political scandals in the United States Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that only Republican Presidents named Ulysses S. Grant get scandals mentioned? Where is the fairness? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My source for the Wilson scandals or responses to charges of misconduct was William E. Leuchtenburg in C.V Woodward's book Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * it's a matter of historical importance according to the RS. Leuchtenburg for example in his books on the era gives zero coverage to WW "scandals" and a lot to the Harding scandals. there is a system in place of congressional and judicial investigation that decides whether accusations are partisan junk or worthy of attention Rjensen (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is "historical importance" subjective? Interesting how Republican Presidents get hammered the hardest, i.e. Grant, Harding, while any Presidents from Virginia, i.e. Washington, Jefferson, and Wilson get light treatment. How can one be sure as a reader that political or state bias is not incorporated into what is important and what is not important? How do we know that Wilson's biographers purposely bipass any corruption charges in order to make Wilson appear to be a better President? What is the difference between Grant's Secretary of War Belknap profiteering at Fort Sill and Wilson's Secretary of State Bryant profiteering by giving paid speeches? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * historical importance is determined by the RS. To my knowledge none of the Wilson biographers talk about these scandals. Bryan was a professional lecturer who always had been paid for his speeches. He did not have his finger in the till. In any case that's a matter for the Bryan biography. Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Leuchtenburg [L] I believe discusses in detail President Wilson's responses to corruption charges. I believe L's RS is signifigant and relavent to the Wilson article. Would there be any objection to discussing in the article corruption charges concerning WWI Mobilization? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * L has several books on the era (like Perils of Prosperity that do not mention it. L's job for Woodward was to dig up every mention of scandal no matetr true or not. they did that for all presidents I recall.  Was Wilson directly involved like Grant was involved? was it a campaign issue? I doubt it -- better to put in the scandals article. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wilson as President was commander in chief and he was directly involved with mobilization of the U.S. military during WWI. The scandal involved contracts between automobile industry and the aircraft industry with the automobile industry receiving more contracts. President Wilson gave Gutzon Borglum a free hand to investigate and make recommendations. According to L's RS, Wilson suppressed the report because the report accused dishonesty among leading industrialists. Borglum stated that Colonel Edward A. Deeds, head of the Aircraft program gave contracts to his associates who had no dealings with the aircraft industry. Wilson did respond. Wilson removed two persons from their positions to clean house. The President also fired Borglum. The Senate authorized an investigation. President Wilson outflanked this investigation attempt by authorizing Charles Evans Hughes to investigate. Hughes investigation hearings discovered no evidence of theft of major corruption. Deeds was charged with "reprehensible" conduct. Deeds had falsified records of stock holding report to the Secretary of War. Borglum criticized the report stating evidence against Henry Ford and Liberty Motors was suppressed. In 1919 a House Committee investigated the matter, although did not change Hughes report. I believe this is signifigant to be in the article since Wilson was directly involved. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilson had no role in the industry contracts. Cooper (2011) p 434 says Borglum's report was incompetent and WW asked Charles Evens Hughes to do a better job. Hughes said there was disorganization but no corruption and no scandal. We have to go with the RS here (Cooper--700 page biography) as to the importance of the episode (Cooper gives it about 5 sentences. Mark Grossman's comprehensive encyclopedia of Political Corruption in America (2003) does not mention it. Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wilson was responsible for running the U.S. military during WWI. I did use a reliable RS and gave you the name Leuchtenburg from Woodwards book. Wikipedia policy states third party reliable sources be put in articles. Leuchtenburg is a reliabe third party source. Leuchtenburg dedicated 10 paragraphs to the subject. Why does Cooper out rank Leuchtenburg? There is no Wikipedia policy that states biographers outrank other third party sources. In my opinion Cooper ignored the subject. Leuchtenburg never stated Borglum was unreliable. Why is there so much resistance to Leuchtenburg? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Leuchtenburg is a leading historian. His job for Woodward was to cover all the possible scandals, real or otherwise, of the Wilson years. He does not consider them important however because he left them out of his books on the period. Borglum was a fanatic who undertook a personal one-man study. He was an artist & amateur flier who did not understand factories and modern production methods. When deliveries of warplanes were slow he said people like Deeds were German sympathizers. Borglum saw conspiracies everywhere. Wilson supported Borglum until he started making wild charges based on no evidence. Wilson then appointed Hughes--the country's leading jurist and the man WW defeated in 1916--to make a serious and thorough study. Hughes said: no scandal, no corruption, (see Pusey biog of Hughes vol 1 for details).  Deeds was an army colonel --not even a general--and not under Wilson's direct supervision; Hughes says Deeds did make one blunder by revealing news early to a contractor.  Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hughes did not say there was no scandal nor corruption. He apparently reported the facts on the situation. A congressional investigation took place that reviewed the Hughes report. Hughes stated that Deeds withheld evidence of his connection with the Airline Industry. Do you, Rjensen, have Woodward's specific instructions to Leuchtenburg on covering Wilson scandals? In the preface Woodward states that the historians were "directed to provide factual account without evaluation and without attempting to anticipate specific questions". The purpose of Woodward's book was to aid Congress in their investigation of Richard Nixon. I can't find any mention that Leuchenburg was directed to find fictcious corruption. "Factual account" is not fictious corruption "real or otherwise". In my opinion, Leuchenburg is a valid third party source. Leuchtenburg is a Professor of History just like Cooper, Jr. I do not believe Grossman is a Professor of History. Rjensen, you stated "Leuchtenburg is a leading historian". Why then is Leuchtenburg being barred from the Woodrow Wilson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have known both Leuchtenburg and Cooper personally for many years. They are both excellent scholars. Woodward edited a book that was about Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Was there misconduct on the part of Wilson. No. by any senior officials he appointed? no. The worst case was an action by an army colonel that showed favoritism to the colonel's friend. Leuchtenburg's books on the period do not mention it. The Walworth, Blum and Link  biographies of WW do not mention it.  The only serious coverage is Pusey's biography of Hughes vol 1 pp 374-82--he did a very thorough exhaustive study using a large staff--100 times more thorough than the pathetic one-man effort by Borglum (who knew zip about law or industry). Borglum by the way decided that Hughes was corrupt and covering it all up!  Cooper gives it half a paragraph. These are the RS we have to rely on for a biography of Wilson. It just was not important--it is one of thousands of "charges" that get bandied about in politics. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is not whether there was a major scandal, rather, that President Woodrow Wilson responded to corruption charges. Wilson ordered both the Hughes and Borglum investigations. Wilson delayed releasing the initial Borglum findings. Wilson fired two persons to clean up corruption. There may be hundreds of biographers who have not covered the War Mobilization corruption charges, however, Leuchtenburg did cover this subject in 10 paragraphs under the direction of C. Vann Woodward, both prominent historians. I respect that you have known both Leuchtenburg and Cooper. Borglum's mental condition is irrelevant unless some physician ruled that Borglum was mentally incapacitated. Leuchenburg made no mention of Borglum's mental capacity nor stated that he made a "pathetic one-man effort" in his investigation. President Wilson fired two persons involved in War Mobilization as a result of Borglum's investigation. Is there any objection into putting into the article President Wilson's response to corruption charges; i.e. the two investigations, the delay in releasing Borglum's findings, and the firing of two persons involved in the corruption? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The job of the editors in a biographical article is to follow the lead of the RS biographers. None of them consider the issue important. Leuchtenburg leaves out the episode in his books. Wilson in fact appointed the most distinguished jurist in the US -- his opponent in 1916 no less--who said there was no scandal. Borglum meanwhile was not credible after he accused the army leaders of being pro-German. Hughes found no support for any of Borglum's allegations. Rjensen (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy the job of editors is to put in valid third party sources into Wikipedia articles. Leuchtenburg is a valid third party source. Borglum accusing U.S. military leaders of being pro German is seperate from his report on War Mobilization contracts. Borglum's report initiated a response from President Wilson who fired two people to clean up corruption. Also, more importantly, my above question has not been answered: "Is there any objection into putting into the article President Wilson's response to corruption charges; i.e. the two investigations, the delay in releasing Borglum's findings, and the firing of two persons involved in the corruption?" Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a sample edit.
 * "In an effort to reform and shake up his World War I Mobilization program, President Wilson removed the chief of Army Signal Corps and the Chairman of the Council's Aircraft Production Board on April 18, 1918. On May 18, President Wilson launched an investigation headed by Republcian Charles Evans Hughes into the War Department and the Council of Defense. The Hughes report released on October 31 found no major corruption violations or theft in President Wilson's Mobilization program, although the report found incompetance in the aircraft program." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What about only the first sentence be added to the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good solution. I would use the whote paragraph and footnote Pusey's biography of Hughes vol 1 pp 374-82. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That is good. I can use the Pusey reference in the edit. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wilson as military leader
I believe the article needs information on how President Wilson operated as Commander in Chief. Is there any mention of Wilson as a military leader? Did he make any signifigant decisions as a military leader during WWI or did he leave everything to his generals? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * it's astonishing. he completely ignored military affairs and let Pershing & March make all the decisions. (he met with Pershing only once in 1917-18 for a short talk). WW was, however, interested in naval affairs esp re submarines. Rjensen (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. That is astonishing. I believe this needs to be mentioned in his biography article, especially if there was no top down leadership from the Commander in Chief. Maybe there could be something on his interest in the U.S. Navy and Submarines. I believe he was the first President to address troops by radio on board a U.S. Naval cruizer. That would be good for the article too. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link that really is highly critical of Woodrow Wilson as a military leader: Presidential Leadership: From Woodrow Wilson to Harry S. Truman, p. 139 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WW was VERY interested in diplomacy & favorable mention of his commander in chief role mostly concerned diplomacy (eg should US go to war re Austria, what about Russia)Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was diplomatic, one source states he had no interest in military matters. Mentioning both would be good. I had no idea that he relied so heavily on his Secretary of War and generals. I believe a paragraph or section on this subject in the article would be appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed--some themes: Wilson and military operations in Mexico (Vera Cruz, Pancho Villa; Marines & Haiti; Preparedness movement; Teddy Roosevelt issue TR really wanted to be a general and WW refused); Garrison Baker & War Dept; Daniels, FDR & Navy Dept; Pershing; Peyton March; submarine issue & Germany; Sims (Navy) & convoys; Hughes investigation (re airplanes). Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. This needs to be in an appropriate segment. Interesting, FDR was Wilson's severest critic on running the War. What could this segment be titled? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are three possible titles. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Military mobilization effort
 * Military leadership style
 * Delegated military authority
 * "WW as commander in chief" ?? Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How about "Commander in chief" ? That would cover everything. Good suggestion, Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I set up a section up to make edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Commander in chief
Here is a potential first sentence for this section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "President Wilson, as Commander in Chief, delegated all military strategy to his secretaries and generals. Wilson, who detested military matters, took an international diplomatic approach in mobilizing America's war effort during WWI." Cmguy777 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

History of the American People
I have added a paragraph on Wilson's book History of the American People. The book is racist. I am not sure that all the book is racist. I never knew that Wilson was a voracious writer and his book was ambitious. Does any editor know why Wilson wrote this book? My concern is neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've browsed through it---it's much more than a textbook, it's a general history of the US based on primary sources. There is little original, however, and scholars rarely reference it. The "racism" is incidental -- you get it reading between the lines regarding the corruption during reconstruction. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree Rjensen. I was attempting to add balance to the article. Wilson's collection of original documents is somewhat impressive, particularly during the Grant Administration. There are photos of historical people that I believe are of value. The caricature of the elderly black man in the book is particularly offensive. Did Wilson write this book for national attention? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2013
under spouses bullet point: EDITH from "his death" to "her death"

96.245.86.131 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: Not sure what you mean. Edith Bolling Galt Wilson seems to have lived until 1961. Woodrow died in 1924. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add
Please add the following sentence to the end of the introduction:

"In spite of criticism of his segregation policies, Wilson is usually ranked highly in scholarly surveys of the greatest U.S. presidents."

With two exceptions, Wilson has always made the Top 10 in historian polls of the American Presidents. Even then, he only made 11th place. 207.255.102.40 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights/African Americans
A citation was requested for the criticism by Thomas E. Watson that Wilson wasn't segregationist enough. I found dozens of references, quoting without attribution though accurately an opinion that Watson was a "hard-line segregationist." I finally located the apparent original source that probably generated the "hard-line" often-repeated, though still unattributed reference about segregationist criticism with the quote from the original, self-published Watson statement.

It is in editorial commentary prefacing an extensive microfiche collection about Watson. In its entirety it is, Wilson, who would preside over the segregation of the federal bureaucracy, was said by Watson to be "ravenously fond of the negro". Activist (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

 * Thanks to Activist for tracking down that quotation, but it seems to me that the quotation provided does not sufficiently support the assertion in the article. Assuming, as I think we safely may, that Watson made the statement attributed to him, it is impossible, without some context, to know what he meant by it.  My guess is that he meant just what the article says he meant, but my guesses are not sufficient authority for Wikipedia.


 * Some recognition of nuance is useful here. Under the Segregation regime, it was perfectly possible for a white man to be personally well-disposed towards black people, individually or collectively—or to be, as Watson put it, "ravenously fond of the negro", whatever he may have meant by that—without transgressing the written or unwritten laws of race-relations within the Jim Crow society, even, indeed, while at the same time enforcing and even strengthening those laws.  As long as kindness or humane treatment towards black persons did not appear to threaten or diminish white supremacy, it tended to be encouraged under Segregation, as evidence of the regime's purported beneficial purposes and effects for blacks as well as for whites; and, in more practical terms, as a palliative to dispel black discontentment, and thereby to stabilize the system.


 * If Wilson indeed sincerely regarded segregation as "not a humiliation but a benefit" (in which sincerity would not necessarily rule out hypocrisy or condescension, although I'm personally inclined to doubt Wilson's sincerity at every opportunity), then Watson's comment might have nothing to do with Wilson's "not going far enough in restricting black employment in the federal government." That is, Wilson might easily have gone the limit in restricting black employment in the federal government, while showing in other ways what Watson regarded as a "ravenous" fondness for black people.


 * Woodward's book is readily available, and it may shed more light. If not, the quotation comes from a printed periodical that probably still exists in some form, and could surely be tracked down.  If it's not yet available on the Internet, I would imagine that a photocopy of the relevant page of Watson's Jeffersonian Weekly could be obtained from any library that possesses a copy of the cited microform collection.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage and the 19th Amendment
The 19th Amendment was passed during Wilson's presidency. However he only supported it under duress, after numerous influential suffragettes were imprisoned under specious charges, and several were subjected to well-publicized abuse in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofitz101 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "duress" ?? politicians sometimes listen to public opinion and to their own sense of justice. See Christine A. Lunardini and Thomas J. Knock, "Woodrow Wilson and Woman Suffrage: A New Look," Political Science Quarterly 95 (1981): 655-71. in JSTOR; and Sally Hunter Graham, "Woodrow Wilson, Alice Paul, and the Woman Suffrage Movement," Political Science Quarterly (1984) 98#4 pp. 665-679 in JSTOR. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add that, while of course public opinion helped change Wilson's views on the matter, it does seem that he was going through a personal change as well. At any rate, the fact that the article only has one single sentence on women's suffrage is a distressing and glaring mistake. The man, for whatever reason, pushed the federal amendment which guaranteed the right to vote to half of the country. It was the most contentious and divisive social issue of his time in office, and once it was added to the Constitution politics in this country changed significantly. I think that we can all reasonably agree that it warrants more than one sentence. A section about the battle for the vote and how the Wilson administration handled the issue would be most welcome. 207.255.102.40 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013
I would like to add this book to the citations in the section "Scholarly topical studies": Here is the citation: Yellin, Eric S. _Racism in the Nation's Service: Government Workers and the Color Line in Woodrow Wilson's America_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013. http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-8889.html

Ericyellin (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The only thing I changed from your request was the format of the citation.  CarnivorousBunny talk • contribs  00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV or cherry picked section "African Americans"
Civil Rights, African American section: Numerous Wilson biographies I have read point to Wilson's bigotry regarding African American's. He privately referred to them as darky's.  I hate racism, but this section seems to go out of its way to paint Wilson as an overt and over the top racist of the day. He was not ever a member of the KKK like certain Senators and Supreme Court Justices of the day. Could anyone of that time be elected President without going along with the status quo of the day? Other people who were full-on racists of the day were not elected President. Politicians throughout the history of Democracy have been known to say things just to get votes. If we had some sort of time machine, and it was possible for someone we highly regard today like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to run for President back then, it is pretty obvious that they would have gotten nowhere running for president. It seems like this section of the Wilson article itself is a bit over the top in its attempts to condemn Wilson, at a time in history when his actions and words were not all that extreme. Also, I question the amount of cherry picking of quotes in this section, and wonder if some are a bit out of context. Maybe they would be better placed on an article about racism in American history, or something along those lines. I mention these things not because I condone anything about Wilson's racism, or anybody's racism, but I am questioning how we are weighting it in this article. I am interested in other people's views on this.12voltlighting (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Quotation in Second Paragraph
A. Scott Berg is quoted as saying "No matter what time you lived, some of the things Wilson said and did were racist. That being said, I do think that for his day, he was a centrist. He was not some wild Klansman. I think he was sympathetic to African Americans. He just, for all sorts of reasons, didn't think the nation was ready to segregate."

Shouldn't this be "desegregate"? The quote from the Berg interview is correct, but the content itself is confusing. 137.146.73.141 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014
Misspelling: In the section on the Election of 1912, related word in 2 places: disfranchised should be disenfranchised disfranchisement should be disenfranchisement The source does show the word enfranchisement, but the author misspelled it in negation. Franchise here refers to the right to vote. Poll workers are often warned not to "disenfranchise" anyone.

BonnieBlueBonnet (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done This following might be worth quoting here:

"Disfranchise and disenfranchise mean the same: to deprive of rights or privileges. Disfranchise is the traditional form, but it has given way to disenfranchise over the last several decades, and the latter now prevails by a large margin. This is the case in all main varieties of English, and it is true despite the fact that several major dictionaries—including Oxford and American Heritage—still favor the shorter form.

Etymology and logic rarely guide English usage, but it is worth noting that there is a sound basis for the shift from disfranchise to disenfranchise. Enfranchise is the verb meaning (1) to set free, or (2) to give rights or privileges. Franchise bore these senses long ago, and thorough dictionaries still list them, but the word was never commonly used this way, and it wholly gave way to enfranchise for these senses from the 17th century on. So while disfranchise might make sense when we consider its roots, disenfranchise makes sense in modern English because it is the opposite of enfranchise, not of franchise, which is now primarily a noun.

There remain generations of living English speakers who grew up when disfranchise was more common, so disenfranchise still faces opposition. But the longer form has now all but pushed the shorter one out of the language (more completely in current searchable news and blog writing than in books, but books tend to lag a few years behind), so there’s no need to appease the few who continue to resist the change (except perhaps if you’re writing for a very old-fashioned professor or boss)." Source: http://grammarist.com/usage/disenfranchise-disfranchise/


 * Best, Sam Sailor Sing 06:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction should mention the Zimmermann Telegram. Germany's attempt to enlist Mexico as an ally in early 1917 was a more important reason for the United States entering World War I than the German Navy's unrestricted submarine warfare. (ErichAldofer (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

The intro is loaded with political bias demonizing anarchists, communists, and dissenters in general. The entry of the US into WWI has nothing to do with either the German submarines or the Zimmerman telegram.

FixMacs (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Vignette
I am very much tempted to add the following vignette because it makes for enjoyable reading - but it may be insufficiently pertinent for the "encyclopedic" nature of a president's WP article. Comments?


 * During Christmas of 1913, while on vacation in Pass Christian, MS, the president was returning from a game of golf when the motorcade came upon a house which was on fire. The motorcade stopped and the Secret Service rushed to put the fire out, while the president entered the front door to meet the owner, Mrs. Susan Hart Neville. "Oh Mr. President, it is so good of you to call on me", said the lady unawares. "Won't you please walk into the parlor and sit down?" The president replied, "Madam, I haven't time to sit down - your house is on fire." For his efforts the president was made an honorary member of the Pass Christian Fire Department. Heckscher, p.322. Hoppyh (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * negative. too many anecdotes spoil the encyclopedic effect and people looking for info stop reading. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. entry into W.W. I
Heckscher says (p.462) that the overthrow of Russian czar removed an insurmountable barrier to U.S. joining the war effort. A brief description of that barrier might be appropriate. Hoppyh (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014
The "Treaty Source 1919" section is loosely written and contains errors of punctuation, spacing and superfluous words as well. Please edit, thanks.

24.115.143.94 (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Would you be able to identify these errors that you see? Thanks, Stickee (talk)  12:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014
In the box to the right, under spouses, it stands: Edith Bolling (1915–24; his death), is not Edith Bolling a woman?

O.C.Husebye (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's trying to say that the marriage ended when Woodrow died. —Designate (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014
"seeds had been sewn" should be "seeds had been sown"

173.32.14.168 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Federal Reserve
The introduction lists the Federal Reserve as part of a progressive agenda; the Federal Reserve system is not progressive, and as the newspaper accounts of the time indicate, it was created to be, and still is, pro-business.174.73.5.74 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson built a very broad base of support, it won the support of Bryan and his left wing of the Dem party because it promised to control the Banking Power. Progressives liked its emphasis on efficiency and expertise. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014
Megorslagel (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC) he went to ford city high school
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nici  Vampire  Heart  15:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacy
Unless someone has a solid objection, I'm going to take out the line "fewer than a dozen regular notes of this type were printed" in relation to the $100,000 gold certificate, for the following reasons:

1) "regular notes" doesn't mean anything. There were several types of currency in circulation at the time, so this phrase is meaningless, 2) it seems highly unlikely that "fewer than a dozen" would be printed--at the time, the notes were printed 12 to a sheet, so that would be less than one sheet, and 3) I've never seen this claim made in any reference. Almostfm (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Classification among presidents
"This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Presidents (marked as Low-importance)." - Low importance? He was not of low importance at all. This should be changed. Dustin ( talk ) 03:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Glaring omission
I noticed that there was no mention of president Wilson being the single most damaging president in the history of the United States, even though he signed the Federal Reserve Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 December 2014‎
 * I notice you haven't provided any reliable sources, or any sources at all, to support your contention, so it will likely otherwise be ignored. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Racism Issue in the lede
Wilson's record on Civil Rights could include the fact that he re-segregated the bureaucracy of the Federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.171.155.138 (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit has added significant detail on this issue into the lede. Query if the subject is properly weighted in the lede at this point or whether the detail belongs in the section on Civil Rights. Hoppyh (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson did not personally segregate the bureaucracy --that process had been underway for years and his only role was to not stop the process. The process continued into the late 1940s before it was reversed. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How many years? I thought Teddy Roosevelt de-segged it when he was president. Who was reversing this, if not Wilson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.171.141 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * segregation of blacks in federal govt was underway since 1890s. Historians do NOT say that TR reversed the process.Indeed TR himself said in 1903 that the number of Negro officeholders "which was insignificant even under McKinley, has been still further reduced." [ in Seth Steiner, TR and Negro p 177]  Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Academic credentials for Woodrow Wilson (i.e., L.L.D.)
Thank you for the opportunity to 'add a fact' for the comprehensive Woodrow Wilson biographical page which is comprehensive and excellent! I am reading the three volumes of the "Epochs of American HistoryGeneral editor, Albert Bushnell Hart, Ph.D., Harvard Italic text and particularly Vol 3, Division and Reunion (1829-1909) by Woodrow Wilson, Aug. 1909 edition, original edition completed in 1892, and published in 1893. See Wiki Note #55 in the subject biography. The cover page identifies the author as: "Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D., LL.D.",President of Princeton University. I wish to inform you of Woodrow Wilson's other academic credential of "LL.D.".

Thank You (in Advance) HappyFish64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyFish64 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * college presidents love to give each other honorary unearned degrees like the LLD-- so it is not considered a genuine academic credential. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake under "Second Term...", in the second paragraph:

"... knowing the U.S reaction would adversely effect his country's lot.[188]"

It should be "... adversely affect his ..."

(I am brand-new here.)

Luceclarior (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Edith Bolling Galt to Section 3, Marriage and Family
His second wife is discussed in Section 10.1.5, etc., but a mention in Marriage and Family would be appropriate. EDC105 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC) EDC105 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfitting
Gen. Pershing, in a letter to Wilson considered unfitting, disagreed entirely with the armistice and recommended an unconditional surrender by Germany.

"Unfitting" according to what standard of conduct, or whose opinion? Was it wrong that he wrote the letter at all, or was he wrong in addressing the letter to Wilson, or wrong in the content it included? This statement is way too opaque. &mdash; MaxEnt 10:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Wilson was annoyed --He almost never consulted with Pershing. I rephrased the sentence. Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
under the Civil Rights heading in this article: A. Scott Berg, in his 2013 biography of Wilson, suggests that Wilson may have done more for the advancement of African-Americans than anyone before Lyndon Johnson, with his 1917 Executive Order barring discrimination against African-Americans working in factories under contract to support America's World War I efforts.

LawrenceGlennLester (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  00:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason US entered WW1
The entry of the United States into World War I had much more to do with the Zimmermann Telegram than Germany's submarine warfare. The introduction should mention this. (CaptainJakeCutter (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC))
 * most historians emphasize the subs, which were actually sinking real American ships in March 1917 rather than a hypothetical alliance that Zimmermann proposed but that never happened.Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The alliance never happened because Mexico rejected it. The Zimmermann Telegram ensured US entry into WW1, as to ignore the threat would have made America look weak. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

My understanding is that the Zimmermann Telegram was sort of a "final straw" (or a match to gunpowder, or whatever clichéd metaphor one chooses to use) after increasing aggravation from the U-Boats, even though it seemed so absurd that many assumed it to be a hoax concocted by British Intelligence.

On another note, Adam Tooze (in The Deluge, his recent study of world finance in and after WW1) argues that Wilson was instrumental in shutting off Fed backing for British and French loans in the run-up to the 1916 election, causing J.P.Morgan to have to step in to stop a run on the pound sterling. Wilson gave his first address to the Senate early in 1917, the first since George Washington, in which he expressed his hope for a compromise peace. Tooze argues that he wanted to broker a peace deal like TR had done between Russia and Japan in 1905, and was trying to force the Allies to give up. In this period the Germans were putting out very tentative peace feelers whereas the Allies still wanted to push on until Germany had been forced to disgorge her conquests ("the knock-out blow" as Lloyd George put it late in 1916). By mid-1917 the Allies would have been in severe financial trouble. But the Germans - not least because they assumed that US financial links to the Entente made inevitable US entry to the war on the Allied side - struck first with escalated U-boat activity, and managed to bring about the very thing - US entry - which they thought inevitable, and very much contrary to Wilson's wishes. Not sure if Wilson's other biographers dwell on this episode.Paulturtle (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just realized the above comments make The Deluge sound like some loopy conspiracy theory (e.g. that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, or US entry in 1917 was about protecting J.P. Morgan's banking interests, or whatever). It's not - it's a well-received academic work. But I'm not an expert on American politics of this era so I'm keen to seek other opinions.Paulturtle (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015
Following passage:

This included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an and a small income tax.

Should be adjusted to:

This included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and a small income tax.

Reason, unnecessary "and an" distracts reader and is grammatically incorrect.

Also,

He loaned billions of dollars to Britain, France and other Allies, allowing them to finance their own war effort.

Should be adjusted to:

He loaned billions of dollars to Britain, France, and other Allies, allowing them to finance their own war effort.

Oxford comma important to emphasize correct intention of phrase.

Nicholas.Horsey (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing of lead with controversies removed
The lead as it stands now does not correlate with an array of sources on how controversial this president was. Haven't used Wikipedia as a source (as a third year history student I read mostly published material) but I was intrigued to look at the Wilson article having extensively studied WWI leaders In my last term. The man was not just flagrantly racist in his private life, his political stance was also, while he was apathetic toward women's rights. I looked at the edit history and noticed that as recent as February 8 the controversies were removed by the user Rjensen. I was troubled by these edits so I looked at Rjensen's edit history and what I soon discovered was a history of one sided editing heavily in favor of American people and events.."tweaks" seemed to be the operative term for much of them. In terms of content change, the editor either removes the controversy completely or tones it down to the point the controversy effectively becomes a non issue. It became so blatant that in one article the term "annexed" was removed when a territory annexed by the U.S. was precisely what had taken place (a following editor took umbrage at this and then added a source to ensure the user couldn't alter it again). the user also contributes to the American exceptionalism article on Wikipedia, an article which also takes aim at the left for daring to critique Amercian individuals and policies). My question is who vets editors on this site? What action is taken to prevent such a swathe of biased editing occurring? How is it reported? My history teacher told us history depends on who is telling it, and so encouraged us to read a broad range of material to get a balanced overview of a subject. Wikipedia (unlike Conservapedia) aims to give a balanced overview of the subject and maintain a neutral point of view, hence for the good of this encyclopedia I would like to see some action taken. Joseph Odegbami (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * take a look at Richard J. Jensen and Talk:Richard J. Jensen and notice how many universities, journals, scholarly societies, book publishers and editorial boards have requested his services as a scholar. Joseph Odegbami might do well to read some of his books and articles and see what sort of bias he can discover. And please, personal attacks are not allowed. Woodrow Wilson is one of most famous liberals and American history-- as is Franklin D Roosevelt-- I have tried to give them very fair and balanced and unbiased articles.  As for this article, the lead states "In 1918 after years of calling for suffrage at the state level, Wilson endorsed a constitutional amendment that achieved nationwide women's suffrage in 1920 over Southern opposition. He sought and received support from many in the black community, but his record on race as President has been criticized by recent scholars." Which I think is a very fair summary of the issues. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Joseph Odegbami: In answer to your question, editors are not strictly speaking "vetted" at Wikipedia, and they don't need to be vetted. And, to your question (what action is taken to prevent "biased" editing?), the answer is that Wikipedia has a set of rules and guidelines, which are enforced by Wikipedia editors. Among the most important of these are:

Verifiability WP:V;

Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV;

No Original Research WP:NOR.

I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, but you should understand that in general, editor bias in and of itself is not a valid ground for objection, just as bias in a source material (that otherwise complies with Wikipedia rules and guidelines) is not a valid ground for objection. Sources are often biased, and editors are allowed to be biased. Indeed, there is no valid reason to eliminate bias in source materials, and no effective way to eliminate bias in people who edit Wikipedia. What is most important is the substance of the edit itself, and not so much the bias of the editor making that edit. Instead of attacking another editor (which is a violation of the rules here), please focus on the content of the edits.

Note: There is such a thing as a conflict of interest for a given editor (WP:COI), where potential editor bias may be something to consider, but that is a separate issue. Famspear (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference to views on the KKK
As a student of history, I find the last passage about civil rights to be a tad misleading, bordering on whitewashing. The quotes taken from Wilson's History of the American People are not representative of the racism he expresses in the book, along with laudatory statements regarding the KKK. In fact, he was even quoted in the movie The Birth of the Nation (see e.g. https://medium.com/@tboot/the-issue-sir-is-civilization-d-w-grif-th-thomas-dixon-and-woodrow-wilsons-racist-3c5eb8d5e529). Why not quote "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation—until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." instead of the more moderate quote? And then one could add "This quote and others were reproduced in The Birth of a Nation, an epic drama based on the book the Clansman written by Wilson's highschool friend T.F. Dixon, which glorified the history of the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.98.146 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  18:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please change "Wilson's History of the American People (1901) explained the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as a lawless reaction to a lawless period. Wilson wrote that the Klan "began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action".[263]" to: "Wilson's History of the American People (1901) explained the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as a lawless reaction to a lawless period. Expressing an understanding view of their racialist ideas, he wrote: "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation—until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." This quote and others were reproduced in The Birth of a Nation, an epic drama based on the book the Clansman written by Wilson's highschool friend Thomas Dixon, Jr., which glorified the history of the KKK. The movie was later screened at the White House."
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Your requested change seems to take a relatively neutral statement and adds bias to it.  Seem very controversial to me, and as such will require a consensus to implement. —   23:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd claim that quite on the contrary, the "neutral" version you're defending is the one overlooking and whitewashing the essence of Wilson's writing on this topic. Your quote is certainly more "neutral" than Wilson himself in this respect. I'm sure most historians would agree. Wilson's relationship to Dixon is well-established, and so is the fact that the movie was screened at the White House. What's controversial in historiography is whether Wilson approved of the movie or not. Either way, I fail to see how it would be irrelevant that Wilson was quoted in the bestseller movie The Birth of a Nation. Hopefully someone else has the time to give you relevant references on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.92.29 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Revise title of Section 2 Education and marriage
Although the title of section 2 is "Education and marriage," marriage is not discussed in this section. Marriage is discussed in Section 3 Marriage and family. I suggest that the title of section 2 be simplified merely to "Education." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.230.227 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015
Please change the title of Section 2 from "Education and marriage" to "Education," because marriage is not discussed in this section.

63.98.230.227 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dustin  ( talk ) 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar fix
In Death section

" annuity of $2,500 annually "

could someone with edit privileges please delete the word "annually"

an "annuity" is paid annually and the use of the word "annually" is redundant.

GraemeSmith (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

❌. I had made the suggested "correction" before realizing it was a mistake. See Annuity (finance theory). It is not necessarily paid on an annual basis, so the word "annually" is not redundant.--JayJasper (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, in "Entry into World War 1" section, the second sentence of the second paragraph contains "effect" which should be corrected to "affect" since it is used as a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.0.50 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To the anonymous IP, I have made your suggested correction to the article, so that task is ✅. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation
Multiple sources describe Wilson's showing of this. I haven't seen any that says he didn't know its contents before he showed it. Even though Dixon bragged about hiding the "real purpose of the film", it does not follow that Wilson didn't actually know; for example, I am unaware of any source which says whether or not Wilson read Dixon's book "the Clansman", on which the film was based, or even whether or not Wilson knew the book's title, which would obviously have told him a lot. Sources say that Wilson and Dixon were friends, so by the time Dixon said that, the film had become an embarrasment to Wilson; it is possible that Dixon was simply trying to shield Wilson.

Additionally, there is no justification for taking out the "three years later" part of the "most unfortunate production" quote. It's reasonable to include the quote, because it shows that Wilson later realized the film was a problem. But leaving it out gives the misleading impression that Wilson definitively realized that at the time.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cooper's Biography makes clear that Dixon (An undergraduate classmate of Wilson) tricked Wilson in order to get hugely favorable publicity. This was the first showing of the movie anywhere, and Wilson had no idea what its contents were. Wilson immediately --NOT 3 years later--realized there was problem and he had his secretary issue a denial that he approved the film. There's no reason to have that three years later on the false assumption that he changed his mind. Biographer Arthur Link has covered the issue in Wilson: the new freedom 1956 pp 252-54. Link says Dixon laid a trap and "Wilson fell into Dixon's trap." (That's a pretty good basis for Wikipedia to say that Wilson was tricked.) Link says Chief Justice White, a former Klansman, also fell into the trap and watched the movie; he was outraged and threatened to denounce the movie publicly if Dixon did not stop saying White enjoyed it. Wilson said he would like to write a letter stating that he did not approve of the 'Birth of a nation,' but did not want to get bogged down in a petty controversy. He had Tumulty say that he had no time approved the film. I assume that Wilson had read "the Clansmen" But keep in mind that this was the first novel that ever became a major film, and that the director wrote a fresh script that only generally parallels the novel, Actually it's the visual effects in the movie that made racism the central element. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request?
In that line, << ...with a pathetic patience and sweetness" He was at her bedside to the end ... >>, there should be a period between "sweetness" and "He". 71.204.84.204 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
There is a typo in citation 135: "This administration is Woodrow Wilson's and non-other's" should be "This administration is Woodrow Wilson's, and none other's"

According to Saturday Evening Post: Heckscher:

Another: The name of Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff is misspelled "Bernstorf".

NathanHillery (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Wilson involvment with the KKK
I understand that Wilson was a member of the KKK. He invited his friend Dixon (Birth of a Nation) to the WHite House and the film was screened there.Also, he made the WHite House "white only" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.47.232 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

criticisms section
maybe a criticisms section needs to be added to the article. I remember watching a documentary mentioned him as a "sell out" to the people of the USA to the private banking cartel, forming The Federal Reserve, etc. Gizziiusa (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)gizziiusa

when Princeton changes names - wil lthat be added here, no words on his administration segregation acts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.168.20 (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"the second of three sitting presidents so honored."
should read "second of four", now. Obama, 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.187.102 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's correct: Obama is the third one. When Jimmy Carter got the Nobel prize in 2002, he was not president. Sapphorain (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Civil rights - segregation
I do not want to change anything in the article as I am not knowledgeable enough about that part of the USA history, I would not even know were to find all the right sources. When I read about the protesting students at Princeton I had a look at Wikipedia to read up about Woodrow Wilson. I read this tiny paragraph about civil rights and thought, that can not be all. Than I made a small search on the internet, found several articles, with a comment for example: "Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time". One of bad parts seems to be the resegregation of the federal government, post office, federal service, including dismissing black persons in supervisory position. This is an example. Are there some historians here, that agree that this article needs some work to bring a balanced picture of Woodrow Wilson?Jochum (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wilson had a history of racist policies and actions. This is common knowledge.  I do not have the reliable sources in hand, however, to make the changes to the article. Pkgx (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016
Request to improve the Woodrow_Wilson section, by describing the reason that made president Wilson hostile towards the Mexican dictator Victoriano Huerta, wich finally lead to the Tampico affair (as follows):

After learning about the implication that Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson had in the murder of Mexican president Francisco Madero and the coup staged by Victoriano Huerta, president Woodrow Wilson recalled the ambasador and initiated a campaign to drive Huerta out from Mexico. The President supplanted Henry Lane by sending as his personal envoy John Lind, and on 17 July 1913, and dismissed Ambassador Wilson.

189.223.103.11 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I attempted to incorporate your suggestion into the beginning of the section in this edit. In the future, it would be helpful if you specify exactly the changes to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section
The Legacy section seems so minor and understated that it's unacceptably misleading. Right now, it reads like a list of Wilson trivia. The Herbert Hoover article has a section "Heritage and Memorials", and this current Wilson 'Legacy' section should be renamed "Heritage and Memorials" and a new section should be written on the legacy of "Wilsonianism."

Doesn't a Legacy section need to inform readers that Wilson was certainly one of, and arguably the single most globally influential of U.S. Presidents? And by 'global', I mean both "worldwide" and "systems-wide." Love him or hate him, I think this is virtually a fact. Henry Kissinger describes Wilson's legacy in 'Diplomacy': "It is above all to the drumbeat of Wilsonian idealism that American foreign policy has marched since his watershed presidency, and continues to march to this day."

Kissinger goes on: "To hardened veterans of a European diplomacy based on the balance of power, Wilson's views about the ultimately moral foundations of foreign policy appeared strange, even hypocritical. Yet Wilsonianism has survived while history has bypassed the reservations of his contemporaries.  Wilson was the originator of the vision of a universal world organization … which would keep the peace through collective security rather than alliances."

I.e., Every U.S. President from at least FDR thru Nixon thru Reagan-Bush thru Bush II to Obama has been a "Wilsonian." Invoking international law against the U.S., even Putin is selectively 'Wilsonian' when it suits him.

I think a discussion of "Wilsonianism" as an enduring template for U.S. Presidents has to be in the Legacy section. Ten-K (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. The current Legacy section has nothing at all about his legacy and a great deal of badly written "named for" items. I think some of it is even repeated twice in different sections of the misnamed Legacy section. Probably most of the items are worth including in the article, some of them are even notable in their own right, but it needs re-writing. As for Wilsonianism, yes it is a major legacy, and it is striking that several of the sources mention "Wilsonian" even just in their titles, but the article itself only mentions it in a small paragraph at the end of the lede, which is not reflected in the body of the article as it should be.


 * If you have time, please go ahead and do the renaming and the new section. Even just starting with a sentence and a half of Kissinger would be a good beginning.


 * Do not worry about Wilson's reputation, good or bad, being an obstacle. I had no idea that he was even controversial. MPS1992 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A bounce in 1912??
Political scientist Valelly points out that few blacks voted in the South in 1912. He does NOT claim that if they had all voted it would have changed the electoral outcome. How many states would have changed their vote--he never says. No historian I know makes an estimate. It's very hard to see how Wilson could have lost the electoral college in 1912, given the Taft-TR split. Surely "bounce" is a short-term effect & is the wrong term for an effect that lasted three generations Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That may not be the right term, but the disfranchisement of many members of the Republican Party in the South since the turn of the century should be acknowledged, as voter rolls dropped dramatically. This was the first presidential election in which the full force of disfranchisement would have had effect. Yes, and it continued for generations.Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Queries, not an edit request.
While looking for historic newspaper items about my family, I saw an item about President Wilson. The headline was: "PRES. WILSON RECOVERING FROM ILLNESS". Find the paper at the Old Fulton NY Post Cards site: bit.ly/236Yr30 (The address was 3-1/2 lines long, so I shortened it.)

Dateline: Washington, Nov. 2. "''President Wilson, rapidly recovering from his nervous breakdown today is engaged in:. . ." A long list of Presidential activates followed, including "4.—Selecting a new secretary of the treasury, and a secretary of commerce.''"

Was the concocted cover story truly a "nervous breakdown", today considered to be the equivalent of clinical depression, severe anxiety, and/or a dissociation state, conditions which still bear a strong stigma - especially in someone with the position of President? That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the cover story would have been something more innocent and less mentally incapacitating-sounding, like "exhaustion" or a broken leg.

If the President's wife, Ellen Louise Axson, truly controlled access to and from the President, does that mean it was she who chose those two cabinet secretaries?

Why didn't Vice President Thomas R. Marshall assume Wilson's activities until he was able to resume them or did the cover-up extend him to him as well?

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)



A couple of comments on the above: Yes, Wilson's wife exercised access control, but that woman was not the former Ellen Axson, who died in 1914. (Wilson had remarried in 1915 and the controlling wife mentioned above was Edith Galt Wilson.) Also, there was no legal procedure for the Vice President to assume the duties of an incapacitated President, although I read there was an informal agreement sometime in the 1950s between President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

why not also mention Hughes was a Supreme Court Justice?
Early on in this Wikipedia entry, it is mentioned (CORRECTLY) that Wilson was opposed, in reelection run in 1916, by Charles Evans Hughes. Why does it only mention that Hughes was a former governor of N.Y. state? He was more recently a U.S. Supreme Court justice (he may have had to step down in advance of this presidential run -- I don't have it in front of me when he left the Court, but he would be returned there in 1930 as Chief Justice).

I am going to write a separate section on THIS talk page to suggest a change in the 2nd sentence of that paragraph which mentions 1916 presidential run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

southern presidents
"He was the first Southerner elected as president since 1848" Lincoln, elected in 1860, was from Kentucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B103:E0EC:4E:29C4:101E:6368 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lincoln left Kentucky as a baby. He grew up in Indiana and identified as a westerner and not as a southerner. Wilson grew up in the deep south and identified with the region.  Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And he (Lincoln) was living in Illinois by 1860. He engaged in the famous debates with Stephen Douglas in that state in 1858. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

as promised -- EDIT REQUEST regarding 1916 presidential election
Early in the article is paragraph whose 1st 2 sentences are: "Wilson faced former Governor Charles Evans Hughes of New York State in the presidential election of 1916. He became the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson elected to consecutive terms with a narrow majority."

What I am concerned about is that it appears that the narrow majority was part of Andrew Jackson's election to a 2nd consecutive term. Try this for that 2nd sentence: "He won by a narrow majority, becoming the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson to be elected to consecutive terms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend we drop " He became the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson elected to consecutive terms" --it's trivia and covers only Van Buren & Cleveland, but Cleveland was elected twice, so it really only covers Van Buren, but readers are not told that. So it's a useless misleading factoid. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was only trying to have fixed what I found. Yes, "He [Wilson] became the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson elected to consecutive terms", and that sentence should not have included reference to narrow majority. But why are you mentioning Van Buren and Cleveland? Van Buren was elected Vice President in 1832 and President in 1836; Cleveland was elected to 2 terms as President but those 2 terms were not consecutive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the statement is too misleading to be useful--it does not tell who, when, or why. It obscures what happened and even so what happened is of very minor importance. Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Biased throughout World War I
Wilson supported the British Empire from the very beginning of World War I, rejecting German complaints that the Royal Navy's blockade was illegal under international law. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Do you have specific changes you think need to be made? Just saying "it's biased" doesn't do much good; we need pointers to reliable sources which contradict what is stated. Tarl N. (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific quote from the Talk:Hillary Clinton FAQ, which applies to this comment:
 * Q: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}!
 * A: Complaints of bias are taken seriously, but must be accompanied by very specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements such as these are of no help to editors; we can't read your mind. Edits that stick on pov tags without detailed explanations in Talk will just be backed out.
 * In summary, please specify what specifically you think is wrong and give us pointers to reliable sources which contradict what the article says. Regards, Tarl N. (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The blockade was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention of 1907, which the UK had signed. (109.158.178.195 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC))
 * and your Reliable secondary source for this claim is?? Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the history books I have read on World War I agree the blockade was illegal. The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg made clear at the time that Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was in response to the illegal blockade. See his note to the US government here: http://firstworldwar.com/source/usawar_cecil.htm (217.42.104.5 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Wikiepedia requires an actual reliable secondary source that we can all examine--do you have one?  the issue is the German argument that if Britain broke the law, then it was ok for Germany to drown American civilians. Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The British caused that by putting weapons and explosives on passenger ships from the very beginning of the war. Americans were warned not to use British ships. (217.42.104.5 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC))
 * The British caused the Germans to drown American civilians without allowing them into life boats? Actually the Germans really wanted to do just that.  that's what a cause for war bet US & Germany looks like. top German officials in Jan 1917 knew that--they just decided US would be too slow to fight back. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP editors in questions are all socks of .  Calidum   ¤   07:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

segregation under Woodrow Wilson
In this article is very softly mentioned under civil rights, that under Woodrow Wilson some segregation happened. quote: "Cabinet heads appointed by President Wilson re-segregated restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings"

But that is not the history. The federal civil service was re segregated under Woodrow Wilson, starting out with segregating restrooms moving to segregate workplaces and ending with a stop on hiring blacks and removing them out of managerial positions. As an example here the American Postal Service: http://postalmuseum.si.edu/AfricanAmericanhistory/p5.html

For part of the USA citizens this action was a defining moment, that led to losses of jobs, income and status. It should be mentioned right at the beginning with all the many accomplishments of Woodrow Wilson.


 * While President Wilson advocated progressive reforms in banking, tariffs, and dismantling trusts, he never initiated or supported any civil rights legislation during his entire eight-year tenure as President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.41.212 (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Some other references: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/remembering-president-wilsons-purge-of-black-federal-workers http://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2013/03/04/the-long-forgotten-racial-attitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/ http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist82.221.33.114 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But it did not happen that way. Segregation did not start under Wilson. Segregation began under the Republicans Roosevelt and Taft, and the Wilson administration continued the policy into more offices and departments.  The Republicans in the 1920s furthermore continued the policy. See  August Meier and Elliott Rudwick. "The Rise of Segregation in the Federal Bureaucracy, 1900-1930." Phylon (1960) 28.2 (1967): 178-184. in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not change what Woodrow Wilson did. When the Smithsonian National Postal Museum declares that re segregation of the Postal Service started under Woodrow Wilson, that it is hard to disbelieve. And when other re segregation started under a president before Woodrow Wilson, I did not read about blacks getting fired or demoted before Woodrow Wilson, than write that with that president and again it does not change what Woodrow Wilson did, at least he accelerated it. Presidents after Woodrow Wilson continuing his racial segregation politic, does not either place Woodrow Wilson in a better light.Jochum (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016
When the article discusses Woodrow Wilson's reaction to the racist 1915 film "Birth Of A Nation" it falsely states that Wilson "did not know the nature of the film beforehand, never praised the film and considered it to be "a very unfortunate production."

That is a gross revision of Wilson's actual sentiments and should be removed. The following reflects how he really felt about the film.

.[After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."]

Blackfirsts1 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ The current content of the article with regard to this topic, appears to be reliably sourced. Your suggested replacement does not cite any sources. MPS1992 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow was a great president who cared about his family and cared where he grew up. He was born on December 28,1656 in Staunton,Virginia. Mr. Wilson was this nation’s 28th president. His origins are Scottish and Irish.His religion was Presbyterian. His parents were Janet Woodrow Wilson and Joseph Ruggles Wilson. He had three kids named Margaret, Jesse, and Eleanor. He also had two wives named Ellen and Edith.Woodrow also had several siblings named Marion, Anne, and Joseph Jr. Mr.Woodrow cared a lot about his children. Plus his wives. Mr. Woodrow Wilson served in office during 1913-1921. His campaign slogan was “He kept us out of war”.Woodrow loved his years in offices. Sadly, Mr. Woodrow Wilson passed on, February 3,1924. As a child, Woodrow learned his ABC’s at the age of nine. His Dad, taught him to speak well on any topic. His dad continued to teach him this skill until he went to college. Mr.Woodrow Wilson was also a governor of New Jersey in 1910. Woodrow was apart of the Democrat political party. He attended several colleges Davidson College,Princeton University, University of Virginia Law School, John Hopkins University Private Tours. As you can see, he really cared about his education! Woodrow went to Princeton University to study politics. At Princeton University, Woodrow was getting bad grades. Then he got a title for being the best debater in the University. He debated at a famous debate organized by James Maddison. Woodrow Wilson fought in World War 2. He actually let the USA in the war. They had successfully won the war. Woodrow Wilson did a lot to help America. Had passed a slew domestic reforms, including the Federal Reserve Act. In May 1914 the US Congress passed a law declaring the Second Sunday in May as Mother's Day. Woodrow became a major advance for women suffrage. Woodrow also led the USA into the War World 2, like I said in the first paragraph. Woodrow always respected others during his presidency. People would respect him back. Woodrow was respected by other some would trust his with his plans. Woodrow would almost always say You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand.Plus he would always say America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to find a region where he will be free to work out his destiny as he chooses. Mr. Wilson left office in 1921. Woodrow was the best president of United States of America. Do you think that Woodrow was the best president ever. Do you like his style of running thing when he was in his presidency. To learn more information go to these sites down below.

Pinky0624 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Education
Shouldn't the box on the right include Davidson College along with Princeton and JHU? Granted he didn't graduate but still received some education there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.138 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Woodrow Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913094418/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228130550/http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm to http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925210636/http://www.nber.org/cycles.html to http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wilson did not oversee the New Deal in 1933.
Some of Franklin Roosevelts policies appear in paragraph 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.68.100 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Federal segregation
Why is it not mentioned in the article that segregation was the police under the Woodrow Wilson Government?

It is lightly touched upon in the civil rights section of the article but only mentioned as "Cabinet heads appointed by President Wilson re-segregated restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings." Whereas in reality whole federal services became segregated, with African Americans in supervisory positions being fired or demoted, workplaces physical segregated and stopped to hire African Americans, at least for supervisory positions.

Why is this racist history of the Wilson Presidency being hidden away?Jochum (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) which states it in those terms? Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 06:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/expunging-woodrow-wilson-from-official-places-of-honor/

DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist

DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here about the segregation of the Railway Mail Service: https://postalmuseum.si.edu/AfricanAmericanHistory/p5.htmlJochum (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have here information from the national postal museum about segregation of federal services under Woodrow Wilson, see above. As nobody seems to want to discuss it, or brings another view, I will put the gist of this source into the article sometime in the next week.Jochum (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this part of Wilson's legacy needs to be included in the article. Grantmidnight (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is primarily a whitewash (no pun intended). Missaeagle (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a sub-sub-section on "Civil Rights" in the second term of his presidency.  This clearly should be a separate section, perhaps titled "Race Relations".  I will move this, then we can add additional material.  Grantmidnight (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017
Please change "one of the five residential colleges" to "one of the six residential colleges" under the Legacy section. Whitman College was inaugurated in 2007.

Sources: http://www.princeton.edu/main/campuslife/housingdining/colleges/ https://whitmancollege.princeton.edu/about 140.180.240.27 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done It is now consistent with the article Wilson College, Princeton University. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section reads like trivia
The Legacy section conveys little of substance and is just a bunch of anecdotes. It includes no serious reflection by major historians about the merits of his presidency--which should be the business of the whole section, not trivia. While other parts of the article do include substantive historical judgments, isn't the Legacy section supposed to sum things up--reflecting broader historical judgments about his political accomplishments and failures, and influence, etc.? If we can't improve the section than maybe we could re-name it "Cultural artifacts" or "Mementos". Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * agreed. how about renaming it "Memorials" Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect idea! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went in and changed the name to "Memorials". Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

moomoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.99.19 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wilson education
Article is correct to list Hopkins and Princeton as his educational background in the boxes on the right, but it should also include Davidson, even though he didn't graduate from there. This would make this consistent with other presidential pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3653:BA40:7D71:9C16:F8B5:AE8B (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wilson family did not own slaves
This page incorrectly states that the Wilson family owned slaves, but the source cited in the page's footnotes does not address the question at all. In his biography "Woodrow Wilson," John Milton Cooper states that the Wilson family did not *own* slaves. They *leased* them from parishioners, which was a common practice for Southern churchmen. Some may regard this as a distinction without a difference, but IMO the page ought to be accurate.

See Cooper, pg. 24. Visible on Google Books if you don't want to go out and get the physical copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.44.178 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017
Change: Wilson favored women's suffrage at the state level but held off support for a nationwide constitutional amendment because his party was sharply divided. The white South was the main center of opposition--only Arkansas gave women voting rights

To:

Wilson favored women's suffrage at the state level but held off support for a nationwide constitutional amendment because his party was sharply divided. The White South was the main center of opposition--only Arkansas gave women voting rights. Making women suffrage a national level would endanger his position as president because his party was filled with different viewpoints. Woodrow Wilson wanted to appeal to both sides of the conflict and minimize aggression. NathanHoang (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017
Change:

Wilson favored women's suffrage at the state level, but held off support for a nationwide constitutional amendment because his party was sharply divided. The white South was the main center of opposition--only Arkansas gave women voting rights.

To:

Wilson favored women's suffrage at the state level but held off support for a nationwide constitutional amendment because his party was sharply divided. The white South was the main center of opposition--only Arkansas gave women voting rights. Making women suffrage a national level would endanger his position because his party was filled with different viewpoints. Woodrow Wilson wanted to appeal to both sides of the conflict and minimize aggression. NathanHoang (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not recommended. the statement Making women suffrage a national level would endanger his position because his party was filled with different viewpoints.is unnecessary. the statement Woodrow Wilson wanted to appeal to both sides of the conflict and minimize aggression. is unsourced and probably not true. He changed to full support when NY state democrats changed to support for suffrage. Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Woodrow Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.njstatelib.org/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Governors_of_New_Jersey/GWILS.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183353/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/Presidents/site16.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/presidents/site16.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183353/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/Presidents/site16.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/Presidents/site16.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101004800/http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/pw.html to http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/pw.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205232230/http://www.usa-presidents.info/speeches/fourteen-points.html to http://www.usa-presidents.info/speeches/fourteen-points.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121075726/http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/wilson to http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/wilson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Woodrow Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125095446/http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/index.asp?section=timeline&file=timelinesearch_day&id=612 to http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/index.asp?section=timeline&file=timelinesearch_day&id=612
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505002931/http://www.umich.edu/%7Eurel/admissions/legal/expert/foner.html to http://www.umich.edu/%7eurel/admissions/legal/expert/foner.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Princeton Motto
"In the nation's service," coined by Woodrow Wilson, became a popular slogan but it is not Princeton's motto as indicated by a footnote in this article. The university's motto is "Dei sub numine viget," which translates as "Under God's power she flourishes."

-- osprey97@charter.net, a 1950 grad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pu1950 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018
Delete "Wilson was born to a slave holding family".

Wilson's father was a Presbyterian minister and owned no slaves. Three slaves were provided to the household by the Presbyterian church. The church did not own the slaves but leased them on a yearly basis from a local slave owner.

Source: Tour guide at the Wilson Library located in Staunton, Virginia. Address 20 North Coalter street, Staunton Va. 24401. Phone (540) 885-0897. EnmnRauch (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation
your recent edit in the "Race relations" section adds a quote that already appears at the end of the same paragraph. The two sources contradict each other. The paragraph needs a copyedit to fix the duplication, and to call out the fact that sources disagree on what Wilson said. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Princeton
Your edit comment here, "Maintaining standard", is perplexing. (Whose standard? Not the standard of the pre-existing consensus on this page.) I believe your recent edit here needed to be reverted, and our previous discussion of your edits concerning colleges that changed their names (e.g., at Talk:Alexander Hamilton) had seemed to settle the matter amicably, until you reverted back to your previous edit of Woodrow Wilson.

Princeton's situation isn't entirely like that of Columbia and King's College, although there is some similarity based on the fact that a present-day "College of New Jersey" exists which has no relationship to Princeton. The major difference is that, since the 1750s, the College of New Jersey at Princeton was widely known by the name of the town. Contemporaries of Woodrow Wilson would say that he was educated at Princeton, or attended college at Princeton, or was a student at Princeton. Of course, it is also perfectly accurate to mention the obsolete formal name of the institution in the body of the article – but overemphasizing it does nothing more than cause confusion. Adding details in order to clarify the unfamiliar name would be mere clutter, in any article that isn't about Princeton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're asserting that the standard for this specific page – on an encyclopedia – should be to use a nickname for an institution . How much less encyclopedic can that get? Secondly, your statement that the College of New Jersey was "widely" known as "Princeton" prior to its renaming is based in zero evidence. Do you have opinion polls which demonstrate what the most commonly used name for the College of New Jersey was in 1771? or 1786? or 1870? It is perplexing that you would attempt to use a nickname to refer to the name of the institution from which someone graduated. The commonly used name for the University of North Carolina is simply "Carolina" – would it make sense to note someone's alma mater as "Carolina"? Further, the commonly used name for the University of Mississippi is "Ole Miss" - would it make sense to use that on Wikipedia? How about UC Berkeley? It is commonly referred to as "Cal" or "Berkeley" because of its location – would it make sense to use that name? I'm not claiming there is a Wikipedia-wide standard, I'm claiming your edits have no logical or factual basis. Thus, any justification towards using "Princeton" would be based purely in the editor's sentimental value towards Princeton – one that, if I may say, is truly unique and beyond anything I have ever seen before.
 * Given our discussion on the Alexander Hamilton page is inextricably linked to this dicussion, we might as well decide what is the standard for alma mater between these two pages. Alexander Hamilton is considered an alum of the Class of 1778 by Columbia University. He served on the Board of Trustees for nearly a decade along with John Jay and was involved in the renaming of the institution for the purposes of republicanization. He was considered at the time the institution's most famous alum – he was mentioned in commencement speeches including the one that lead to the fatal duel between the speaker and his son, Philip Hamilton. Further, Five generations of Alexander Hamilton's progeny graduated from Columbia College/Columbia University. If you are interested in determining alma mater based on the contextual and sentimental value of the institution in question then it is far more justified to note Alexander Hamilton's education as "Columbia" than to note Burr's education as "Princeton" given Hamilton was far more involved with his own alma mater.
 * P.S. There is a modern day King's College in New York City near the original site of King's College Columbia. To avoid confusion shall we simply refer to Hamilton's alma mater as "Columbia"? I will go ahead and make this edit in accordance with your logic (not standard, logic). HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please discuss Hamilton and Columbia at Talk:Alexander Hamilton, not here on this unrelated page.


 * Concerning Princeton, your edits contradict an established WP:CONSENSUS. That is not the same as edits that preserve an established consensus. On this page, the established consensus is to refer to "Princeton". See also WP:COMMONNAME. This is not a personal matter, and kindly avoid personal attacks.
 * There is a "logical or factual basis" behind the existing WP:CONSENSUS. The University Archivist at Princeton wrote here: "I found frequent references to “Princeton College” or “Princeton college” starting in 1772. For fun, I have attached a photo (above) of that first article from a Philadelphia newspaper, the Pennsylvania Packet [page 1, issue 43, Publication Date: August 17, 1772]. [...] Additional research into this revealed that an October 18, 1756 newspaper ad used the phrase “Prince-town college.” This is notable not only for its earlier date, but also that this was about five weeks before the college actually started operations in Princeton (November 28, 1756). [...] So it can be safely said that the institution was known as Princeton from the very start of its time in the town of Princeton."
 * The institution was known as Princeton when this article's subject attended college there. But more importantly, the institution's formal name has since been changed to validate that usage. The formal name was changed to be fully consistent with that previously informal usage, which is no longer informal. 12:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no question the institution was referred to as "Princeton" – the question is whether or not it was the more common name. The institution was definitely referred to as "College of New Jersey" – that was its official name and commonly referred to as so. You need more evidence than it was simply called "Princeton" as well. University of California, Berkeley is commonly referred to as "Berkeley". "Berkeley" would never be used to note someone's alma mater on an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. In regards to your WP:COMMONNAME, point – College of New Jersey was also a common name for the university. Further, that policy refers mostly to page titles. The official name of an institution – University of California, Berkeley (and not "Cal") would not fall under this policy. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The analogy to Berkeley is not applicable, at least because the trustees of the U.C. system have never changed that university's formal name to "Berkeley University" to make the formal name consistent with the common usage. As for Princeton, the question at hand actually is not "whether or not it was the more common name" at any given time. The issues are not limited to that, and editors' opinions on this matter will inevitably differ. For Wikipedia's purposes, the principal question is whether you have obtained a WP:CONSENSUS in support of your alteration to this article, which you have not done. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And you have not obtained WP:CONSENSUS either. You can read more about WikiProject Universities and the style guide, which advises the use of the official name of a university. It is revisionism to call the institution "Princeton". Aaron Burr graduated with a degree from "The College of New Jersey" not "Princeton" or "Princeton College" or "Princeton University". HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * After reviewing several biographical sources, I can offer a suggestion that addresses the issues you raised, in a way that I believe would not unduly disrupt prior longstanding consensus:
 * In the infobox: Princeton
 * In the body (first mention): the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University)
 * In the body (later mentions): Princeton
 * This seems to cover all the requirements of formality, readability, usefulness, relevance, and accuracy. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Infobox should state the official name of the institution he received a degree from with mention to the new name of the institution. These are the changes I recommend:
 * In the infobox: College of New Jersey(now Princeton)
 * In the body (later mentions): Princeton
 * This should not be a contentious issue. The University recognizes College of New Jersey as its previous official name and adding simply (now Princeton) after "College of New Jersey" does not make it an issue of readability. It is very straightforward and readable. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that "Princeton" is a town, high school and Theological Seminary. Simply writing "Princeton" could mean a whole variety of things. It could imply that he was educated in the town of Princeton, New Jersey; Princeton, West Virginia; Princeton, Kentucky; or alternatively Princeton High School often considered one of the best public high schools in the United States and referred to in short as "Princeton" (it is about a 10 minute walk from current day Princeton University). Princeton is a location (to be precise, many locations) – not a university or educational institution. The University is "Princeton University" – a university named after the town and not the other way round. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To establish whether a discernible Wikipedia standard had evolved by consensus, I surveyed 16 17 Wikipedia articles (all I could readily find) on Princeton alumni who graduated before 1896. The following table includes the 3 four currently disputed articles as they stood immediately before your edits.


 * The table shows that when an "alma mater" appears in the infobox, 8 out of 9 9 out of 10 favored a concise entry in the infobox, leaving the expanded detail to the body of the article. A majority named the alma mater as Princeton University. I recognize that Princeton was not yet a university before 1896, and therefore I've suggested identifying the alma mater simply as Princeton, in the spirit of compromise between our positions. You've rejected that alternative. I would accept either "Princeton" or "Princeton University" for the sake of resolving the matter. For the 9 articles that included "alma mater" in an infobox, the usage was:


 * For the first mention in the body of the article, a large majority provided context for both names (which we both agree is appropriate at this point in the article):


 * For the 7 articles that had a second mention in the body, a majority favored simply "Princeton". The usage was:


 * My suggestions above remain consistent with established consensus on the 3 pages currently in dispute, and with the majority position across Wikipedia, based on the 16 articles in the table. Moreover, the documentation of Template:Infobox person states that "alma mater" is intended to be concise: it is a more concise alternative to a fully-detailed "Education" field. I am not aware of any contrary Wikipedia policy that specifically requires your detailed formulation of "alma mater" in the infobox. Are you now able to point to one? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC) ( Table revised 20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC) )


 * Consensus doesn't function across Wikipedia articles. Regardless, you are claiming that because there are two more articles using the alma mater "Princeton University" instead of "College of New Jersey" there is somehow a consensus of how to represent the alma mater of those who graduated from Princeton University pre-1896. If anything this demonstrates that there is zero standard or consensus of how to refer to College of New Jersey pre-1896. As I noted before – Princeton is a location and not a university. There are many towns and cities called Princeton in the United States. There are several educational institutions, theological seminaries, public organization named after the town of Princeton (in New Jersey, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.) The only time it would be appropriate to use the term "Princeton" to refer the someone's alma mater would be in the body of the article just as the name "Columbia" or "Yale" or "Harvard" or "Chicago" are used to refer to Columbia University, Yale University, Harvard University, and University of Chicago, respectively. The fact of the matter is: Woodrow Wilson graduated with a degree from College of New Jersey and not "Princeton", "Princeton College", or "Princeton University". These names would never be used to refer to the university in official documentation – "Princeton College" didn't legally exist at the time of his graduation. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My recommendation is this:
 * In the infobox: College of New Jersey (now Princeton University)
 * In the body (first mention): the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University)
 * In the body (later mentions): Princeton
 * This deals with the issue of the name of the institution pre-1896 and the current name of the institution. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I accept and endorse your second and third bullet points, concerning the body of the articles. That's progress. This dispute is limited to infoboxes, not articles.
 * Wikipedia has absolutely no WP:POLICY that requires the "alma mater" field of an infobox to contain the legal name of the institution, rather than its common name. You seem to be convinced that such a requirement exists, even though you have not shown where it appears. You maintain that Princeton "is a location and not a university," in contradiction of common usage, and in contradiction of a citation to the University Archivist at Princeton. As the discussion above demonstrates, the preexisting WP:CONSENSUS in each of the disputed infoboxes, and in the majority of the articles surveyed, contradicts your position on the matter. Also, not a single editor has emerged to support your position and build a new consensus with you on the matter. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The University Archivist opinion piece isn't an official statement of the university and furthermore states nowhere that Princeton University/College of New Jersey as a legal entity was ever purely referred to as "Princeton". It states that he found references to the institution as "Princeton College" or Princeton college. The latter name with the lowercase "college" demonstrates that "Princeton college" was an informal name for the university in the same way that "colledge of Newtown" or "New college" was used to informally refer to Harvard University prior to John Harvard's donation in 1638. What's more, there is a difference between the official name of an institution and the informal name of an institution. Using an informal name is totally inappropriate for reasons I have explained before. Just to reiterate, there are countless examples of Robert McNamara being referred to as a "Berkeley student" having attended University of California, Berkeley. This would not be used to denote the name of his alma mater. If the issue is the way "College of New Jersey (now Princeton University)" looks in the infobox I would recommend the following:
 * In the infobox: College of New Jersey
 * However, if you are claiming that the consensus across Wikipedia pages with infobox references to Colonial Colleges (or any college) with name changes should be to simply use the modern day name of the university e.g. Alexander Hamilton: Columbia University, Samuel Johnson: Yale University (at the time of graduation The Collegiate School) then that is a separate discussion that I would be willing to consider. I don't necessarily agree that that is the best solution to this dispute. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about Princeton, sui generis. I have no desire to extend it further, because the facts are different in each case.
 * If someone were to tell you, "Alexander Hamilton went to Princeton," what would your response be, honestly? You know that he didn't attend the College of New Jersey. But by your current logic, you would not be able to respond, "No, he did not." Instead, your current logic would require you to insist vehemently that Hamilton certainly did go to Princeton, because he "went to Princeton" to fight in the Battle of Princeton. You wouldn't really do that, because you understand perfectly well that Hamilton did not go to Princeton. And I believe you fully understand – in any context other than this present argument! – that Burr, Madison, and Wilson did go to Princeton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were to say, "I am going to Princeton" someone would easily if not more likely conclude that I am going to Princeton, New Jersey or in the case of someone from the area around Princeton, Kentucky or Princeton, California who has never heard of the East Coast school they would assume they were visiting/going to Princeton, Kentucky or Princeton, California. Princeton is not like "Oxford" or "Cambridge" in the sense that it is mostly a regionally/nationally known name. It is perfectly fine to write "Princeton" after the 1st body mention and infobox mention in the same sense that it is fine to say someone who attended University of Michigan "went to Michigan" or is a "Michigan student". Reflect a bit on the consistency of your argument. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We agree that context matters. Have you forgotten that "Princeton," in the infobox, will appear next to the label "Alma mater"? There is no possibility of a reader confusing this "Princeton" with a reference to the town in New Jersey, or any other town. Please respect the reader's common sense and common knowledge. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that "common sense and common knowledge" is a completely unsupported excuse to omit what is clearly explicit and critical information! The only basis for writing "Princeton University" is that College of New Jersey and Princeton University are the same legal entity. This being said, as you have pointed out on the Alexander Hamilton talk page, the name "Princeton University" did not exist when Wilson, Burr, and Madison attended. I will reiterate that Princeton is the name of a town. Princeton University is a university named after a town and often referred to its initials as "PU" (e.g. PU Library, PU Ballet, etc.). HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you considered completing the creation of your user page? It would facilitate communication and your participation here and elsewhere on this and other topics. Hoppyh (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Refactored this section by collapsing the lengthy discussion with a sock. Added notice box text to summarize. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

conference on social issues?
The paragraph starting "In December 1916, a month after his reelection, Wilson (a noted supporter of mother's pensions)", about the conference on social issues, seems quite extraneous to me, compared with more important topics and events. Anyone care to defend why it rates inclusion? AAABBB222 (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two points:


 * 1) The phrasing and placement of that content is awkward, but if you click through the reference to the newspaper article, it's not an unimportant issue. Someone wedged the parenthetical into a paragraph that deals with social insurance. Right paragraph, bad writing. I'll take a stab at rewriting it.
 * 2) Thanks for your edits, which are improvements. The only questionable change is from "ethnic white" to "white". I think "ethnic white" was intended to convey more information than just "white". It probably meant immigrant communities (e.g., Irish & Italian) in contrast to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Can you think of a better way to rewrite "ethnic whites"? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"I was interested to hear ..." quote needs to be paraphrased?
I believe the very long quote needs to be paraphrased. Way too long. AAABBB222 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Filetype
The comment stating "Do not change filetype" was added by User:Spartan7W in this Msy 2016 edit, with the edit summary "higher quality image file". The main difference between File:President Wilson 1919.jpg and File:President Wilson 1919.tif, is that the latter seems to be higher contrast, so I presume the comment was added pre-emptively so that people didn't just change them assuming they're the same (since MediaWiki can have issues with PNG and TIF thumbnails). Regardless, we're now using File:President Wilson 1919-bw.tif so the issue is possibly moot. File:President Wilson 1919-bw.jpg exists, but the main difference seems to only be that its sharper, and that's just due to the MediaWiki software not sharpening thumbnails for other formats. Opencooper (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

poor source removed
I removed several citations to one blog on "Vox" written by a journalist with no expertise in history. It is nowhere close to being a reliable secondary source. Vox is a political website focused on 2018 issues. I removed = Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Garrison Villard
This line should be removed because it is about Oswald Garrison Villard and not Wilson, who was clearly a bigot:

According to Wilson's biographer Scott Berg, "Villard believed the president was not a bigot, that he supported the advancement of the Negro; and that made it all the more frustrating to see him knuckling under to the Southern Senators."[298]

The page on Oswald Garrison Villard states the later on Villard changed his view also. --Hardyplants (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the line is what Villard--a leading expert on race relations--deduced after closely watching Wilson. That makes him a reliable source, and the importance of Villard's views is shown by the attention Wilson's biographers give to him. Villard and the biographers make the point that Wilson had to submit to the Southern Dems or else lose his New Freedom. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Lynching
Does anyone have a problem with including Wilson in Category:American lynching defenders? There’re already several governors and senators in it. deisenbe (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * strong opposition. In summer 1918, Wilson consulted with Robert Moton, the successor of Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee about the lynching crisis. On July 26 Wilson issued a statement on a subject which is so vitally affects the honor of the nation and the very character and integrity of our institutions.  He decried the mob spirit of  lynching as a blow against liberty and justice. I say plainly that every American who takes part in the action of mob or gives it any sort of continence is no true son of this great democracy but its betrayer, and does more to discredit her by that single disloyalty to her standards of law and of rights .... He urged governors and all law-enforcement officers to stamp out this disgraceful evil.   Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What about this episode from the article? "Wilson's History of the American People (1901) dismissed lynchings committed by the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as a lawless reaction to a lawless period. The President defended them, writing that '[the Klan] began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action'.[289]" deisenbe (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read Wilson's 10 pages on that topic--he condemns the attacks as lawless and unamerican but also tries to explain the motivation of the attackers. He did NOT "dismiss" or "defend" any lynchings. That text from the article is "OR" based on an editor's misreading of a primary source  and not based on any reliable secondary source. See WP:primary = Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Then the article needs revision. (I'm not knowledgable enough to do it myself.) As it stands it can be read, and I read it, as saying Wilson defended lynchings. deisenbe (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed--I tried to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wilson the militarist
"He objected to America's entry into World War I, but he certainly had no qualms about picking on small fry."

"In just seven years, from 1913 to 1920, he kept the armed forces busy by sending them off to ten countries on nineteen occasions: Mexico, Russia, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, China, Cuba, Panama, Dalmatia, Turkey, and Guatemala. His two armed excursions into Siberia, opposed by his military advisors, turned out to be a quagmire and almost got America involved in a full-scale war with Russia."

This article barely mentions these and, therefore, down plays the militancy of Woodrow Wilson. No mention whatsoever of the China, Dalmatia, Turkey, nor Guatemala excursions. 24.165.146.117 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dalmatia, Turkey, nor Guatemala ???? "almost got America involved in a full-scale war with Russia"?? better give some real quotes on that--the scholarly books don;t mention them either and Morris never tells where he got his anecdotes.  I think the China refers to the Marines that were there 1901-1948 . Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wilson's racism
I was pretty surprised that the following on Birth of a Nation was immediately reverted by

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodrow_Wilson&diff=889930341&oldid=889929516

on the grounds that "Wilson was tricked into showing it and strongly disliked the movie".

It seems that Wilson being a racist or saying racist things is a taboo topic. The article blames everyone but him.

Wilson "tricked" into showing it? He didn't know what it was? Come on. The movie was widely publicized before its release — in fact there were protests before its release. It was in the papers. And Wilson kept pretty well-informed.

There is no record that Wilson ever objected to the three quotes of his used in the movie. Here they are (ellipses, quotation marks, and underscore in the originals):

"[A]dventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the Negroes.…In the villages the Negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority, except its insolences." "The Policy of the congressional leaders wrought…a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South.…in their determination to 'put the white South under the heel of the black South.'" "The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation…until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country."

He's quoted like this but he didn't know what was in the movie? And he strongly disliked and had to be "tricked" into showing the movie that quotes him so respectfully?

Wilson saying that showing it was a favor to Dixon is a bald-faced lie. It was a letter from Griffith, not Dixon, who offered to show it at the White House.

Finally, while I'm on this, his alleged quote "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true". It's correct that there is no contemporary documentation of it, although his not saying it in front of the whole audience (leaving the room) does not mean he didn't say it privately, in conversation. This is speculation, but of those present he would have most likely said it to Griffith, who would certainly have passed it along to Dixon to publicize.

Not one person has said "That doesn't sound like Wilson. He would never have said that." If it's a made-up quote, it's a doozy.

I'm not going to edit the article any further, I have better things to do with my time. But I think the article is doing the country and history a disservice by sweeping Wilson's racism under the rug, rather than facing it honestly. At least anyone thorough enough to read this talk page will get my perspective on the article.

Some articles on Wilson's racism:

"Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time" is the title of an article. "Woodrow Wilson was, in fact, a racist pig. He was a racist by current standards, and he was a racist by the standards of the 1910s, a period widely acknowledged by historians as the 'nadir' of post–Civil War race relations in the United States. …Wilson's racism wasn't the matter of a few unfortunate remarks here or there. It was a core part of his political identity, as indicated both by his anti-black policies as president and by his writings before taking office. It is completely accurate to describe him as a racist and white supremacist and condemn him accordingly.") (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist)

Christian Science Monitor: "5 surprising facts about Woodrow Wilson and racism" (https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/1214/5-surprising-facts-about-Woodrow-Wilson-and-racism)

The Atlantic: "The Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson" (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/)

deisenbe (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The text I erased never mentioned wilson's racism--it duplicated text and had misinformation. (for example it was not the first film shown in the white house) and was based on light-weight popular magazine articles by general writers who knew little history. Instead of using popular journalism that devotes a couple of sentences to complex issues, I think Wikipedia should use the best scholarship on controversial issues. I strongly recommend the standard scholarly article that explores all these issues in depth  and provides a very different picture. It's "Birth of a Quotation: Woodrow Wilson and 'Like Writing History with Lightning'" by Mark E. Benbow, : The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Vol. 9, No. 4, (October 2010), pp. 509-533; online.  I can provide a copy to anyone who writes me at rjensen@uic.edu   No one knew ahead of time what the movie said--only that it was about the Civil War and Reconstruction. --the White House showing was the very first time it was shown (it was the second film shown at the White House).  Wilson did not  know the interpretation it would present and Wilson strongly disagreed with Dixon's interpretation of Reconstruction and he felt tricked.... The deleted text said he was a friend with a racist (Dixon)and seemed to imply that Wilson Shared Dixon's views. No, Wilson's supposed "friendship" with classmate Dixon consisted  of a few causal letters over two decades.  The quotes from Wilson in the film were actual words but were snippets from different pages spliced together (with '...') and hid the fact that Wilson denounced the kkk.   Rjensen (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * When the movie was based on The Clansman (and The Leopard's Spots), and that fact was publicized, how can you say the President, or someone in his family or circle, wouldn't have known the slant of the movie? The movie presents Reconstruction in the same way The Clansman does. I meant to imply that Wilson shared Dixon's views, as I believe he did. I didn't know it was the first showing anywhere, thanks for that detail. deisenbe (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The movie was touted (correctly) as a major technical breakthrough--good reason to see it. On race WW was a conservative who saw a definite place for blacks in USA -- one that some day through education might be more favorable. Dixon was a flaming radical who wanted all blacks expelled from USA. [Benbow p 510 says Dixon was "a professional racist who made his living writing books and plays attacking the  presence of African Americans in the United States. A firm believer not only  in white supremacy, but also in the "degeneration" of blacks after slavery  ended, Dixon thought the ideal solution to America's racial problems was to deport all blacks to Africa." ]  Wilson prepared a statement issued by his press secretary: the  President was entirely unaware of the character of the play  before it was presented and has at no time expressed his  approbation of it. [ Benbow p  520].  [WW opposed showing the movie in WW1, p 520 n 26]  Benbow p 524 cites Williamson's analysis of race ideas: liberals were "the most optimistic about the future role of blacks in the United States....[WW was not a liberal on race but] Wilson was probably the closest to it because he did not assume that black inferiority was an everlasting  status, although he did assume that black advancement was set so long into  an indeterminate future that, for all practical purposes, black inferiority was  permanent."  Benbow p 525 states: " Dixon was convinced that the United States could not survive as a democracy so long as blacks remained in the country. His solution was to  deport every black American...to  Africa." [Benbow p 527 states:] "Wilson promoted the moderate Southern narrative of the Civil War and Reconstruction in a way that made it acceptable." They exchanged only two letters 1902-1912 [PAPERS WW], Dixon's short notes were about his latest job and his family. There is no evidence Wilson ever read Dixon--WW had a large library but (Benbow states  p 513 n.11) it contained no books by Dixon. Wilson's tens of thousands of pages of letters never mention Dixon or his books. [according to  Index of WW papers]   Dixon wrote manhy books and articles and never sent an offprint or book copy to WW. (According to Papers of WW) In their letters to each other Dixon and WW never mention race or Civil War or Reconstruction or historical or current issues . (I read D's letters in Papers of WW).   It's hard for me to see how WW and Dixon could have a serious discussion about race in America.   For the argument that Dixon tricked an unwitting president, see Arthur Link, Wilson: The New Freedom, v 2 pp 252–54. Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What Link says (citing an unpublished manuscript, the only source) is: "Dixon conceived a bold scheme—to arrange a private showing of the film at the White House and thereby to obtain the President's implied endorsement." That's not the same as a "trick", and Link doesn't use the word. deisenbe (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

BofaN was in fact the first movie shown in the White House - the earlier one, Cabiria, was shown on the lawn. See https://www.newspapers.com/clip/30110177/cabiria_shown_on_white_house_lawn/ deisenbe (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not correct that the first showing was the White House one. Release date was April 8, and it was shown on "the Pacific coast" earlier. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/30110046/president_wilson_to_see_birth_of_a/ deisenbe (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did Dixon "trick" Wilson? Link says "Wilson fell into Dixon's trap" The New Freedom - Page 253. Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead image
I propose that we change the format of lead image from TIF (File:President Wilson 1919-bw.tif) to JPG (File:Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg), per this archived message. If there are no objections to this proposal, I will change the format. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week and there are no objections. I'm going to change the image format now. --Wow (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019
Change "becoming the first Southerner to serve as president since the American Civil War" to "becoming the first Southerner to be elected as president since the American Civil War." BrightonSeagulls (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Andrew Johnson preceded Wilson as a Southerner who served as president after the American Civil War, but Johnson was not elected to the post. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add the following
Wilson was so called "friend of Poland", who given Poland independence after WWI. This is still good remembered in Poland, unlike the Franklin D. Roosevelt who is remembered, as that one who sold Poles and other countries in Yalta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.233.178 (talk • contribs)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 18:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson, The Cat?
It appears that someone has vandalized the main image by replacing it with a cat. Could somebody please investigate?

The page is semi-protected so I am unable to make edits—but I wanted to at least make people aware.

Zebdawg (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference, reverting the 13:39 July 19 revision would appear to resolve this issue. Zebdawg (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019
Hello Editor, On Woodrow Wilson's Wikipedia page (second sentence of Early Life), please delete the reference to Woodrow Wilson's parents as slaveholders. They never owned or "held" enslaved laborers; they relied on the Presbyterian church to lease workers for their various homes.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Hunter Hanger Special Event Supervisor Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Staunton, Virginia 74.92.187.241 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Page 95 of Cooper's "Reconsidering Woodrow Wilson" (2008) discusses the use of black servants for household labour before and after the Civil War - I think it's fair to say the family were not slaveholders, but nevertheless they benefited from/exploited slave labour. I've amended the text to reflect that. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
2600:1011:B00B:8D9E:C072:6CF0:A1EB:C884 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020
The article says "In a January 1918 speech before Congress, Wilson for the first time endorsed a national right to vote:" Please Change "In a January 1918 speech before Congress" to "In a September 1918 speech before Congress" because the speech quoted in the following portion of the sentence was actually was given to congress September 30, 1918 and not in January.

Sources: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-senate-the-nineteenth-amendment https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/WilsonSpeech1918.htm FireSourse (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither the sources provided nor the source currently being cited explicitly state that Wilson for the first time endorsed voting rights for women in a September 1918 speech, so I simply removed the month from the sentence. Orser67 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

map of great powers in 1914
European Spain is coloured red as the Italian colour while the correct yellow is shown in Spanish Morocco and Western Sahara. Time to fix this map?

Foreign possessions in ROC need to be colored. Wandavianempire (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020
Under Legacy, Historical Reputation, there is a non-sequitur in a discussion of a Freudian analysis of Wilson. Mid-sentence it simply states " This ruined the Versailles Treaty" though the article referenced bears no mention to this fact nor do any surrounding sentences refer to it, instead treating it as if it were not there. For these reasons, I suggest that this phrase be removed. 96.8.130.209 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Where Wilson was from
The article reads: "Wilson spent his early years in the American South (mainly in Augusta, Georgia) during the Civil War and Reconstruction." President Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia which is an independent city located within Augusta County, VIRGINIA, and not Augusta, Georgia.
 * The Boyhood Home of President Woodrow Wilson is a National Historic Landmark, located in Augusta GEORGIA--the family wanted to be far away from the Virginia battlefields. see https://www.wilsonboyhoodhome.org/  It states: “Tommy” Wilson (1856-1924) lived in this Manse from 1860 to 1870 while his father served as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church. Tommy spent the formative years of his childhood in Augusta, years that would affect him for the rest of his life. While living in Augusta, Wilson experienced the hardships of the Civil War and Reconstruction. He also began his education, tasted leadership as president of the Lightfoot Baseball Club, and grounded his deep Presbyterian faith.  Rjensen (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Income Tax.
The article mentions that the top rate of income tax under President Wilson was 77% - but it does not mention that this was in the context of the First World War. Woodrow Wilson was many bad things - but he was not criminally insane, he did not support 77% income tax (essentially confiscation) over a long period of time, after all over a long period of time (as opposed to an emergency) such a rate of tax would mean LESS (not more) revenue for the government.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:1914:182:AED8:980E (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilson did not write the tax laws. High taxes are not a sign of crime or insanity. Rjensen (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Laffer Curve came a bit later, I think. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing the race relations part of the article.
Why is the race relations part of the article again thoroughly white washed? Any reference what really happend in regards to federal segregation removed? It was not only a workplace segregation, but African American were actively fired from supervisory positions. For hiring pictures had to be included in applications to weed out African American from higher rated jobs. The postal service is one were this is well documented. Civil rights of African Americans were moved back for decades. This information had found entrance into the article, but somebody or several contributors are regularly in a whitewash operation cleaning out those information. Is here a operation that keeps unwelcome information about USA presidents out of the Wikipedia?Jochum (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone could reasonably describe the race relations section as a "whitewashing" when it contains sentences like: "Several historians have spotlighted consistent examples in the public record of Wilson's overtly racist policies and political appointments, such as segregationists he placed in his Cabinet" and "the Wilson administration escalated the discriminatory hiring policies and segregation of government offices that had begun under President Theodore Roosevelt, and had continued under President Taft." As it stands, the section attempts to describe what Wilson did, the context in which he did it, his personal beliefs, and some of the criticism he has received from different quarters. Perhaps the section should in fact paint Wilson in a more negative light, but if so, the section should continue to be based on academic sources, rather than on the extremely biased, unsupported edits that you have attempted to implement. Orser67 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is completely erased the wide spread firing of african americans out of managing positions at government institutions. That I call whitewashing. Every change I made was based on quotes. The quotes to what happened to african american employed by the postal service, were direct quotes out of the official history of the US postal service, they must be a very biased institution. Even there it is talked rather mildly about what was happening.
 * Woodrow Wilson was an extreme racist and pushed equality in regards to race back decades. What was done to the Navy for example has not been fully reversed still today. In the article it is pointed to the policies of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft and his policies being only a continuation. I would be interested to know what resegregation of government institutions happened under those presidents. The talk about the race riots, were Woodrow Wilson declined to interfere, could be rather called massacres. It also leaves out why african americans migrated north, to fill up the workforce needed for the war production.Jochum (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP above mentions two things I did not see you address in your response: termination from supervisory roles on a racial basis, and adding specificity and detail regarding the re-segregation in the Railway Mail Service specifically. When people say the section glosses over Wilson's racism, these are just examples of what they are referring to. 136.24.161.235 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The article glosses over the vicious racism of Woodrow Wilson for the same reason it glosses over all the rest of the bad things about him - to Collectivists (such as the "most historians" who rate Wilson one of the "better Presidents") Woodrow Wilson is a hero, so he is presented in the best possible light. Even his academic works, such as "The State", are not really gone into - even though he was an academic for most of his life. The works are not really examined because they contain a lot of bizarre stuff (support for government control of almost every aspect of personal life). The legend that Wilson wanted a "New Freedom" ("protect the people from the Corporations" - these would be the Corporations that his one anti competitive policies pushed in World War One) must be maintained, and the truth that the "New Freedom" was the oppression that the world had know long before, under such rulers as Louis XIV (the "Sun King") must be concealed. Hence the idea that Wilson was a "liberal" - which turns the traditional meaning of the word "liberal" (someone who wants to roll back the size and scope of government) on its head2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:1914:182:AED8:980E (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a text from the Smithsonian National Postal Museum describing the segregation of the USPS during the Wilson Administration:
 * https://postalmuseum.si.edu/research-articles/the-history-and-experience-of-african-americans-in-america%E2%80%99s-postal-service-3.
 * Before I make changes to the text, could somebody explain why, if that person is adverse to using this source as a reference. I used this before.Jochum (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The section "Race Relations" omits much of the historical record regarding Wilson's racist writings in "History of the American People", his most well-known book. According to the article "Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time" on Vox:

''"Historian Wesley Moody describes Wilson's most famous book as an academic, A History of the American People, as "steeped in Lost Cause mythology." The book was generally sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan, describing them as "men half outlawed, denied the suffrage, without hope of justice in the courts, who meant to take this means to make their will felt." ("This means" being violence and intimidation against black people.)". The article also makes clear that the quotation by Wilson cited in the racist movie "The Birth of a Nation" was even worse than it was shown to be. It quotes Wilson as writing: "The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers."''.

Wilson's exoneration of the KKK must be more fully represented in the Wikipedia account as it provides context for decisions he made in office, such as re-segregating government departments. Additional quotes from Wilson in "History of the American People" include: a) "[A]dventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the Negroes.…In the villages the Negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority, except its insolences." and b) "The Policy of the congressional leaders wrought…a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South.…in their determination to "put the white South under the heel of the black South." . The Vox article states:

''"Elsewhere in the book, Wilson attacked Reconstruction on the grounds that "the dominance of an ignorant and inferior race was justly dreaded." He was strongly against black suffrage: "It was a menace to society itself that the negroes should thus of a sudden be set free and left without tutelage or restraint." He praised those freed slaves who "stayed very quietly by their old masters and gave no trouble" but bemoaned that they were the exception, the being "vagrants, looking for pleasure and gratuitous fortune" who inevitably "turned thieves or importunate beggars. The tasks of ordinary labor stood untouched; the idlers grew insolent; dangerous nights went anxiously by, for fear of riot and incendiary fire."''

Further Wilson wrote that at the end of Reconstruction, "Negro rule under unscrupulous adventurers had been finally put an end to in the South, and the natural, inevitable ascendancy of the whites, the responsible class, established." Omitting these elements in Wikipedia does a disservice to the reader. The Wikipedia section also omits Wilson's positive commentary on "Birth of a Nation" while giving sole attention to his public relations handling after the incident. Further, the book "Race, Reality, and Realpolitik" by Jeffrey Sommers discusses how Wilson demonstrated racism towards non-black minorities as well. In an 1899 speech, Wilson claimed Filipinos were inferior and unfit for self-rule. His mindset explains Wilson's actions in stalling a bill for the independence of the Philippines and later refusing to give full independence to the Philippines during his time as President. The section on Wikipedia omits Wilson's racist sentiments which explain the racist character of his policy positions, and may have impacted his decisions, [https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/08/11/742293305/a-century-later-the-treaty-of-versailles-and-its-rejection-of-racial-equality#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20president%20imposed%20a,without%20such%20a%20unanimous%20vote. such as his rejection of Japan's Racial Equality proposal at the League of Nations]. Further the Wikipedia section ought to be renamed from "Race Relations" to "Racism" as it pertains not merely to the relations between races but the racism of Wilson himself and how it affected policies both domestic and international. 136.24.161.235 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no legitimate reason for the section on Wilson's segregation of the civil service to disappear. The betrayal of thousands of black American public servants is now left as a tiny footnote under Legacy. This is disturbing and immoral, particularly with today's political climate in America and the hostility facing many African Americans. "Whitewashing" is an understatement.24.142.24.102 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Influenza Crisis
The article makes no mention of Wilson's handling of the influenza outbreak after the war. This might be an appropriate time to add a section or at least a mention. Pnoble805 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article List of Spanish flu cases Wilson actually had the flu at one point. Since the pandemic fell within his presidency, the fact he also contracted it is an important point I'm surprised isn't mentioned in this article. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He was sick in Paris--in bed April 3-7 1919.  not clear what the cause was--Spanish flu?? maybe it was something else like another stroke. His personality seemed changed by the episode. In "Woodrow Wilson's Neurological Illness," Weinstein diagnoses Wilson's illness in Paris in April 1919 as a stroke, but he withdraws that diagnosis in "Woodrow Wilson's Political Personality," saying it was influenza and viral encephalopathy. see Juliette L. George,  et al  "Issues in Wilson Scholarship: References to Early" Strokes" in the Papers of Woodrow Wilson." The Journal of American History 70.4 (1984): 845-853. online Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * also wartime restrictions on the press led to inaccurate information and wartime fundraising concerns led to major outbreaks (Philadelphia War Bonds Parade). His pandemic response was nearly as bad as Trump's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.45.26 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that information about Wilson's suppression of information about the pandemic and his failure to even mention it to the American people during the entire course of the pandemic needs to be included in this summary. Alaska Dave (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

dubious claim in woodrow wilson article
The article does later explain this claim. the phenomenon of african american supporters betrayed by wilson is a real thing. Its just this is introduced before this is explained. a thorough explanation of woodrow wilson's racism is explained in the section race relations. It may not be necessary but it would make sense to link to this part of the article after that statement. maybe there is nothing wrong with the statement per say but its explaining things that are part of a much bigger discussion.

To the disappointment of his African-American supporters, Wilson allowed some of his Cabinet members to segregate their departments. this is a deceptive claim. there are periods of history after the civil war where african americans could legitmately vote but this power does virtually not exist in many states at the time. there can be definitely be black voters in the north but thats the only place where any substantive voting would go on. also to say wilson has african american supporters implies there would at least be enough for this to be an issue but the number of african american supporters could be 3 could be a 1000. we have no idea what this statement actually means and seeing as the worst thing wilson is known for is that is known as one of our most racist presidents. it implies something that is contrary to what is commonly believed without providing evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.77.61.211 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

lexical improvement
In the text, the word "continence" is used once. Within its given context here, the word "countenance" should be substituted for the word "continence", as "countenance" makes perfect sense, whereas "continence" does not.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Change "His his first term was largely devoted to pursuing passage" to "His first term was largely devoted to pursuing passage". Omnises (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for spotting this mistake! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)