Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 4

GAN nomination
Just a quick glance at this article is sufficient to reveal that its organization leaves something to be desired, noticeably the "Legacy" section overlaps its scope with "Assessment and Legacy" of race relations. The article also would benefit from more aggressive summary style. Couldn't some of the content be broken out to Woodrow Wilson and race or similar? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * buidhe I am one of the primary editors on the Race section. I still consider it a work in progress and I have been intending for a while to address the the "Legacy" and "Assessment and Legacy" issue. I am open to suggestions, are you proposing a separate article be created solely to address Wilson's record on race?  OgamD218 (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's a topic that meets notability, so I definitely think it should be created. That way all the content can be preserved but summary style will make sure that only the parts that are DUE are covered in this top-level article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * buidhe I have to double check and circle back but I'm pretty  there is still a fair amount of material I researched to be added, but what you're saying is that coverage of this topic is already too lengthy, for the main page at least. Do you have any other basic or more specific suggestions for how to go about editing this content? OgamD218 (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes. The article is already 88 kb which is probably too long according to WP:Article size, even though it doesn't even mention many of the major foreign policy issues of Wilson's time (eg. Armenia). So I would definitely encourage you to move some of the content about race issues to a dedicated sub-article, sort of like Racial views of Winston Churchill but covering both Wilson's views and policies. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * buidhe Ok. Do you think I should consider moving some content to the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson page? Or do you recommend I actually move much of the race related content from there to a new page specifically on Wilson and race as we've been discussing? (As an aside, I will attempt to add some coverage of Wilson and the Armenia issue to the main article). OgamD218 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The presidency article is almost as long so I wouldn't recommend adding content to it. That's why I think a stand-alone article for race issues would be best. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * there is a danger in including political news that does not relate to WW--it means readers give him less attention, or are misled into thinking he was responsible for those events. So I trimmed material on income taxes and farming laws. Rjensen (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have just removed The great Jay's out-of-process GA nomination. According to the GA nomination instructions, Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination, which has not been done. I don't know whether the issues pointed out by buidhe earlier have all been addressed, but if not, then the nomination was surely premature. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments have been partly addressed, but at over 80kb I would be looking for ways to more concisely summarize aspects of his life, perhaps spinning off some content into subarticles such as Early life of Woodrow Wilson or Academic career of Woodrow Wilson, in order to meet the GA requirement of being sufficiently focused. I would trim the race material even more now that there's a separate article on it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Im gonna try to make sure that my GA nomination doesn't go out of order. Blue Jay (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * buidhe Are you suggesting a new page specific towards Wilson's pre-political life or parts of it at least, even if that page would, temporarily at least, be a mirror of the relevant sections now found on the main page? Assuming time does not permit for conducting specific research, especially while GA is still pending and the focus would be on editing down those sections here before progressing to anything substantial on the new mirror page? OgamD218 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Such an article would enable preserving the information while reducing the length of the overview article per summary style. For example, there is Early life of Winston Churchill and other articles dedicated to periods of Churchill's life. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus now that the page is ready for GAN review? BlueMoonset, Rjensen , Politicsfan4 and  buidhe. OgamD218 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Although I still think the article should be more concise, it probably isn't an issue with GA criteria at this point. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am negative. There is too much about actions of various federal agencies that Wilson did not monitor (esp when he was incapacitated) (eg most of the sections on "Ratification debate " and "Demobilization and First Red Scare" ). There is too much use of lightweight polemical sources (like # 298 thru 301 when solid scholarship is available like #302 and #303).  If WW did not handle a certain matter it should be kept VERY short or moved to the presidency article or dropped. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say a little more work is needed prior to nomination. For example, cite 48 causes an error, the lead section has more than four paragraphs (see MOS:LEADLENGTH, a section of the MOS:LEAD required in the GA criteria) and its final paragraph is just a single sentence. There are also occasional typos, such as "U.S" and "PH.D". I can't speak to the quality of the sources, since I haven't had time to read more closely. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rjensen I agree work needs to be done to reduce some the length of those areas. BlueMoonset I merged the one sentence paragraph into the first, the lead all told is now only 4 paragraphs and shorter than that of the main page of most other two-term US Presidents. I'm not sure what your issue with Cite 48? It is too a book page, not a link, are you sure that's the one you meant? OgamD218 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OgamD218, the cite was fixed after I posted about it in this edit by another editor. So it's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw man, I know I didn't contribute to this article a lot, but did Buidhe have to say the word "you" in all caps? Blue Jay (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , It matters who nominates the article because the nominator is expected to respond to feedback and gets credit for their work in the end. I wanted to emphasize that just because the article seems ready for GAN right now, it does not mean that anyone can nominate it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh,that makes sense. But that was.... kinda harsh. Blue Jay (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I apologize, I didn't mean to come off as overly harsh. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its alright. Blue Jay (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic
Hey uh wasn't there a pandemic during Wilson's term in office that killed 675,000 Americans? Beyond his having the flu at Paris, there seems to be no mention of this historical event. User:Dannyman — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the Spanish Flu started by the time his presidency ended. Blue Jay (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Dannyman All 4 waves of the Spanish flu took place during Wilson's presidency and yes he likely contracted it while in Paris in 1919. There are other mentions of it in the article but the topic is not covered in significant detail, I believe it was previously but this was removed at the recommendation the article be shortened. I've considered and may add a sentence or two to clear up confusion caused by the absence, not bc it merits significant discussion. It must be stressed that the Wilson Era was a much different time period, the Federal Govt was comparatively very small, the CDC and NIH did not exist and the FDA was still in its infancy. Knowledge re the outbreak was often late and lacking and unlike today, media was limited to print. Wilson never made any public statement about the Spanish flu. During the first 2 waves his attention was focused on the War. Local govts were expected to handle these types of crises back then. The epidemic was censored by the US and Allied govts based on concerns it would sow chaos and undermine the war effort. The name Spanish Flu came into use bc Spain was neutral and the press was able to freely report on the outbreak there. Wilson was busy in Paris for most of the 3rd Wave. Shortly after returning he was debilitated by a stroke, otherwise he may have taken greater action when the 4th Wave struck in 1920, but this is pure speculation. I know it all sounds like he was just ignoring a major crisis but to observers in the 1910s it simply wasn't seen as a presidential responsibility to get involved in something like that. OgamD218 (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just a biographical article. The events of his term in office should be covered in the article Presidency of Woodrow Wilson. As for the Spanish flu (1918-1920), the earliest documented cases involve a single U.S. state: Kansas.:


 * "The pandemic is conventionally marked as having begun on 4 March 1918 with the recording of the case of Albert Gitchell, an army cook at Camp Funston in Kansas, United States, despite there likely having been cases before him. The disease had been observed in Haskell County in January 1918, prompting local doctor Loring Miner to warn the US Public Health Service's academic journal. Within days, 522 men at the camp had reported sick. By 11 March 1918, the virus had reached Queens, New York. Failure to take preventive measures in March/April was later criticized."
 * "As the US had entered World War I, the disease quickly spread from Camp Funston, a major training ground for troops of the American Expeditionary Forces, to other US Army camps and Europe, becoming an epidemic in the Midwest, East Coast, and French ports by April 1918, and reaching the Western Front by the middle of the month. It then quickly spread to the rest of France, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain and in May reached Breslau and Odessa."
 * "The first wave of the flu lasted from the first quarter of 1918 and was relatively mild. Mortality rates were not appreciably above normal; in the United States ~75,000 flu-related deaths were reported in the first six months of 1918, compared to ~63,000 deaths during the same time period in 1915. " Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick I'm no expert, but from what i've read much of that from the wiki article, though reputable still remains contentious amongst experts-even in the light of modern medical wisdom and research; a situation that further emphasizes why the political culture 100 years ago, when far less was known about viruses, epidemiology, etc, was highly unfavorable to the idea of Presidential intervention in such a situation. But considering the first outbreak was "relatively mild", it is very hard to see how it Wilson would have been able to respond effectively during the 2nd wave, which happened concurrently to the apex of America's participation in World War I, by then American men and materiel were quintessential to the Allied war effort, any slowdown may have lost the war and almost certainly more lives without any assurances effective containment was even possible. OgamD218 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What is going on
Apparently, this article is switching from B class to GA class, and vice versa. What is happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The great Jay (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because the article was never a GA. It was rather poorly reviewed and needs a much more thorough review. Simply stating that certain things seem a certain way isn't sufficient. An article this notable and big needs thorough grammar check, prose, MOS checking, cleanup, and better referencing. Why all of this? Because the article suffers from all of these problems. In fact, you can already see people arguing over certain things on the talk page. Not to mention that this review started just a few weeks after the first nomination, which isn't allowed (stability is also an issue from a quick skim over recent edits). I will keep an eye on those who want to game the system and add the topicon back. And to anyone willing to nominate this again: don't. Let time pass and make sure all issues have been solved before nominating again, and if anyone is willing to make a thorough review, consider having others with you for such a large article and review chunks. Wretchskull (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The article has been promoted. Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, so now I can change the ranking from B class to GA class? Blue Jay (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

civil liberties
Wilson's decision to bring the United States into the First World War as a combatant nation was highly unpopular. In response, the administration initiated a cordinated effort to quash dissent. This frequently involved the use of measures that were in flagrant violation of the basic fredoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Wilson gave implicit authorization for federal troops to hold dozens of IWW lumberjacks in detention for weeks without trial. Troops had been sent to crush a peaceful strike of timber workers that spread throughout the Pacific Norhwest in the summer of 1917. Strikers were held in crowded bullpens and in conditions that threatened their health. The military detention of Wobbly activists directly violated the right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as provided in the Constitution. (Chester, Free Speech, pp. 293-96)

Eugene Victor Debs was imprisoned for two and a half years for giving a speech in June 1918 that voiced his opposition to the war. At the time, Debs was one of the most popular and respected figures in the country. He had also campaigned against Wilson as the Socialist Party's presidential candidate in 1912. Wilson refused to commute his sentence despite his poor health and despite the fact that a majority of his Cabinet supported Debs's release from prison. (Chester, Free Speech, p. 191)

SOurce: Eic Thomas Chester: Free Speech and the Suppression of Dissent during World War I, Monthly Review, 2020. Rosalux1900 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Race Relations
In the section on race relations, one of the federal departments described as becoming segregated under Wilson is the UPS. UPS stands for United Parcel Service, which is a private company. I assume the author meant the Post Office. I would have made the change myself, but for whatever reason this article can not be publicly edited. Would a moderator please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:789E:E5A:49A4:8D90 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Too much info at the beginning?
Should the beginning section be shortened, it's already a chore to read? I feel like the fourth paragraph can definitely be shortened. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Women's suffrage
I'm not finding coverage of Wilson's opposition to women's suffrage until after a series of protests met with jailings and violence as well as World War I. The coverage of his racism is also whitewashed and largely dishonest. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * FloridaArmy (talk) I nominated and saw this page through GAN, in addition to which I also created the page Woodrow Wilson and race, which remains a work in progress but covers in detail Woodrow Wilson's lengthy racist record. My understanding is that Wilson played only a token role with regards to Women's suffrage, switching sides on the issue/going whichever ways the winds blew but if you feel there is significantly more that should be added by all means. I recently restored and/or re-edited some of the content pertaining to Wilson's record on race. I take the allegation that Wilson's racism is "whitewashed and largely dishonest", in this article very seriously; if this is still how you feel I and ask that you please show me what believe should be included/expanded on or where you think improvement is simply needed in general.

OgamD218 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for new article on Wilson's foreign Policy
Repeated from Talk:Presidency of Woodrow Wilson -- make your comments there.

A glance at the pages in Category:Foreign policy by United States presidential administration shows 12 presidents have articles on their foreign policy -- including Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. I propose a new one on Wilson. It will avoid copying from this article or the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson and also avoid too much copying from History of U.S. foreign policy, 1913–1933. It will be based on the scholarly studies esp journal articles (these other articles are based mostly on Wilson biographies). It will cover US relations with other major nations, and will include topics that now are overlooked such as cultural and economic relations with the rest of the world. Any comments? Rjensen (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * okay, I'll get started with Foreign policy of the Woodrow Wilson administration. Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I've been interested in/considering the need for such a page for a while. It almost goes without saying that if Herbert Hoover has a separate page devoted to his foreign policy then obviously one is in order for Wilson. With that being said:

1. Is there? I searched but could not find a wiki for Hoover's foreign policy?

2. If there is any particular aspect or area you feel you could use the assistance of another editor for any reason including just personal time constraints just ping me.

3. How if at all you feel the page on Wilsonianism is a factor? OgamD218 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hoover really needs a "foreign policy of" page -- and not merely his presidency--he was deeply involved before and afterwards. Maybe I can start one--want to help? Wilsonianism is mostly about the uses OTHER people made of Wilson's ideas. A very important topic with lots of debate. Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I would love to help in any way I can, please let me know. Full disclosure though, as my previous post alluded, I only recently discovered the significance of Herbert Hoover's role in foreign affairs.

OgamD218 (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great -- join in anytime at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Herbert_Hoover = Foreign policy of Herbert Hoover Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Text on Booker T Washington
Mr Washington died in 1915, making the following text under Race relations misleading:

"In 1919, black veterans returning home to D.C. were shocked to discover Jim Crow had set in, many could not go back to the jobs they held prior to the war or even enter the same building they used to work in due to the color of their skin. Booker T. Washington described the situation: “(I) had never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time.”" 71.82.140.131 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Correct, thank you for bringing this to attention. The referenced visit to the capital occurred shortly before Booker T. Washington's death-after the onset of WWI but yes before 1919. The sentence is maybe out of order but not inaccurate and is in proper context. Just incase I looked into the quote/facts and it certainly was made by Booker T. Washington. OgamD218 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson quote
The Woodrow Wilson quote that's been added and re-added is NOT from 1916. Yes, I realize that's what the given source says. The source, however, is demonstratable wrong about this. Both quotes are from Wilson's 1913 book The New Freedom, which is from his campaign speeches and very obviously BEFORE the Federal Reserve Act. "...[N]ation is controlled by its system of credit" is from Chapter VIII of that book. The quote starting with "no longer a Government by free opinion..." is from Chapter XI of that same book. This isn't the first time Wilson's quotes have been wrongly attributed and it won't be the last, but the quotes are NOT from 1913 and are not Wilson disagreeing with the Federal Reserve.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also some discussions around these and other quotes (including the utter fabrication you see from some anti-Fed sites) at Talk:Woodrow_Wilson/Archive_1.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And see which further debunks some of this stuff.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022
On line 2 of the sub-section 'African-Americans in the armed forces' in the section 'Race relations', I would like for the 'hundreds of thousands of blacks' to be changed to 'hundreds of thousands of black people', as 'blacks' could be considered offensive to black people (as it harks back to an era of slavery), despite the context in which the word is placed. 82.14.197.152 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That’s a reasonable request, thank you, but this style practice is widespread throughout Wikipedia. It would be better as a request to the Manual_of_Style.
 * A related request was denied a few years ago, but it might be time to review that decision: Manual_of_Style/Identity_(failed_proposal)
 * I note this related paragraph from the AP Stylebook:
 * Black(s), white(s) (n.) Do not use either term as a singular noun. For plurals, phrasing such as Black people, white people, Black teachers, white students is often preferable when clearly relevant. … The plural nouns Blacks and whites are generally acceptable when clearly relevant and needed for reasons of space or sentence construction. … Black and white'' are acceptable as adjectives when relevant.
 * (This is my personal observation and opinion as an independent editor; another editor might disagree and make the suggested edit.)
 * &mdash;Danorton (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022
Change "Following the entry of the U.S. into Wiorld War I, the War Department drafted hundreds of thousands of black people into the army, and draftees were paid equally regardless of race."

to "Following the entry of the U.S. into World War I, the War Department drafted hundreds of thousands of black people into the army, and draftees were paid equally regardless of race."

(Fix the "Wiorld" typo) 174.89.102.34 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thewsomeguy (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep getting reverted under the guise of GAN, even though at least some of it was certainly an improvement
Was it really necessary to revert this in toto? I fixed several refs through the use of template cite (for a GAN, all refs should be properly formatted, and it was not just this section; thankfully, similar edits to further improve the article have not been reverted), or WP:REFBOMB by better distributing the refs about the mission in Liberia, or fixing WP:PIPED: "Obtaining an executive appointment to" ---> "In the spoils system, obtaining executive appointment". Then other objectively improvement included copy editing an unattributed quote ("the federal bureaucracy had been possibly the only career path where African-Americans 'experienced some measure of equity'" ---> "the federal bureaucracy had been possibly the only career path where African-Americans could experience some measure of equality",), or use more neutral wording: "Wilson flatly refused to even consider African-Americans" ---> "Wilson refused to consider African-Americans", or "Such claims deflect most of the truth however."

Certainly, for a GAN article I would expect the text to actually reflect sources. "It has been claimed Wilson continued to appoint African-Americans to positions that had traditionally been filled by black people, overcoming opposition from many southern senators." Citing Berg (2013). I simply added the context that Berg actually provided: "Wilson continued to appoint African-Americans to positions that had traditionally been filled by black people, overcoming opposition from many southern senators. Oswald Garrison Villard thought that Wilson was not a bigot and supported progress for black people, and he was frustrated by southern opposition in the Senate, to which Wilson capitulated. In a conversation with Wilson, journalist John Palmer Gavit came to the realization that opposition to those views 'would certainly precipitate a conflict which would put a complete stop to any legislative program.'" Citing Berg (2013), with quote at p. 307.

I also merged the two final paragraphs into one, since they are about the same topic, and the first one is literally a single sentence; this is a problem I have encountered in the article — there are some paragraphs that would benefit from being separated to improve readabilty, and others (mainly including one or two sentences) that would benefit from being merged since they are discussing the same thing. I removed "for appointments in the South" because I could not verify in any of the sources that I was able to read — I could be wrong though (personally, I do not dispute that is what happened), so please feel free to re-add it but this time with a clear inline citation.

We can certainly discuss some of my more significant edits, but it is clear that this should not have been unilaterelly reverted, perhaps only the wording changes, which can be discussed, but the rest was pretty harmless and improving. Davide King (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see nothing wrong with your edits. The content you corrected is in line with reliable sources (such as Berg 2013) and certainly improve the article. Antiok 1pie (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * please for future reference it is not difficult to tag or ping another editor on wiki and doing so is a common courtesy when you are aware of their involvement in the topic you're attempting to have a productive discussion regarding. Re the spoils' system, the term is linked accordingly but to its plain use in that section dims the tone of what was happening, but more importantly virtually none if even any sources use that term when referring to the historical events being described. The other changes that you claim to be objective are far from it and in making those changes you are disregarding prior discussions had as part of the GAN process for this article in addition to unilaterally trying to significantly alter long standing content. I can agree that perhaps some of your structural changes should remain and you should restore them separately. Berg is widely cited throughout this article-as well he should be as I highly regarded Wilsonian scholar, however Berg is also unapologetically sympathetic towards Wilson and it has been increasingly noted over the last 5-10 years that his works either consciously or subconsciously seek to deflect or downplay Wilson's racist tendencies. In the same vain, the view you present of Oswald Garrison Villard is extremely misleading. Villard supported Wilson's when he first ran for President and initially served as an apologist of his racist policies believing that Wilson had better intentions, however Villard quickly came realize that Wilson's agenda was in fact clearly not what he had been led to believe and morphed into a committed opponent of his. OgamD218 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that — you didn't reply to my message on your talk page, and I simply assumed you were already watching the page, so I forgot about it. Regarding the spoils system, the bottom line is that is a clear example not only of WP:PIPED but of WP:EASTEREGG too, so either don't link it at all for a better tone, or link it and spell it out directly. If sources do not use that term, that is more reason to unlink it in the first place rather than pipe it like that, and contradicting those sources that do not use that terminology; it may be bordering on WP:OR to link something you say sources do not actually refer to when discussing the events. Please, entail me on how exactly my changes (which ones) are "far from it", and also link me to those discussions — I'm really curious to see whether there is a discussion where this section is discussed word-by-word, rather than generally (e.g. 1). GA doesn't imply one can no longer edit the page or try to further improve it or that the wording must remain perpetually the same (WP:OWNERSHIP), unless you think all my edits are somehow in bad faith (WP:GOODFAITH). As for Berg in the racial relations section, then my addition can simply be attributed rather than outright removed as you did. Also how is that view misleading? That is what Berg says, and is what my proposed text says too, I really don't understand you; perhaps we may add that he became an opponent of his, which is the only thing missing — of course, Berg does not actually says the bolded part here: "Villard supported Wilson's when he first ran for President and [initially served as an apologist of his racist policies] believ[ed] that Wilson had better intentions." But the rest, including my summary of the source, is on point and what it says at p. 307.  By your own standards, Berg must have been discussed in the GAN process, and since he is still widely cited, there seems to be no blacklisting — I simply expanded and contextualized what he actually says, and could be fixed by simply attributing it rather than remove it. Davide King (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please forgive any structure/grammatical errors, it has been a long day. Accordingly, I am going to continue assuming good faith but I am going to have ask you to please knock it off with rephrasing what I say, drawing a separate/divergent conclusion and trying to attribute it to me. As an important aside, and I apologize because it is difficult to tactfully convey this especially via a wiki talk page but how thoroughly informed are you on this specific topic? I'm not saying you have less than an elementary knowledge of the subject don't get me wrong but some of this seems to just be off the cuff disagreeing. For example, the title of the wiki article for the bygone system where the US federal civil service was dominated by political appointees is the spoils system-it is common sense that this title/label carries an inherently negative connotation and always has-wiki page titles are based on many factors especially notoriety not universal historical applicability. I provided the link as appropriate to help better inform the reader as is standard but i will concede not absolutely necessary. However both contemporary and modern sources alike almost always distinguish where and when to refer to the system as the federal civil service or bureaucracy vs spoils system given the impression it carries-something of particular relevance here as the topic pertains to race and hiring. But, by all means if you are aware of a seperate wiki article centered on the system where federal employment was in mass determined by political appointment during the time period of 1896-1920 by all means link it.
 * Regarding your imo unnecessary (borderline dispersion) reference to ownership-being one of multiple editors who is thoroughly familiar with the long term development and improvement of this particular page is not a claim to ownership-accordingly it is not my job to go dig up past discussions that you can go find yourself. It is once again standard to retain content molded/approved/agreed by the wiki community during GAN-that is all that was said so please do not pretend to be refuting claims anything here is set in stone or "owned" just because you don't like it. I'll be honest: idk where you went in the final third of your argument, you can't seriously be defending including a quote as representative/general summary of a position that so fully contradicts Villard's ultimate conclusion re Wilson's racial policies as President. Villard was an outspoken critic of Wilson for virtually his entire time as President-It is cherry picking at best.
 * Regarding Berg, once again I will continue assuming good faith but I'm not going to have a debate with you on a point of contention you seem to have imagined. Berg is quoted throughout the article-possibly more so than any other source, no one said anything about blacklisting him and to cast that dispersion is just too absurd. OgamD218 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is titled "Spoils system", and while it mentions nepotism and cronyism, it doesn't say it is a negative or pejorative term, there is no section about etymology or terminology, so I didn't see any issue in unpiping the link and use the direct link instead; if you prefer the previous wording, no issue with that, but we must respect our linking MoS (WP:PIPED/WP:EASTEREGG/WP:OVERLINKING), and that is not the only linking issue I found, if you let me copyedit all the links to be in line with our MoS; e.g. elections links, why not have "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States" at WP:SEEALSO rather than pipe/Easter Egg it twice, etc. The bottom line is that I've been reverted only by you, another user agree with me, and you can't assume all the other users automatically agree with you, and of course I don't assume the reverse is true either, so let's ping them (,, , , et al.) and hear what they say rather than edit warring. Regarding Berg, it was an exaggeration on purpose because your previous wording suggested, from how I understood it, that Berg was being relied on too much, but that seemed to be your personal view; the GAN version relies heavily on him, so I thought it was no issue if I contextualized and expanded what Berg actually says in a cited page. But I think you're overlooking this and ignoring the other fixes I did (e.g. refs formatting, imrporing the refs bombing for the Liberia mission, fixing a single-sentence paragraph that was abrubtly separated from the relevant paragraph, etc.) I could not read all the pages due to being Google Books but Berg 2013 does say this: "Oswald Garrison Villard thought that Wilson was not a bigot and supported progress for black people, and he was frustrated by southern opposition in the Senate, to which Wilson capitulated. In a conversation with Wilson, journalist John Palmer Gavit came to the realization that opposition to those views 'would certainly precipitate a conflict which would put a complete stop to any legislative program.'" In fact, this summary is very close to what Berg actually says in the book but enough to avoid verbatim. I've since revised this to address your concerns, and mention that he became of opponent of his that I must have missed form the page. So what I get from that is that Berg is saying Wilson capitulated to those Southern senators because he realized, as he told the journalist, that if he did not pander to them, they would not support his legislative agenda (The New Freedom). Perhaps I missed something in a previous or later page, but there is a part saying that, and the same page also discusses the federal segregation that is already discussed in the next paragraphs.1 I could very well have made a mistake, but I don't think your unilaterality and reverts are a good solution; we should work together—you should try to fix my good-faith mistakes, for example by expanding and clarying what Berg actually wrote (e.g. attribute to him, mention that Villard later became an opponent of his) if I misread him, not simply revert every single edit I make, without keeping even the slightest minor thing that was improved (e.g. refs formatting and good copy editing). Davide King (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * GA is not FA. And this article did not go through the most detailed or rigorous GAN that I have seen. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I recall you were a fairly active participant and probably the most experienced editor during GAN, accordingly I feel it best then and now to defer to you but with that said I do not recall you voicing any reservations re the article's quality by the end of the GAN process. @Davide King, I agree it is best to involve other editors and go from there. I will also affirm I would not object to you restoring the purely structural edits you mention above. I also never said nor is it my opinion that Berg is oversourced in this article. The section regarding Wilson and race was one that went through extensive revising during GAN and it was ultimately agreed that a separate article altogether would be best. What remains is a condensed summary of a detailed subject. I cannot say your position will be altered by doing so but I encourage you to consider reading Woodrow Wilson and race and from there determine if some of your proposed changes belong in the main Wilson article as opposed to there. OgamD218 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
Change "Later in 1920 the Wall Street bombing on September 16, killed 50 and injured hundreds in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil up to that point." to "Later in 1920 the Wall Street bombing on September 16, killed 40 and injured hundreds in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil up to that point." 50.4.97.167 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  (talk)  15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pompous Wilson
Created most of the world we are living in today. The federal reserve, raising interest rates. Following the most popular President this world has ever seen - Franklin D. Roosevelt. 2603:7000:B901:8500:84AA:C4DF:9361:88AC (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * he was objectively the worst and evilest president lmao 2001:8F8:173D:46D5:E508:7776:5E87:DAE3 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Mother's Name Not Under Personal Details
Despite it being in the "Early Life" section, his mother's name is not listed under "Personal Details". I suggest that it be added for better ease of finding information. Kal-likes-history (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wilson was a "subject" of the Confederacy?
Wilson is described as a "subject" of the Confederacy. What a giveaway! It is insightful to point out that he is the only man ever elected president who lived in one of the confederate states during the civil war, but the author clearly shows his bias and hostility when he refers to the people of the confederate states as subjects. People who live in monarchies are subjects, Jefferson Davis was not a king, so the people of the confederate states were citizens, not subjects. 169.253.162.4 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Wilson's uncles and grandfather supported yhe Union in Civil War
President Wilson's father strongly supported the Confederacy; his mother--nobody says. But most of his uncles and his maternal grandfather supported the Union in the war. No mention that any of them were anti-war or pro-Confederacy.

Wilson's father had six brothers:
 * William Wilson the oldest was a prominent editor in Iowa during the civil war [p 386]
 * Henry Clay Wilson (a triplet) of Ohio served in the Union Army [p 386]
 * Edwin Wilson (a triplet) was adjutant general of Pennsylvania (February, 1858-April, 1861), "had a commendable war record" [p 386]
 * James Wilson was a minister--unsure of his location or role in war [p 386]
 * Robert Wilson was an Ohio newspaper editor during the war [p 387]
 * youngest brother = Joseph = WW's father

President Wilson's maternal grandfather Thomas Woodrow left Kentucky when the war started and moved to Ohio where he was a minister during the war. [p 389] source: Francis P. Weisenburger, "The Middle Western Antecedents of Woodrow Wilson" The Mississippi Valley Historical Review , Dec., 1936, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Dec., 1936), pp. 375-390 --Wilson himself stayed in touch with the Ohio relatives, and proposed marriage to one of his first cousins there in 1881. She said no. [Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson vol 1 p 130]. Rjensen (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Typo in Academic Career section
The last sentence of the first paragraph. "In 1988, Wilson left Bryn Mawr College, and was not given a farewell." The correct year is 1888.

I would correct this myself but the page is semi-protected. Typo trailblazer (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fixed. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC).

Typo in State of the Union Image Caption
An amendment should be made to the caption as follows:

Wilson giving his first State of the Union address in 1801 before a joint session of Congress, which initiated the modern practice of the State of the Union being given in person before all members of Congress

Strike 1801 and replace with 1913.

Wilson giving his first State of the Union address in 1913 before a joint session of Congress, which initiated the modern practice of the State of the Union being given in person before all members of Congress 207.107.159.242 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Done.Almostfm (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hating Woodrow Wilson"
In recent years, I've observed a significant online phenomenon, often referred to as the "Hate Wilson" trend (or meme? I'm not entirely sure). He is universally disliked across the political spectrum due to his political affiliations and actions during his tenure. Equity advocates detest him for perceived racial biases, free-market conservatives resent his intervention in the economy, authoritarian figures despise him for inciting ethnic independence and anti-monarchy sentiments, while liberals criticize him for meddling in other countries.

These sentiments manifest on platforms like this

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Woodrow-Wilson-today-so-hated-and-demonized-What-made-him-such-a-bad-president

and this

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/yuzcud/all_my_homies_hate_woodrow_wilson/

encompassing a range of expressions from jests to in-depth political debates. While some may be humorous, others delve into intricate political discussions.

Surprisingly, this article has yet to acknowledge this almost ubiquitous disdain for him in online communities, raising the question of whether it should. For instance, The New York Times has dedicated a column specifically addressing this phenomenon, reflecting on whether it's pertinent to bring attention to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/10/hating-woodrow-wilson 180.217.40.140 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)