Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2 many sections

Merged sections "Later life" and "Death of second wife" into section "Death".

Also, "Personal facts" section needs to be cut. BigglesTh9 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Old talk

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and see the honor ranks for Americans. Is Wilson's rank anywhere in the range from 5 to 10?? 66.245.115.51 00:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The Wilson First Ladies names prior to marriage to Woodrow Wilson were Ellen Louise Axson and Edith Bolling Galt. Why undo my edits? The same format appears in other Presidents' bios.

ADHD?

Did ADHD even exist in the 19th century as a diagnosis? --Golbez 04:50, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it did at all. I was about to bring this up. Not all doctors even agree that ADD and ADHD are actual conditions; I don't see how an early 20th century president could have been diagnosed with ADHD even posthumously. I'm taking it out; anyone is welcome to put it back if they have some proof. --BDD 00:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that he suffered from ADHD, specifically that he had a learning disability, in his own personal papers he explains that it was difficult to read/write due to the moving of the text- a classic sign of dsylexia! It is a well recorded fact that people read to him, that has nothing to do with his own intelligence, just his way of learning information. If something was later determined to be an illness, disease, or diability it would still be releavant to classify it as a diagnosis?

White Supremacy

Wilson's suspected history of being a white supremacist should be included in the article.

I've never heard of that, but as long as you have credible sources you're welcome to try and do that. --BDD 00:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

He was definately regarded as a white supremacist. Check the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen

I think one should make a distinction between the white supremacy of Wilson and modern day white supremacy. WIlson did not hate non-whites, he just believed that whites were more talented.

I can agree with you somewhat, as he was a white supreasist, but I really think thats a collective memory that should be buried, it is a black stain on a man who was otherwise such a great American, I just don't believe many people will use the knowledge that he was a white supreamacist responsibly. I just think it is our responsiblity (as smart people) to understand that when we tell that to people, so many of them will dismiss him and never really look into his life beyond its biographical bones.

-C.P., Jun. 22, 2005

Wilson's "History of the American People" is virulently racist, and was extensively quoted in the KKK propaganda film The Birth of a Nation. An example of a quote used in the film is this: "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." The article has some discussion of this now. "White supremacy" is the kind of phrase people use to bash their opponents over the head with, but it's abundantly clear from Wilson's writings and actions as president that he was a racist through and through. People often try to apologize for this kind of thing by saying someone like Wilson was a product of his time, but in fact the Wilson administration marked a rapid retrogression in race relations in the U.S. When C.P. says this ---

I just think it is our responsiblity (as smart people) to understand that when we tell that to people, so many of them will dismiss him and never really look into his life beyond its biographical bones.

--- the solution is to expand the other aspects of the article, many of which are quite skimpy right now, especially the treatment of WW I and its aftermath.--Bcrowell 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

CP: Couldn't disagree more. I am much more interested in the man than the myth. Not just for Wilson, but for anyone and anything. Give me the real historical human being, warts and all. Spare me the portrait of the "Great American." Let me make that determination for myself, and let me have all the facts that I may do so. If Wilson is so great, than that will be obvious looking at his REAL life, not the sanitized version. If you are so uncomfortable with this side of Wilson, maybe it's time to find a new hero?--Cro Mag

I agree with Cro Mag on this. While his personal views on race were despicable, they should be kept in and balanced on the whole of his positive acheivments so we can get a better picture of the man. This article shouldn't serve to deify or demonize him, but show him for who he was. --Bobak Nov 22, 2005

What positive achievements? Setting the stage of for World War Two, the Holocaust, the Cold War, the Arab-Israeli Conflict (and by extension virtually every other major 20th century conflict)? Breaking America's isolationist, non-interventionist tradition and catalyzing the transformation of the United States of America from a Republic to an Empire? Inspiring the rise of Bolshevism (Marxist-Leninist Communism), Fascism & Nazism, and totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and statism in general? Lying to the nation? Betraying majority sentiment?

"Virulenty racist"??? Spare me the glib, cheap sanctimony. Wilson was indeed a product of his time and reflected contemporary mores, and nothing said above proves otherwise. Wilson's racism was absolutely NOT atypical. To apply current values to a past era is hypocritical and unscholarly. The term is presentism and reflects a superficial and sophomoric understanding of history...or an agenda. — J M Rice 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "virulently" racist. Perhaps to you Hitler barely qualifies as virulently racist (apparently one must be extraordinarily maniacly racist to qualify...). Woodrow Wilson was at least a tad bit more racist than most people in the Western world at his time.

• Note that Abraham Lincoln was indeed a racist by today's standards at least but Lincon was significantly less racist than most people alive during his lifetime. So to criticize Lincoln's "racism" is indeed historically unwarranted. He did end up abolishing slavery after all. But even in the half century between Lincoln and Wilson, considerable social progress occured, and Wilson was probably more racist than Lincoln.

Have to disagree with JM Rice. Wilson's racism wasn't run-of-the-mill, even for that era. Didn't he pretty much fire all African-Americans from the U.S. civil service? Race relations took a turn for the worse during this time (the 1920s saw the rise of the KKK to national prominance). Wilson's white supremacy certainly played a hand in that. I don't have sources for this off the top of my head, which is why I'm mentioning it here and not editing the article. But the section on his racism is WAY too watered down and equivocal, very disappointing. Someone with some sources should change this section!!

He was not a "White Supremacist" he may have believed whites were a bit more talented then non-whites, but he didn't linch anyone or anything like that. He was just about as "racist" as anyone in his time period... He was a great man I don't like people dirting up innocent people for whatever reasons. Prede (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a White Supremacist. Read "Lies My Teacher Told Me." The evidence of his racism, which far excedes the average man of his era, is plentiful. nbulling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.161.96 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson's racial viewpoints should be stated objectively but truthfully rather than simply pejoratively. I suggest using terms like "Segregationist" rather than racist, which is probably going to get taken down anyways. We can recognize that his viewpoints were probably within the (very wide)range of mainstream American society's viewpoints at the time, but pointing out a feature which we would never accept in our present day presidents is not only acceptable, but desirable in that we are representing the whole truth, and the whole man as stated above. This is a (Global) encyclopedia, not solely a reference for and by the American people that's been "photoshopped" for blemishes.Krymson (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not fair to the subject of the article to emphasize their support for a practice that everybody else supported at the time. It is not appropriate for "views on race" to be mentioned in the lead. "Controversial" by whose standards?--STX 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shacketta, Virginia

On the table it shows his place of birth as Shacketta, Virginia but in the article it claims it is Staunton, Virginia. Which is correct?

Research even in the Lost counties, cities and towns of Virginia fails to come up with "Shacketta" as a place in Virginia, at least not yet. Staunton, Virginia is what all the credible sources say. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) He was born in Staunton. His house there is a landmark/museum now. I was there years ago, when I was a lil kid. --Kross 01:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Shacketta" was either a very confused addition or a poor joke, a pun on the word shack. A Google search yielded only one result for Wilson's birthplace as such (possibly a copy of a former version of this page) and another, as a person's name. There is a remote possibility that his birthplace was called "Shacketta" at the time, as it was not uncommon for rural towns to be "modernizing" their names in that time, but until I see any proof of that, especially if the "lost counties, cities, and towns" page showed nothing. I'd put my money on Staunton and nothing else; I've passed by that birthplace many times.

This can't be true

Even radicals like John Reed and Max Eastman happily supported Wilson. Mother Jones wrote, "I am a Socialist, but I admire Wilson for the things he has done ... And when a man or woman does something for humanity I say go to him and shake him by the hand and say 'I'm for you.'" (Ibid, 94)

What exactly is the source for this? Wilson was a conservative Southerner. Some of these people listed were arrested by Wilson's government, I doubt they would have much support for him. I removed it until this can be verified, as the articles of these people give no mention of this alleged support. I think these people actually opposed him, given the evidence. --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilson was not that conservative for his time, and had a great deal of support on the left in 1916, including from Eastman, Reed and Jones. See Thomas Knock "To End All Wars" esp. pages 66-67 and 146-147. Their support for Wilson did not survive the war and Knock points out how the repression of the anti-war left during the war ended up alienating Wilson's allies that he then needed to push the League treaty through the Senate. --Hanover81 26 June 2006

I see the text is gone now. Good thing, as it misused the word "happily". -Will Beback 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilson apointed Louis Brandeis to the supreme court Louis was the first Jew to hold that office.

Wilson apointed Louis Brandeis to the supreme court Louis was the first Jew to hold that office.

Shouldn't we mention that?

Louis Brandeis is mentioned in the section on Racism and Administration.

Cutting down on POV

The article was full of POV and strong leftist biases. For example, there was more on Haiti and the KKK than on the Federal Reserve, the Cabinet, the tariff, conscription and anti-trust, combined. This has to be an objective article and it has to be about Wilson. I added a schoalrly bibliography.Rjensen 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now there is nothing on Haiti, or Mexico, or anything about conservation.

Fake quote on "Birth of a Nation"

The whole story is told by historian Arthur Link in Wilson: The New Freedom, pp 252-54. Wilson implicitly endorsed the film by inviting Griffith to show it in the White House--but no one knew what was in the film at the time of the invitation. Aides said that Wilson had no comment whatever after seeing the film. Wilson explicity wrote that he "he disapproved of the “unfortunate production.” " [Woodrow Wilson to Joseph P. Tumulty, Apr. 28, 1915 in Wilson, Papers, 33:86.] T 20 years later in 1937 an unidentified source told a magazine the alleged quote by Wilson: "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."-- Thus dubious quote was not reported in any newspaper in 1915. Wilson officially denied that he approved the movie: "...the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP. See also Roger Ebert's discussion which notes there is no evidence whatever that Wilson said that at: [1] Rjensen 00:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work, RJ! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Need merge / redefinition

Wilsonianism currently redirects to Idealism in international relations, which doesn't have that much to say about the eponymous Woodrow Wilson.

Wilsonian currently is a stub, but one which does mention Wilson's principles and policies.

We need to either

(1) Effectively merge Wilsonian and Idealism in international relations

or

(2) Make Wilsonian and Wilsonianism direct to the same page (I suppose "Wilsonianism" is the better choice), and make Idealism in international relations a separate page. (Of course, these pages may mention each other.)

Personally, I prefer option (2). -- Writtenonsand 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Other Foreign Policies

The creator of this article obviously neglected on what Wilson's policies on Central and South America were. Can anyone who is knowledgable in this subject expand this topic, it should be another major topic not just a side note. Thanks --Exander 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I can't seem to figure out where the three footnotes (multied link, Dray, Wade) are supposed to link to in the text. Any ideas? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Educational Policy

"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." - Woodrow Wilson, from an address to The New York City High School Teachers Association, Jan. 9th, 1909. Should this be included in the main article? Surely it is significant, no? Alex Krupp 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

do you have a source for this quote? Say from Wilson's Papers. As far as I can tell it is not in Wilson's biographies and started circulating on the internet a couple years ago and looks like an invention. Rjensen 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a primary source, but John Taylor Gatto claims it in his book "The Underground History of American Education." The whole book is online and searchable on johntaylorgatto.com, and the quote is also on this page here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/fourthpurpose/short.htm Alex Krupp 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When a strange looking quote suddenly appears on www in 2003 that requires a real source. the whole purpose is suspect--it's a POV statement used to attack Wilson & Princeton politically so it's double-suspect. Rjensen 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, published in 2001. The book has been very widely read and I don't see any websites online debunking it. For this reason I would tend to believe it, and because of how precisely it was cited -- it should be trivial to look through his papers or the New York City archives. That being said, I would like it very much if someone could either dig up a copy of the full speech or prove it false. Alex Krupp 02:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Gatto book, he's a well known crank with shrill rhetoric and very poor history. He sees a Prussian conspiracy to suppress the peasants and workers--called HIGH SCHOOL. so he's 99% POV and doesn't belong in a serious article. Rjensen 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether Woodrow Wilson gave this speech or not, not whether Gatto is a crank. And for the record, you're the only one I've ever heard call Gatto a crank. Alex Krupp 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

we need 2 things: a reason to include the quote. 2) a reliable source. [Gatto's book is self-published --same status as a weeb blog.] I looked in the 8 vol edition of Wilson's Life & letters and it's not there. Rjensen 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go to the NY public library and try to source it today. If it turns out to be legit then we can argue whether or not it deserves to be included. Alex Krupp 15:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Printed in High School Teachers Association of New York Volume 3 1908-1909 (n.p., n.d.), pp. 19-31. ALSO in Wilson, Woodrow. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 18. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1974. 593-606. Alex Krupp 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I do not wonder at it. I think it is hardly just to blame those who have brought this situation about, because this change in modern life has come upon us suddenly. It has confused us. We are in an age so changeful, so transitional, I do not wonder that this confusion has come into our education, and I do not blame anybody. I do not see how it could have been avoided, how we could have avoided trying our hands at a score of things hitherto unattempted to determine at least if they were possible or not. Therefore this is not a subject for cynical comment, this is not a subject for criticism. It is a subject for self-recognition. The present need is that we should examine ourselves and see whether this be true or not; and, if it is true, ask ourselves whether the air has cleared enough, and whether our experiment has gone far enough, to make a definite program, to make a radical change, in the things we have attempted. This is the moment for counsel. The thing that is imperative upon our conscience is that we should ask ourselves whether it be possible to do it differently and better."

"Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do."

Wilson said we should end the grand experiment of equal opportunity in America and sort people into castes for the sake of the economy. I think this is worthy of being included into the article. Alex Krupp 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

no you are misinterpreting -- the debate was over high schools having a "liberal" pre-college education of Greek, Latin, and classical languages, or a "manual" education" of math, engineering and science. The point was very few people attended high school (850,000 compared to 18 million in elementary school). Wilson wanted a rapid expansion of high schools -- but should the kids be taught Latin or not was a serious issue. He started the first federal program of massive $$ aid to high schools. Rjensen 03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be fair if he was just creating an opportunity for more kids to have a "manual education", but he wasn't. This was compulsory education, with kids being forcibly separated from their parents and thrown in jail if they didn't comply. Alex Krupp 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory educated ended at about age 13-14. We're talking high school here. The problem: how to get millions of kids into high school when they wanted to get a job,earn $ and be an adult. (we have the same problem today esp with boys.) Wilson is saying: don't force high school kids to all take Latin. They will be attracted by training in science and engineering. He started the first federal $ for manual ed and for farmer ed. It worked: high school enrollment was 840,000 in 1909 when he gave the talk, and it tripled to 2.5 million in 1921 when he left office. The great majority of the kids did NOT take the Latin curriculum. There are indeed critics who say that elite kids take Latin and therefore so should all kids. But high school was voluntary--I think Wilson was right that most of the 1.7 million new kids would have been repelled by a classical curriculum and would have dropped out. We have solid data from 1930s that shows kids who attended manual highschools became foremen and managers. (NOT assembly line workers, who rarely got to high school.) As for college, that did not become feasible for more than a few % until the GI bill after Ww2. Rjensen 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is eminently clear to me that Mr Krupp has done his homework, and that Mr Jensen has a vested interest in burying something said by Mr Wilson which has profound implications on the purposes of public education, which would make Mr Jensen's claims the 'crank' claims, and Mr Gatto's true. The statement about dividing people into classes is rather black-and-white, even when read carefully in context, and there is not really any room to "misinterpret" it. Rusmeister (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wilson and racism

Some conclusions by historians--"racist" yes but not unusually so:

• 1) Woodrow Wilson, we would conclude, was not a fanatic, a “racist” in the extreme sense of that overworked word. His blindness was the blindness of his time ... Woodrow Wilson - Page 100 by J W Schulte Nordholt - 1991 - 575 pages
• 2) In this period overtly racist ideas were advocated by all US presidents. ...President Woodrow Wilson was well-known as an advocate of the superiority of European civilization over all others Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations - Page 86 by Joe R Feagin - 2001
• 3) Imperial democrats like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson merged tutelary visions of the white man's burden abroad with justifications of racial ... p .54 Ronald Reagan, the Movie

by Michael P Rogin

• 4) Most American blacks were also justifiably suspicious of Woodrow Wilson, viewing him as a southern white supremacist. At Princeton, he had maintained the university's ban on admitting blacks. As a Democrat Wilson believed that to ensure the “Jim Crow” South remained loyal to the party he had no intention of offending white southerners. p 213 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs-The Election That Changed the Country by James Chace
• 5) In 1912 Du Bois flirted with backing Theodore Roosevelt despite his being an obvious racist, and shifted his support to Woodrow Wilson despite being equally aware that Wilson did not “admire,” as he put it, black people. ...p 18 of Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority

Rjensen 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that Wilson was the only post-Civil War president to introduce segregation in federal government is enough to conclude (or at least suggest) that Wilson was "unusually" racist? Grover cleveland 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

DuBois

Can anyone give a reference for W.E.B. DuBois being appointed to a federal office by Wilson? There is no mention of this in the W.E.B. DuBois article (indeed, no mention of his holding any governmental post) and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything. Otherwise I'm going to move this claim to the talk page. Thanks Grover cleveland 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilson offered DuBois a military commission in 1918, and in return DuBois wrote a famous editorial for the NAACP magazine calling on blacks to stop protesting against Wilson, and to "forget [their] special grievances and close ranks" with white Americans for the duration of World War I. See Ellis, Mark. "CLOSING RANKS" AND "SEEKING HONORS": W. E. B. DU BOIS IN WORLD WAR I. Journal of American History 1992 79(1): 96-124. ISSN: 0021-8723 Rjensen 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilson's Endorsement of "The Birth of a Nation"

The film's popularity and influence were enhanced by a widely reported endorsement of its factual accuracy by historian and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as a favor to an old friend. Much of the modern Klan's iconography, including the standardized white costume and the burning cross, are imitations of the film, whose imagery was based on Dixon's romanticized concept of old Scotland as portrayed in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott rather than on the Reconstruction Klan.

The Birth of a Nation includes extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People,[36] for example, "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." Wilson, on seeing the film in a special White House screening on February 18, 1915, exclaimed, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."[37] Wilson's family had sympathized with the Confederacy during the Civil War and cared for wounded Confederate soldiers at a church. When he was a young man, his party had vigorously opposed Reconstruction, and as president he resegregated the federal government for the first time since Reconstruction.

Given the film's strong Democratic partisan message and Wilson's documented views on race and the Klan, it is not unreasonable to interpret the statement as supporting the Klan, and the word "regret" as referring to the film's depiction of Radical Republican Reconstruction. Later correspondence with Griffith, the film's director, confirms Wilson's enthusiasm about the film. Wilson's remarks were widely reported and immediately became controversial. Wilson tried to remain aloof from the controversy, but finally, on April 30, he issued a non-denial denial.37 His endorsement of the film greatly enhanced its popularity and influence, and helped Griffith to defend it against legal attack by the NAACP; the film, in turn, was a major factor leading to the creation of the second Klan in the same year. (sourced at/from: wiki on Ku Klux Klan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Expansion needed

I'll try to do some of this myself, but if others want to help, let's have more on, among other things:

-Wilson's early life, his parents, his upbringing, how the Civil War and Reconstruction shaped him

-His children, grief at his first wife's death, marriage to his second wife, etc.

-His achievements as Governor of New Jersey

-His Mexican policy in 1913-4 Biruitorul 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

W. Wilsons 14 points

Some info on W. Wilsons 14 points would help me with a project, thanks.

Er, there's a link in the article to this other article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points . Do a little searching yourself. 158.143.162.119 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Incapacity

There is no mention in this article about the affect Wilson's incapacity had on his ability to negotiate with Cabot over the matter of the 14 points. Cabot, a Republican, proposed modest changes to the 14 points, but he left the meat of it intact. Wilson, however, was an invalid both mentally and physically at this time due to a massive stroke, and he was unable to grasp these changes. Kept out of communication with his supporters, they remained unaware that Wilson was so thoroughly incapacitated. Wishing to remain loyal, they voted against the amended version and sank it. The Republicans brought it up for a second vote, but the Democrats, again thinking they were following Wilson's wishes, but without any clear and direct communications, sank it once more. Rklawton 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the factual basis for the following?

User Rjensen made the following entry: At 22:49, 17 May 2006 Rjensen (remove POV and get DuBois role right)

W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DeBois accepted, but failed his Army physical and did not serve.) When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen". In 1914, he told The New York Times that "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it". [2]

Comment follows-- Any reasonable reader would expect that the link to reason.com would contain the conent of that paragraph. It does not. For example, Rjensen wrote: W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DeBois accepted, but failed his Army physical and did not serve.)

Rjensen's claims about Du Bois appear nowhere in either article sourced AND appear nowhere in the massive two-part biography of Du Bois for which David Levering Lewis won two Pulitzer prizes for biography.

Aside from the careless spelling errors, the introduction of false information destroys the credibility of the Wikipedia project. This entry violates the tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability, citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research. It should be removed. Skywriter 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to remove the old citation. The story of the Wilson's admin offer to DuBois is told in Ellis, Mark. Title: "Closing Ranks" and "Seeking Honors": W. E. B. du Bois in World War I. Citation: Journal of American History 1992 79(1): 96-124. Issn: 0021-8723 Fulltext: [ 1. Jstor ] and also in William Jordan, . "The Damnable Dilemma": African-American Accommodation and Protest During World War I Journal of American History 1995 81(4): 1562-1583. ISSN: 0021-8723, online at JSTOR. Lewis of course covers the story in depth, see 553-60. For example the medical exam gets detailed treatment (p 533) Rjensen 01:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the second volume by Lewis. (p 533) must be the first volume. Skywriter 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Test for verifiability fails

Current revision Rjensen (Talk | contribs) (consensus of scholars is not POV)

Rjensen changed the following neutral wording in this section-- Federal reserve 1913 from this: - Wilson was able to establish the Federal Reserve system in late 1913.

to the following, based on Rjensen's claim that "(consensus of scholars is not POV)" + The most impressive achievement was passage of

Rjensen's claim is NOT supportable because of the failure to provide citations. The test for verifiability of this edit fails. The revert was unwarranted, and a change back to the more neutral wording is preferable. Skywriter 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The citations were at the end of the para and I moved them up. Consensus ispretty clear: to quote the textbooks: Liberty Equality Power with Infotrac: A History of the American People, Volume II: Since 1863... - Page 664 by John M Murrin, Paul E Johnson, James M McPherson, Gary Gerstle, Emily S Rosenberg - 2004: "The Federal Reserve system strengthened the nation's financial structure and was in most respects an impressive political achievement for Wilson. ..." or a second new text: Unto A Good Land: A History of the American People: From 1865 - Page 810 by David Edwin Harrell, Edwin S Gaustad, John B Boles, Sally Foreman Griffith, Randall M Miller, Randall B Woods - History - 2005 -"Generally regarded as the most important single achievement of the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve System soon won the support ..." etc etc When there is a clear consensus Wiki should report it. Rjensen 03:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The change to conform with verifiability is appreciated. Skywriter 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why were my changes deleted??

I tried expanding the entry to Wilson yesterday (26 June 06) and today all my changes were undone. I am curious as to WHY... I am new here and still learning my way but I did not think that anything I wrote either was unverifiable or reflected a POV.. –--Hanover81 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the changes were pretty good. I strongly recommend making only a few at a time, to avoid annoying other editors. Rjensen 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't plan on making a lot of changes, but I do hope to tweak some and add things to make the entry fuller... I'm still fuzzy on why they were undone to begin with... –--Hanover81 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Affair(s) & Mary Hulbert Peck

Seems to be referenced in a few bios of Wilson [3] [4] [5] [6]

Or is it a hoax?

probably not consummated, but Wilson seems to have developed what he felt were inappropriately close ties for a married man to share with another woman (Mrs. Peck). In other words, more of an emotional betrayal, not physical. Probably worth a short paragraph. --Hanover81 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

it was not a sexual affair and can't be called one in Wiki. Rjensen 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This Washington Post gives some background. Article says that it is not certain whether, according to the "wilson letters", if the affair was 'consumated' but that Wilson was the subject of a blackmail attempt arising from this relationship with Peck [7]. This blackmail attempt was later brought to attention of Congress years later.

Not seeking to tarnish the mans reputation, (affair seems to be general knowledge anyway), but it does deserve some mention since it was raised during electioneering and in Congress.

Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles

Is it better to bring something up in Talk before you edit? I edited a small section about the US failure to ratify the treaty of Versailles and almost immediately my edit was improved upon beautifully. I intended my edition to bring certain facts to attention, but should I have done so here first? I'm still getting used to the unwritten rules of this site. --Lindsay 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article:"We similarly learn that Woodrow Wilson belonged to Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and wrote his initials on the underside of a table in the Johns Hopkins University history department, but not about his law practice or his intellectual development at Princeton University".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

it is an interesting review, and it's what brought me here to create a Wikipedia account. --Hanover81 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It really is an excellent article - one of the best I've read on wikipedia, in that it acknowledges the flaws without taking on the hysterical, defensive tone exhibited by some. I assume that within the next few days someone will add information about Wilson's law practice and intellectual development at Princeton. john k 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a small section on his law practice. it's just the basics. have at it. --Hanover81 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Link's acoount of his time at Princeton. Home-schooled seems fairly pretentious; he was encouraged to read, and there were family group readings. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, "home schooled" carries modern connotations that might leave an inaccurate impression of his education. Besides, he did attend a boy's school in Augusta. --Hanover81 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

March 4, 1921

From an account of the inauguration.

From the Woodrow Wilson Papers (ed. Link) 67:207:

...the meeting between Mr. Wilson and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, leader of the anti-treaty fight, in the President's Room at the Capitol, immediately before noon....

When Senator Lodge entered this chamber everybody gazed in his direction. He had come officially to inform Mr. Wilson, who was still President, that the Senate was ready to adjourn and to inquire whether he wished to communicate any message to the adjourning Congress. The appearance of Senator Lodge and all that his presence may have conjured in the mind of Mr. Wilson brought back a flash of his old fire.

"Mr. President," Senator Lodge declated, addressing Mr. Wilson, "as Chairman of the Joint Committee I beg to inform you that the two houses of Congress have no further business to transact and are prepared to receive any further communications you may care to make."

Mr Wilson replied:

"Tell them I have no further communication to make. I thank you for your courtesy. Good morning, Sir."

There was something in the voice of the President and the way he uttered these words which left no doubt that he wished to make only the most formal reply to Mr. Lodge. The President's response was not uttered curtly or discourteously, but there was no mistaking the rigidity of the response.

I have quoted at length because this is a good anecdote; but it should also squelch the idea that terms ended on March 3 in those days, On page 208 it continues that Wilson had stayed up until 10:30 signing bills, the night before, and had gotten up at 8;00 to sign some more. Septentrionalis 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilson was inaugurated for his first term on March 4, 1913. He took the oath of office for his second term privately on March 4, 1917, but because it was a Sunday, the public oath of office ceremony was March 5th. In 1921 Harding was inaugurated on March 4 and Wilson left the White House for his home on S Street (as noted in your excerpt.) Why is this an issue? I’m not arguing with you Septentrionalis, or taking issue with your post, but I am confused why March 4 is an issue. --Hanover81 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) –

It shouldn't be an issue; but a handful of -er- willful editors insist that terms ended at midnight March 3, which is mistaken. See the text I removed. There's no reason for WP to be wrong about this. So I documented. Septentrionalis 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) woodrow wilson no omne has even mentioned or given significance to his most dastardly deed, whach was the implementation of the federal reserve, thissold us out to the world bankers. he qwas a weak ill meaning man hooked on sex and thats how they blackmailed him or used him by that.see his right hand man was an tool or was a agent of the world bankers see jekell isalnd 1913 is when he did it

Removing Secondary Sources

One specific editor keeps re-adding a very poor book on Wilson by James Powell. It's not an acadamic study that has gone through peer review, Wilson scholars do not take it seriously, and it's simply a biased partisian attack published by a political press with an agenda. I wish the person who keeps adding it (the author perhaps?) would stop. Hanover81 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Refused black students admission to Princeton?

The present citation to support this merely points to a verbatim, unsourced sentence in Reason magazine. Is there a better, primary citation demonstrating this fact?

Good catch. I changed the sentence somewhat and added a reference to Link. I'll try and find a reference to a specific quote and add it when I locate it. Hanover81 13:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"First effective draft"

The first paragraph states that Wilson instituted the "first effective draft" in the US for World War One. What about the draft during the US Civil War? Was that "ineffective"?? Grover cleveland 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by design; it was intended to enforce volunteering and substitutes, rather than force actual service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

zionism

WP:RS source clearly says that Wilson supported Zionism. Then, the quote is said to have been after he was ill already and it's explicit: The zionist cause... if he said in 1919 something to appease objectionists... I combined all sources. One can't ignore ".I need not remind you that neither in this country nor in Paris has there been any opposition to the Zionist program..." I think that supporting the Balfour declaration is being zionist, else one would say that Balfour himself was not Zionist... ?I think in terms of the proper usage of the term, he was not only zionist but quite more than that looking at the border issue which wasn't minor but quite extensive. Anyway, I think we have a pretty good section now combined with everything . Cheers, Amoruso 11:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources which show that Wilson was symphatic to the Zionist Movement. You can see it all through the web for instance. As for the balfour declararion, this is an interesting read [8] Amoruso 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Wilson sympathetic to Zionism. probably yes, but he always hedged his statements. Wilson for example never said the US "supported" the Balfour, only that it "acquiesced" and did not oppose it. He strongly opposed Zionists in some matters, such as sending Morgenthau tp deal with Hewish issue in Poland. Rjensen 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

any sources to refute my source ? Amoruso 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Walworth (1986) 473-83, esp. p. 481; Melvin I. Urofsky, American Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust, (1995) ch. 6; Frank W. Brecher, Reluctant Ally: United States Foreign Policy toward the Jews from Wilson to Roosevelt. (1991) ch 1-4. perhaps the article should say: "Wilson's advisors were sharply divided on Zionism, with Brandeis a leading advocate and Morgenthau a leading opponent. As President Wilson was ambivalent toward Zionism. He explained the official American policy was to acquiesce in, and not oppose, the Balfour Declaration. Officially the U.S. did not support Zionism until 1922, after he left office; but Wilson hinted that he personally supported it. In 1919 he appointed Morhenthau to study the question of Jews in Poland, in order to keep the Zionists out of the issue." Rjensen

The quote is from his final days - at this time I think the quote speaks for himself. The difference between the official attitude to the balfour declaration is not that important as is his demand to Britain not to change the borders of the mandate. Amoruso 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tgil 05:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC) The article says: Wilson, a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism was sympathetic to the plight of Jews, especially in Poland. - this needs to reference a supporting fact in order to remain here.

Woodrow Wilson, A Different Perspective

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States , was a man of ideals. It was he who attempted to make “the world safe for democracy,” and it was he who proposed the 14 points and League of Nations in order to contest war and aggression. Wilson had numerous grand solutions for the world’s largest problems. But a man, a president, should be judged based on the consequences of his actions, not on the gallantry of his ideas. If evaluated as such, Mr. Wilson does not emerge as one America’s most heroic presidents, but rather as one of the most ignoble. Woodrow Wilson had grand ideas before he became US president in 1912. Prior to his political career, which he began in 1910 as the governor of New Jersey, Wilson was the president of Princeton. When he began, Wilson decided that the entire education system at Princeton had to be revamped, and he proposed changes that would cost northwards of $10 million, despite the fact that the school’s endowment was only $4 million. He was successful in hiring 50 well-qualified faculty members and implementing the British tutor system, which had young teachers live in the dormitories with students and give them guidance. Wilson’s career at Princeton was eventually cut short though due to a number of disputes he initiated with important faculty members and patrons of the school. Wilson aspired to raise the intellectual bar of Princeton, which at that time was more of a rich man’s playground. In an attempt to break up the social cliques that had endured from years past, Wilson proposed the “quadrangle system,” which would basically have the school divided into colleges based on intellectual pursuit. This was met with much resistance from alumni, who considered those cliques to have been the epitome of the Princeton experience – an idea that was detested by Wilson. His unwillingness to compromise irritated a number of board members as well, and the fighting halted any forward progress. Wilson also got into a heated debate surrounding the establishment of the graduate school, which resulted in his alienation of important benefactor’s such as William Proctor of Procter & Gamble. Wilson’s arrogant stubbornness was cause for a nasty split from Princeton in 1909, the sting of which was allayed by his emergence as a political figure soon after. Wilson’s behavior at Princeton foreshadowed what would be his general attitude and behavior as President of the United States. His arrogance and belief that his actions were taking the moral high ground explain the unsuccessfulness of the programs and ideas that characterize his presidency. Namely, his entrance into World War I and the ensuing Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

The main mistake that Wilson made as President was to enter World War I in the first place. At the end of July 1914, an originally isolated standoff in the Balkans between Austria and Serbia exploded into huge war that involved not only continental Europe, but also European colonies and even Japan. The war has a number of underlying causes, but the immediate reason for conflict had to do with The assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princep in Sarajevo. The archduke’s murder prompted Austria-Hungary to deliver an unreasonable ultimatum to Serbia. At that point, Austria-Hungary had received a “blank check” from Germany and felt confident enough to invade Serbia and advance its colonial agenda in the Balkans. Russia, in support of Pan-Slavism, mobilized its army to defend Serbia, and subsequently, Germany came to AH’s defense. France, allies with Russia in the Triple Entente, joined the war, and as did Britain when Germany invaded neutral Belgium. Eventually, numerous other countries entered the foray, but the US remained on the sidelines. The US remained “neutral” until April 1917, when it declared war on Germany. Even thought they claimed they were neutral, they helped the Allies by giving them loans and weapons, but also by putting pressure on countries when needed. One big mistake the Wilson made in his pseudo-neutrality was due to his lack of knowledge about the ongoing Russian revolution. In 1917, while an interim government ruled in place of Czar Nicolas II, Wilson pressured them to remain in the war, despite the fact that Russians were strongly opposed to it. The added complication of staying in the war made it hard for the government to consolidate its power, the public threw their support behind Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and they were able to grab power for themselves in October. From that spawned the USSR, Stalin, and the Cold War - which consumed American foreign policy for some half a century. But back to America's part in the war. A few factors contributed to the US’s declaration. The reasons used by Wilson to justify entrance to the war, however, are misconstrued and blown out of proportion. One of the first “acts of aggression” by the German’s was the sinking of the British ocean liner the Lusitania on May 7th, 1915, in which 1200 people died, of which about 130 were American citizens. A message sent from the US to the German government on the 13th of may decried the “violation of many sacred principles of justice and humanity” and stated, “American citizens act within their indisputable rights in taking their ships and in traveling wherever their legitimate business calls them upon the high seas.” This supposedly unwarranted attack helped build American sentiment against the Germans, and allowed for the escalation of America’s efforts against the Central Powers. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned the next month in protest of Wilson’s handling of the Lusitania situation, as he believed that he was manipulating the occurrence in order to prepare America for war. He may have been right. Fifteen days later, the German government responded:

The Lusitania was one of the largest and fastest English commerce steamers, constructed with Government funds as auxiliary cruisers, and is expressly included in the navy list published by the British Admiralty... the Lusitania when she left New York undoubtedly had guns on board which were mounted under decks and masked… there can be no doubt that the rapid sinking of the Lusitania was primarily due to the explosion of the cargo of ammunition caused by the torpedo. Otherwise, in all human probability, the passengers would have been saved.

This being the case, the US government’s previous statements are empty ones. First of all, as it carried ammunitions, the Lusitania cannot be considered a neutral ship. Secondly, it was traveling in a war zone. It is never a good idea to travel through a war zone, especially if the ship is one carrying ammunitions. The Germans had taken out ads in American magazines warning civilians not to go into areas of conflict, so, although this loss of life was a tragedy, it certainly was not completely unwarranted on the part of the Germans. Even so, at the requests of the US, Germany desisted from submarine warfare. However, they resumed once again in 1917 – with the hope that they could establish a blockade around Britain – prompting the US into action. This method of attack that was considered so egregious by the Americans was in fact more insidious than the British blockade on Germany, but there were no warnings sent to London. This blockade, which cut off all supplies from Germany, was highly successful, but at the same time, it acutely disrupted the lives of all German civilians. There was no material for clothing and little food; basically, families struggled to find the most elemental provisions necessary for survival. Yet there was no questioning of British practice. Regarding the issue of not forewarning all incoming ships, it made no sense that the rules of sea warfare should apply to submarines, which are ineffective above water, and are subject to ramming from enemy ships (even the commercial ones, many of which were equipped with ramming devices). Besides for the sinking of the Lusitania and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, another incident that helped form US policy was the interception of a telegram sent from German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmerman to the German ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich Von Eckardt. The content of the telegram was forwarded to the American public. Germany was prepared to ally with Mexico in order to attack America. That a German attack on American soil was imminent resulted in anger toward Germany; anger that would buoy support for entrance to a foreign war, a war in which America should not have had a part. Zimmerman had written in telegram, “It is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America. If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace.” The Germans specifically did not purport to bring America into the war. They merely proposed a hypothetical alliance, adding in that Mexico could regain territory lost to the US. If anyone actually considered that idea, they would have realized that it was not tactically plausible, taking into account the stake of the German army and navy in Europe. How (and why) would they suddenly help Mexico recapture Texas? A German attack on America was truly not a threat. This didn’t stop Wilson and the US from declaring war on Germany on April 6th, 1915. But maybe it was Wilson’s prejudicial view of Germany, not one based solely on facts and the interests of the country, which played a role in his declaration of war. At the Paris peace conference following the war, Wilson admitted to Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Britain: “I have always detested Germany… They are so far from our views that they have inspired in me a feeling of aversion (Wilson’s War, p. 149).” On the same note, Wilson was also racist toward blacks. In his book History of the American Peoples he writes, "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 prevent the Southern Country. (Wikipedia – Woodrow Wilson)" His intolerance of non-whites and unwillingness to move forward from the discriminatory practices of old is seen while he was at Princeton, where he refused to admit black students because he deemed their wish to be educated "unwarranted." (Wikipedia – Woodrow Wilson) How can a man be seen as a great progressive when he maintains the same idiotic prejudices espoused by Confederates? Maybe he was truly not as great and kind a person as he is sometimes portrayed to be. Following US entrance to the war came a number of acts passed by Wilson that impeded on Americans' right to assemble and their freedom of speech. In June 1917, two months after the declaration of war on Germany, Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which made action or information transfer against the US armed forces illegal and punished by a large fine and jail time. In 1918, at the behest of Wilson, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which prohibited any defamation of things American, such as the flag, government, and armed forces. That Wilson had the gall to pass such laws shows his close-mindedness and his lack of deference for the Constitution. Entering, and ultimately winning, the war on the side of the Allies was a mistake per the interests of America even at the time, but that decision also had a number of unintended but terrible consequences. By the time 1917 rolled around, Wilson did not have a good track record with regard to intervening in foreign conflicts. He had screwed up badly in Mexico by trying to help solve their leadership woes, and April 2nd, he stood before congress, asking them to allow the US army to help make the world “safe for democracy.” Never mind the fact that Britain and France had huge colonial empires. Or that their generals were infamous for their squandering of precious human lives; Besides for losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers during a number of pointless offensive pushes (in one example, while following the orders of British general Douglas Haig to walk upright across the battlefield, 20,000 soldiers were killed in one day), they also had a policy of killing any soldier who was unwilling to go and die at the hands of the German enemy. The problem, though, with entering the war, is that the Allied victory and the ensuing penalties imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles are inexorably linked to the rise of Hitler and Nazism in Germany. Had the United States never entered the war, it would almost for certain have remained stalemated, at least until one of the sides sued for peace, or they came to a mutual agreement. Despite the Russian pullout and the ability to transfer a number of soldiers from eastern front, Germany was still deeply entrenched in the western front with no end in sight. They were also suffering horribly from the highly effective British blockade. Assuming they miraculously defeated the Allies on the western front it is unlikely that they would have been able to really taste their victory. The British would have remained independent based on the strength of their navy, and the uproar of nationalism in territories taken from Russia (which had originally wanted independence from them) and other countries probably would have overwhelmed the Germans. (Wilson’s War, pg. 6) America had no real reason to enter the war. The 300,000 casualties it cost the country were certainly not worth the eventual consequences. The issue of how to punish the defeated countries was discussed in Paris in 1919. Wilson, ever the idealist, had proposed to Congress in January 1918 fourteen points that would help determine what should be done after the war. The first two points guaranteed that all “international understandings” should be made openly, and that there should be “Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war.” His last point proposed the creation of “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” His ideas sounded good and gave hope for the future. Unfortunately, they were not successfully put into practice. Wilson was too weak to stand up to the pressure put on him by French leader Georges Clemenceau and British PM Lloyd George. They (especially Clemenceau) wanted revenge from Germany. In the end, in stark contrast to the lenient measures of the 14 points that aimed to create stability in the region, sole guilt and full reparations were placed on Germany, who were astounded by the terms of the “peace” and who felt betrayed by Wilson. They were also forced to cut down nearly all of their military. The severe economic depression that this forced Germany into, as well as the ignominious fall from glory, allowed for a man like Hitler – responsible for the death of millions – to rise to power. Maybe things would not have fallen out as they did if Wilson’s 14th point – the League of Nations – would have worked out. Unfortunately, that turned out to be a bust as well. Instead of involving everyone, the League only incorporated those countries that were on the winning side of the war. The losers were left out. So in effect, the League of Nations, which promised mutual security and supported a reduction of arms, just turned out to be a one-sided alliance; sort of like the situation before World War One. The League also lacked a military force that would be capable of backing up its decisions. And one of the biggest problems – Congress didn’t allow the US to enter. This supreme mess-up of Wilson’s was, like with Princeton, due to his stubbornness. In the most recent elections, the Republicans had won control of Congress. Wilson, a Democrat, adamantly refused to bring a Republican with him to Paris, which surely would have aided the making of his case to Congress. So when it came time to ask congress to ratify US entry into the League, Wilson was shot down. Wilson’s great idea failed; there was another war two decades later, and the League of Nations dissipated in 1946.

Woodrow Wilson can by no means by considered a hero. His decisions to pressure Russian into staying in the war and then for the US to enter the war directly led to numerous atrocities and horrors that occurred decades later. His intervention into a foreign war planted the seeds for other, destructive interventions later on. His 14 points were abandoned and his League of Nations bore no fruit. And not only was he an ineffective politician, but a bigoted one with little respect for the basic tenets of American society. Most of Wilson’s intentions may have been noble, but the terrible consequences of his actions certainly cannot be ignored. (Quoted in its entirety from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-06-01)

Attention anonymous, I do not know who you are, but great work!!! :) This idolization of Wilson needs to stop! I for one am of the opinion that he was the worst president America ever had!

Revisionist History

There has been lots of revisionist history regarding Woodrow Wilson. He was an incompetent statist (switching back and forth between Communism and Fascism during his reign of terror) who was the absolute worst president in American history and shouldn't have been elected anyways. The Bull Moose Party split the Republican vote, tossing the popular and great President Taft out of the White House in favor of a statist. Of course, Wikipedia is a bastion of statism, so I doubt this article is salvageable. 69.19.14.44 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Register an account, start adding stuff, and quite wining... --The_stuart 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Expect, however, to be "edited mercilessly", as the edit screen says; Wilson was less statist than Roosevelt and arguably less so than Taft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that Wilson was considerably less statist and authoritarian than Roosevelt (though perhaps not by much), but considerably more statist than Taft. Theodore Roosevelt would have been just as likely (if not more) to enter the Great War, possibly earlier, but Taft I'm not so sure about...

I agree with the original poster! Wilson was a terrible president! He needlessly entered an imperialist European war on the side of a (slightly worse) coalition of imperialist powers under the guise of "making the world safe for democracy". And what did this "victory" bring? Four totalitarian dictators, three of them fascist (Kemal Ataturk, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler) and one communist (Vladimir Lenin). One more World War (not counting the Cold War), and an imperialistic country. Read Illusions of Victory by Thomas J. Fleming, and (if you could find it) Wilson's War by Jim Powell! Of course, Wikipedia is a bastion of statism. It is a totalitarian organization disguised as an anarchistic community. Needless to say, if Taft got elected (or if William Jennings Bryan was president in place of Wilson instead of Secretary of State), America would likely have stayed out of WW1, the course of the twentieth century would have been VERY different, and consequentially the Internet (and thus anything like Wikipedia) would never exist! (No WW2, no Cold War, no US military-industrial comlex, etc. means a delay in the invention prerequisite technologies. Electronic computers for instance, mainly grew out of the need to decode top-secret Nazi messages and the Internet grew out of ARPANET, a Cold War-era project of the US DoD.)

The Germans were unapologetically sinking American vessels. Given the long-standing American commitment to neutral rights, it's hard to see how any likely government of the United States in 1917 could have avoided war with Germany. john k 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did they not announce it? The Kaiser gave sufficient warning! If Americans did not want their ships sunk, then they should not have sent them through blocaded regions of the North Sea and N.E. Atlantic. It is hypocritical to call submarine warfare sneakily barbaric because subs are covert and employ surprise tactics. Every other nation used the same naval tactics in some form or other as Germany did after the Great War. Also, when people argue that American intervention was justified in light of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, they conveniently neglect to mention that early in the Great War, the British maintained a Naval Blocade on Germany (albeit without submarines). The British saw growing German naval power as a threat to their Empire (before WW1 and the secret U-boat construction projects), and so, it was not a one-sided issue. The Great War was instigated by imperialists in BOTH camps, and it is safe to say that the Austro-German side were no more or less imperialistic than the Triple Entente. Anglophile Wilson had no problem honoring the British blocade. In retrospect, people paint the Teutonic nation in a historically revisionist fashion as if the sum of German history from Barbarossa to 1933 is an inevitable progression to Nazism and the Third Reich. Fact of the matter, many of the seemingly barbaric war conduct of the Kaiser's Germany such as Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and especially the Schlieffen Plan were strategic necessities (i.e. to counter British naval supremacy or to compensate for a two-front war). Essentially when a ship, especially a merchant or "civilian" ship was torpedoed, it normally would sink slowly enough to allow for evacuation. Not the Lusitania, why? Because it was loaded with military armaments, ammunition, and explosives. By carrying such volatile cargo aboard a civillian transport, Americans authorizing such transit were not only assisting the Entente war effort (and thus betraying any true neutrality), but using human shields! Who are the real barbarians? The barbarians who use a necessary if unconventional military strategy or the barbarians who use human shields? This whole "boohoo, the Krauts are blocking the seas, we only wanted freedom of shipping!" Is BS for two reasons: (1) in a time of war, and literally "Great War" things are a bit drastic. If one's goal is to secure neutrality of the seas, they are sadly mistaken, because imposing said neutrality is not neutral, since it is a behest on two or more foreign powers to conduct a war in certain ways. A responsible statesmen would probably uphold "neutral rights" in time of peace, but understand that this is usually not feasible durring time of warfare. Wilson was NOT a responsible statesman. (2) Like America was concerned about neutral rights durring the British blocade on Germany (which was equally as "illegal" as German URSW) or in hoisting the allies to a total victory and thus their revanchist "peace" terms, while having prentensions of "neutral rights". William Jennings Bryan on the other hand, proposed remaining neutral, non-interventionist, and avoiding even financially supporting any warring powers. WJB wanted to maintain close diplomatic relations with BOTH sides, to be in good terms with Germany, France, Austria, and Britain to safeguard neutrality. But then he resigned as Secretary of State when it became clear the Great Liar, who "Kept us out of war!" had intentions of entering the war. Woodrow Wilson's intervention had less to do with violation of rights or "barbaric or uncivilized war conduct" (which is fundamentally stupid and rediculous because this implies there is a such thing as civilized war, and thus massive slaughter with no defensive purpose could be inherently civil), than it did to his own largely economically motivated imperialism.

It is probably pointless to argue with someone who thinks that Bryan was Wilson's VP [Did I say VP? Well I meant Secretary of State. Correction appreciated, but so much for your ad hom...], but I will just note that I was not really discussing any moral rights or wrongs of war, just that any likely American government of the time would probably have acted the same way. Certainly the Republicans would have gone to war over the submarine business. john k 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood, taking what you said to represent a contemporaneous moral case for entering the war by whoever was in charge, as if the "right" to commerce was being violated. Even so, I do not agree that any statesman in charge would have entered the war. Understand that at the time, functionally there was no Republican Party, but two splinter parties, Taft Republicans and Bull Moose Party. Not sure about Taft. Of course, T Roosevelt would have entered just as surely (perhaps even more likely) as did Wilson. (In my opinion, as you probably realize, Wilson ranks as the single worst president in US history, but Theodore Roosevelt ranks as a close second, and was potentially worse than Wilson.) The difference is, while T. Roosevelt, like his predecessor McKinley, was a bigtime imperialist, Wilson too was an imperialist though less aggressive than Roosevelt, and Wilson was a naive idealist. Had Roosevelt been president, then for all we know the US might have entered WW1 and ended it a little earlier. Nothing like Wilson's naive utopian 14 Points would have been produced, and the same course of history leading to Mussolini, Ataturk, and Hitler would have proceded, albeit perhaps slightly (though insignificantly earlier). IMO, Roosevelt was more arrogant (and a bigger jerk), but Wilson was a naive idealist. At least Roosevelt was more honest and less hypocritical in his feelings about the War. Of course, you neglect the fact that the argument for intervention WAS largely on moral grounds (even though you and I, with luxury of hindsight, disagree with such sentiment). Even so, in arguing on pragmatic economic incentives, you can not say that a different Republican candidate or a third party, independent, etc. would be just as likely to enter the war. Remember that someone lacking the brutal, militaristic, aggrssive arrogance, and smug egoism of Teddy Roosevelt or the naive idealism of Woodrow Wilson might decide that the most realistic, responsible, and safest course of action would be to avoid all entanglements. Note that while some Republicans (like T.R.) had a very nationalistic, jingoistic, macho-aggressive complex, reminiscent of the current Republican Party, there was also a significant isolationist Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, with anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, noninterventionist pro-small government policy. (Remember the isolationism of the Republican presidencies between Wilson and FDR? And the general nostalgia for American isolationism between the World Wars?) So essentially, we have moralizing right-wing "let's kick some ass!" imperialists like TR and idealizing left-wing imperialists like Wilson, (eerily reminiscent to Darth Vader, "I brought peace to my Empire!" in Ep. 3), but that was not inclusive of all American politics.

Quotes

I'm not sure how to fit this in in the Main article or if it's deemed important enough but here's a quote:

" Since trade ignores national boundries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process." Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1907 John Smith (nom de guerre) 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

did Wilson write that? he was of course not president but an academic in 1907 and professors say lots of things. it says nothing about his time at Princeton Rjensen 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He did. Easy to check. Here's another one:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. - Woodrow Wilson

(probably bogus. see below)
and:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."----President Woodrow Wilson (in The New Freedom, 1913) John Smith (nom de guerre) 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

some of these these are fake quotes: "Most unhappy man is fake. "so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive" = genuine. (his complete works have been published so an editor needs the volume and page number for proof) Rjensen 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. I didn't know. there are so many pages that quote him that way. could you provide the link to the original quote?

The URL below has some more (alleged) information on that quote. Very interesting read. I wish I could prove/disprove it's validity.74.132.197.159 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) http://frankdemarco.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/woodrow-wilsons-defense/

heres another I would have thought was genuine:
"[..]and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world-no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
John Smith (nom de guerre) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The "biggest men" quote appears in his 1912 campaign speeches: Wilson The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. 1913. Page 13. Likewise "we have come to be one of the worst ruled" is ibid page 201. [I found these at Questia,com, which allows free searches.] Rjensen 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. just thought I'd add some minor corrections plus point out yours more clearly in case other people stumble upon the bogus quote(s) in their research. cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the quote and statement that that Wilson hated the federal reserve. According to http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/21/woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve/index.html this article, "most unhappy man" part is fake, and the true quotes were from speeches before the creation of the fed, and do not refer to it. Grendzy (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's Earliest Memory

Hi. I just edited the bit earlier today adding the reference to Wilson's being 4 when he heard of Lincoln's election and the 'inevitable' war. It was since edited back (leaving the reference behind). I'm not going to get into an edit war or any such nonsense, but the reference clearly states the age 4, not 3. You can, in fact, read it online here: http://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0691001502 The first few pages anyway. Which is enough for the reference. A point to consider when trying to state that since Lincoln was elected in November but Wilson's birthday was a month later is that his memory could easily have come from a time after his birthday. There is no need for his memory to take place the day of the election. Or even a week afterwards. Things moved slower back then. But, like I said, I'm not going to go into an edit war. I just thought I'd add a citation and correction where I saw it was needed. The reference clearly states the age of 4. Not 3. 67.183.45.98 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the facts of the matterL: Lincoln was elected on the first Tuesday of November in 1860. Wilson's fourth birthday was on December 28, 1860. This means that when Lincoln was elected--and for almost two months thereafter--Wilson was 3, not 4. Is it possible that the source is simply mistaken? If so, what's the remedy?K. Scott Bailey 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken? Could be. But, if so, then not much use as a source. Solution? Dunno. I suppose trying to find more references. There must be an original source for the statement of his earliest memory. That'd be the definitive source, I guess. I just thought I'd help out a bit, that's all. Not sure if you really want to keep the reference in the article if the fact it's backing up doesn't match what it says. Your call. I'm not involved. 67.183.45.98 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The source backs up the claim that his first memory was of hearing that Lincoln had been elected, etc. It could be mistaken about the one thing (his actual age at the time) but correct about the other, could it not? I think I'll leave the reference in for now, unless someone strongly objects.K. Scott Bailey 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

'Brief' look on Policies

Crusade for Reform: Tariffs, Banking and Anti-Trust Regulations

Wilson focused first on tariff reform, pushing through Congress the Underwood-Simmons Act, which achieved the most significant reductions in rates since the Civil War. He argued that high tariffs created monopolies and hurt consumers, and his lower tariffs were especially popular in the South and West. The act offset lost revenue by providing for a small, graduated income tax as authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted on February 25, 1913, before Wilson took office.

Next, Wilson tackled the currency problem and banking reform. Since the Civil War, Democrats and agrarians had wanted a more flexible money supply and system of banking that would allow adjustments in the amount of money and credit available in times of economic expansion or crisis. In response to the demand for reform, Wilson pushed for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established twelve regional reserve banks controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, a new federal agency whose members were appointed by the President. This new federal system could adjust interest rates and the nation's money supply. Because it was authorized to issue currency based on government securities and "commercial paper" (the loans made to businesses by banks), the amount of money in circulation would expand or contract with the business cycle. Additionally, the Federal Reserve was empowered to adjust the interest rates, or the discount rate, charged to its member banks for money deposited in the branch reserve banks, which would indirectly control the interest rates that banks charged their borrowers. The new system could also set the amount of money banks would have to hold as an offset against deposits (the reserve requirement), thus establishing a reserve fund for times of economic crisis. This act, probably the most important domestic achievement of the Wilson administration, still provides the framework for regulating the nation's banks, credit, and money supply.

Wilson's support of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which Congress passed in 1914, endeared him to labor and farmers because it excluded their organizations from antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It also fulfilled a 1912 campaign promise by prohibiting some anti-competitive business practices, such as price-fixing and interlocking directorates (in which the same people sit on the executive boards of competing companies in one industry). This act complemented the Federal Trade Commission law passed the same year, which created a new government board appointed by the President and empowered to investigate and publicize corrupt, unfair, or anti-competitive business practices. When Congress created a separate cabinet-level Department of Labor on March 4, 1913, Wilson strengthened his support among progressives by appointing a former union official, William Wilson, as secretary of labor.

In 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis, a staunch progressive who had fought in court against the exploitation of women and children workers, to the Supreme Court. His confirmation, in a close vote, put the first Jewish justice on the Court. Following Brandeis's nomination, Wilson supported improved credit for farmers and workers' compensation for federal employees. He then pushed through a law to eliminate child labor, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1918. When American railroad unions threatened to strike in 1916, Wilson supported and signed into law a bill securing an eight-hour workday for railroad employees -- the Adamson Act, which paved the way to shortened workdays for all industrial workers.

Federal Wartime Authority

On the whole, the administration was able to manage mobilization by creating special agencies that were staffed largely by volunteers and functioned only for the duration of the war. For example, Wilson established a War Industries Board in 1917 under the direction of Bernard Baruch, a wealthy New York stock market investor, to coordinate industrial production. Baruch had little legal authority but was so skillful at persuasion that industrial production increased by 20 percent. Wilson also appointed Herbert Hoover, a prominent mining engineer famous for his success in coordinating a massive relief program for German-occupied Belgium in the early years of the war, as national Food Administrator. To pay for the war, Wilson levied a new income tax, which accounted for about half of the $33 billion spent on the war. The rest of the cost was met through Liberty Loan drives, which rallied the population to invest in America by buying Liberty Bonds. In a personal touch, Wilson donated the wool from the sheep that grazed on the White House lawn to a Red Cross fundraising auction -- the sheep had replaced gardeners drafted into the military.

Civil Liberties during the War Years

To mobilize public opinion in support of the war, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information headed by George Creel, a muckraking journalist. Creel launched a campaign to sell the war to the American people by sponsoring 150,000 lecturers, writers, artists, actors, and scholars to champion the cause. His "Four-Minute-Men," meaning that they were prepared to make a four-minute speech anytime and anywhere a crowd gathered, made 755,190 speeches in theaters, lecture halls, churches, and social clubs and on street corners all over the nation. In the resulting patriotic fervor, opponents to the war were painted as slackers and even traitors. "Americanization" drives pressured immigrants to abandon their native cultures. Some states prohibited the use of foreign languages in public. New York State required voters to demonstrate literacy in English. Libraries publicly burned German books. Some communities banned playing the music of Bach and Beethoven, and schools dropped German courses from their curriculum. Sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage," and German measles was renamed "liberty measles." Some Americans with German names were beaten in the streets and even lynched. To avoid such violence, others anglicized their names.

Wilson sponsored the Espionage and Sedition Acts, prohibiting interference with the draft and outlawing criticism of the government, the armed forces, or the war effort. Violators were imprisoned or fined. Some 1,500 people were arrested for violating these laws, including Eugene V. Debs, leader of the Socialist Party. The Post Office was empowered to censor the mail, and over 400 periodicals were deprived of mailing privileges for greater or lesser periods of time. The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts as constitutional. Leaders and members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), known as "Wobblies," were especially singled out for attack. In one incident, Justice Department agents raided IWW offices nationwide, arresting union leaders who were sentenced to jail terms of up to twenty-five years. The IWW never recovered from this persecution. In 1916, the Democratic-controlled Congress promised the residents of the Philippine Islands independence; the next year, Puerto Rico achieved territorial status, and its residents became U.S. citizens. Working closely with Secretary of State Bryan, Wilson signed twenty-two bilateral treaties which agreed to cooling-off periods and outside fact-finding commissions as alternatives to war.

In a statement issued soon after taking office, Wilson declared that the United States hoped "to cultivate the friendship and deserve the confidence" of the Latin American states, but he also emphasized that he believed "just government" must rest "upon the consent of the governed." Latin Americans were delighted by the prospect of being free to conduct their own affairs without American interference, but Wilson's insistence that their governments must be democratic undermined the promise of self-determination. In 1915, Wilson responded to chronic revolution in Haiti by sending in American marines to restore order, and he did the same in the Dominican Republic in 1916. The military occupations that followed failed to create the democratic states that were their main objective. In 1916, Wilson practiced an old-fashioned form of imperialism by buying the Virgin Islands from their colonial master, Denmark, for $25 million.

Aggressive Moral Diplomacy

Wilson refused to recognize "a government of butchers" that obviously did not reflect the wishes of the Mexican people. His stance encouraged anti-Huerta forces in northern Mexico led by Venustiano Carranza.

In April of 1914, Mexican officials in Tampico arrested a few American sailors who blundered into a prohibited area, and Wilson used the incident to justify ordering the U.S. Navy to occupy the port city of Veracruz. The move greatly weakened Huerta's control, and he abandoned power to Carranza, whom Wilson immediately recognized as the de facto president of Mexico. One of Carranza's rivals, Pancho Villa, moved to provoke a war between the Carranza government and the United States by crossing the border into New Mexico on March 9, 1916, and killing several Americans. Wilson, without securing permission from Carranza, sent an expedition of 7,000 U.S. soldiers commanded by General John "Black Jack" Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of Villa. The expedition failed to capture Villa but provoked a confrontation between the Americans and Carranza's forces in which men on both sides were killed and several Americans were captured. Alarmed by the danger of war, Wilson reaffirmed his commitment to Mexican self-determination and agreed to discuss methods of securing the border area with the Mexican government.

Early in 1917, when it began to appear that the United States could not avoid being dragged into the European war, Wilson withdrew all U.S. forces from Mexico. The decision coincided with the publication of an intercepted message from Arthur Zimmermann in the German foreign office to the German minister in Mexico, instructing him to propose an alliance with Mexico against the United States if Germany and the United States went to war.

Neutrality in World War I

With the outbreak of fighting in the "Great War" in Europe in August 1914, President Wilson appealed to Americans to remain strictly neutral. He believed that the underlying cause of the war, which would leave 14 million Europeans dead by 1917, was the militant nationalism of the major European powers, as well as the ethnic hatreds that existed in much of Central and Eastern Europe. With nearly one in every seven Americans having been born in the countries at war, Wilson believed the United States must remain neutral. Because the American economy was in a recession when the war began, however, and the British and French were eager to buy American products, the administration interpreted neutral duties in ways that tended to favor the Allies. When Germany retaliated by using submarines to blockade the British Isles, Wilson refused to ban U.S. travel on British or American passenger ships or to cut off arms sales to the warring nations, as the Germans demanded.

End of Neutrality

Wilson's war message condemned German U-boat attacks as "warfare against mankind" but emphasized that the main goal of the war should be to end militarism and make the world "safe for Democracy," not merely to defend American ships. He promised that the United States would fight to ensure democracy, self-government, the rights and liberties of small nations, and an international peace organization that would end war forever.

Wilson and the Fourteen Points

Victorious in war, Wilson hoped to revolutionize the conduct of international affairs at the peace table. He first outlined his vision in the "Fourteen Points" speech delivered to Congress in January of 1914. It called for a "new diplomacy" consisting of "open covenants openly arrived at." No more secret treaties, like the ones that had pulled the world into war in 1914 would be tolerated, and all territories occupied during the war must be evacuated. Wilson wanted to dismantle the imperial order by opening up colonial holdings to eventual self-rule and all European sections of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires to immediate independence. He also proposed a general disarmament after the war, with the Germans and Austrians giving up their armed forces first. Fair treatment of revolutionary Russia, he declared, would be the "acid test" of the peace. Other points included freedom of the seas at all times and free trade all over the world. But Wilson's most important proposal was the prevention of future wars by means of a new international organization, a league of nations, open to membership by all democratic states. This new world body would be in charge of disarmament and the dismantling of colonial possessions. Most importantly, the League would hold power over all disputes among its members. Wilson believed that this League would transform international relations and usher in a new era of world peace. . The opposition at home equaled the opposition abroad. Senate Republicans, who controlled the Senate, were split into two groups: the "reservationists" and the "irreconcilables." The first group was led by Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lodge believed the obligations of the League would compromise American independence and proposed amendments to meet that threat. The second group was smaller and was opposed to any involvement of the United States in world affairs. Most Senate Democrats supported Wilson and the treaty.

Embittered over Republican opposition, Wilson launched into an arduous speaking tour to rally the nation to his cause -- 9,981 miles with speeches in twenty-nine cities. The effort depleted his already exhausted body, and he collapsed in Pueblo, Colorado, on September 25. Soon after, he suffered a serious stroke that left him half-paralyzed and totally secluded for the remainder of his presidency. In one of the most controversial episodes in presidential history, Wilson -- completely out of touch with the situation in the Senate -- refused to consider any compromises to the League, issuing his orders via his wife, who was one of the few people, other than his doctors, who spoke with him during the League battle. When the Senate Republicans amended the treaty -- to ensure that the President could not use U.S. forces on League business without securing congressional assent -- Wilson told his supporters to vote against the amended treaty, and they joined with the Republican "irreconcilables" to reject the League. America never joined the international organization that Wilson had envisioned as the foundation of his new world order. This failure of the League was a devastating conclusion to Wilson's almost superhuman efforts for world peace based upon international cooperation and the peaceful solution of international disputes.

AL TarK

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allstaral67 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Category:Racism

April-June 2007

Since it is pretty clear that Wilson did not like black people, can we add Category:Racism to this article?--Sefringle 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's best to leave that category to articles that are more directly related to racism. By any standards, Wilson was a racist, but that wasn't the defining trait of his life. Deltabeignet 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A category doesn't mean it is a defining trait in their life. It simply means there is a connection between racism and this person. Many white supremists are in the racism category, and for many of them, racism wasn't a defining trait in their life.--Sefringle^Talk 22:00, 14 "June 2007 (UTC)\

August 20, 2007

Southern Texas, please explain your justification for removing the category.--Sefringle^Talk 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling somebody a racist is POV especially when there is no concrete evidence to back the claim. --Southern Texas 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Except there is. See the sections in the article entitled "Wilson and race." This section makes it clear that he was racist against blacks, or at least that there is a connection to racism and Woodrow Wilson, which is all a category does.--Sefringle^Talk 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He was supported by WEB Dubois and was criticized by southernors for not being tough enough on race. Every southern politican is connected to racism and race relations, thats not a good argument for including this for just Woodrow Wilson.--Southern Texas 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it states at WP:Overcategorization

Opinion about a question or issue Example: Cat lovers, Iraq liberation opposition Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic

You cannot cateogrize people by their alleged "racism". As for your other point, race was not as big an issue during Wilson's presidency than it was during Abraham Lincoln's. The category isn't on the Lincoln page nor should it.--Southern Texas 03:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to note below... Southern does make an excellent point here... Balloonman 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Southern Texas asked me to take a quick look at this discussion and the first thing I want to do is remind both of you of WP:3RR we're on the brink of violating that policy. As for the category, Southern, the category is not racist, it is racism. I'm not sure if I like the category name, but I can see it being applied to people who were racist and people who were not. If the category was "racist" then yes, it be would POV. As is, there is enough dealing with race relations and racism on the page, that I can see keeping the category. Again, I'd rather see the category renamed to something less charged than racism. But racial tensions were clearly an issue at the time and during his administration. Whether he was a racist or not, the category does make some sense due to those issues.Balloonman 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Wilson's life, not necessarily just his presidency, and throughout his life, he has shown racist views toward blacks, and has taken an active role toward opposing integration. It is pretty obvious his sympathies were with the Klan, the confederates, and those opposed to integration, and was deeply prejudiced against blacks. Many articles about people who are accused of racism are in the racism category, even if they themselves may not be a racist in the minds of some, if there is enough evidence presented within the article showing racism was a characteristic of his life, the racism category belongs. In this case, there is, since there is an entire fairly large section of this article devoted to that issue.--Sefringle^Talk 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:CAT states the following:

"Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
• Does the category fit into the overall category system? Categories that don't fit are often deleted. To familiarize yourself with the types of categories that routinely get deleted read Wikipedia:Overcategorization."

Question 1 doesn't really fit, as the category already exists. As for question 2, the category subject is prominently discussed within the article, the category is appropiate, and it is obvious why the article is within the category. For question 3, yes, the category odes fit into the overall category system.--Sefringle^Talk 04:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that this is a defining part of his life? Above you said it is not. Also I direct you to reread what I wrote above, "the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic" You cannot classify somebody for their opinons when they aren't an activist. You keep bringing up this point but it is against the regulations in WP:Overcategorization The category exists for people like David Duke who identify themselves as racists or for people in which race was a defining part of their life. It is not for Woodrow Wilson, this was a small part of his life and is not a prominent part of his article.--Southern Texas 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wilson's views on race are well known (or should be), and this is documented by historians, and to my knowleged, these facts are not even disputed. SouthernTexas may be ignorant of these facts but not knowing about it does not invalidate its veracity.Giovanni33 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing facts I am speaking about policy and you should comply with policy. Was racism the defining aspect of his life? Absolutly not. Re-adding the category shows your "ignorance" of wikipedia policy.--Southern Texas 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that is not what you said above. You stated there is no concrete evidence, that its only an allegation, etc. No, these are established facts, and yes, you did dipute them, as the basis of your argument. I'm guessing you've now educated yourself a bit more about the topic (such as by reasing this article for starters?), you now claim that it must be "THE" defining aspect of his life? Nonsense. Because the category subject is prominently discussed within the article, this meets the standard; category is appropiate. As others have told you this is about the man, Wilson, not just his presidency. He has many defining characteristics and one big one his his racialist views, hence the category is apropos.Giovanni33 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So you believe that a small section at the end of the article is prominent? Also what other people say is allegations regardless of evidence. This is not an issue per the guidelines. Please follow the policies of wikipedia and remove the category. I ask you to please "rease" the article and look up the word prominent in the dictionary--Southern Texas 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has a whole section to the subject itself in the main article about the man should give you a pretty good clue as to the fact that it figures in his life in a prominent enough of a way. Also, these are large sections. And, not just one, but its broken into two. So its really the largerst section of this article. To be consistent with your argument you would have to argue that these sections don't deserve to be in the article as its not a prominent enough characteristic of this mans life? Clearly you can't, and you can't have it both ways.Giovanni33 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with the section, I have a problem with the category. It is ridiculous that you are trying to label Woodrow Wilson as a racist alongside David Duke, and Nazis. Arguing that such a small section is a prominent part of an article is ridiculous. Please find a source that states that racism was the defining part of his life and I will reconsider otherwise per the policies this category should not be here.--Southern Texas 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't say you had a problem with the section, which I point out is a contradiction. The two large sections on his white supremancy and racisism is proof positive that the category is apropos. YOu claim its rediculous, yet you fail to provide any basis for that claim. Btw, you are engaging in a straw man fallacy since I never mentioned David Duke or the Nazi's. Those are different birds. Yet, they are all united by the fact that they are racists.Giovanni33 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making was that for David Duke and Nazis racism was a defining part of their lives. Was it for Woodrow Wilson? Unless you can provide a source that states that it was the answer is no. Per the guidelines the category must be removed unless you can do what I asked.--Southern Texas 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard you raise would be if I wanted to add a statement to the body of the article stating as a fact that racisim was a defining part of his life." For this category on race to be placed here, the standard is simply to show that this issue is promienntly disucssed within the body of the article, as it clearly is. Case closed. It follows, logically, that if racism was NOT a defining characterisic of his life (as you seem to believe, strangly enough), then we would not have the issue being talked about as the largerst category within the body of the article on the man. Again, this is the main contradiction of your stance, which you failed to address. It is not up to you to decide which characteristic is a defining part of which racists life. Wilson's views on race are noteworthy, and this is already obvious enough that it doesn't need me to do any digging for you. I also note that its not a case of him simply having opinions. He put his racist view into practice in his adminstration, as this article documents.Giovanni33 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you believing he is a racist but you cannot dispute the fact (unless you can provide a source) that this was not a defining part of his life,WP:Overcategorization:
"This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic"
So are you going to find a source or are you going to talk in circles? It is not prominent and its not even in the lead its more of a triva about Wilson. His opinons where representative of southernors during this time so don't condemn him without condemning others, its the biggest section because it draws the most interest not because it is the most important. Find the source or you'll be going against policy.--Southern Texas 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

August 21, 2007

It doesn't have to be the most important. It has to be important enough so as to become a feature of his life that is notable. That case has been made and is clear. I already told you you have the wrong standard to ask me for a source that makes that claim. And, the policy you cite is is clearly for individuals who happen to have certain opinions but did nothing with those opinions, and whose opinions had no major impact on defining their life. This is clearly not the case with Wilson as he put his racist beliefs into practice within his administration, as this article discusses. As far as any other prominent racists, the solution is to tag them too, not remove this tag.Giovanni33 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with you because I show you policy and you dispute it. The policy says "defining" not major. How did he put his "racist" beliefs into his presidency yet was endorsed by WEB Dubois. You don't make sense. The reason you won't find a source...because one doesn't exist. Follow the guidelines, was it a defining part of his life? No. Was it a major part of his life? No. Is it prominent in the article? No, it has one section devoted to it that only states his opinions and a policy we made at Princeton. These are prominent parts of the article?--Southern Texas 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather simple notion of the word "defining." A person is defined by many things. This article--about the man--thus talks about the many important things that define him. Note that these sections about his racist views and racist policies are not in the trivia section. Maybe you think its trivia, but its not in that section for a reason. Its part of the body of the article on the man, and thus, that is clear proof that this is PART of the defining aspects of who he was. So major IS defining. All major part of his life become defining apspects of his life. Policy does not say "THE" definining, as if it has to be the one single most imporartant thing. It simply says 'a" defining characteristic. The evidence is quite clear on that. I really suggest you do more reading first and educate yourself on this issue. Clearl, your claims betray a deep ignorance.

Some facts to consider. During World War I, Wilson, acting as president segregated all federal civil service jobs. He gave his official blessing to the pro-KKK movie "Birth of a Nation." He then appointed racist psychologist Robert Yerkes to the position of Chief of Army Testing. You may recall the eugenics crap. Yes, he and his fellow eugenics colleagues did their test to "prove" (but of course), that black and immigrant people were inferior. They used this along with his protégé was Carl Brigham, to report that the "Negro," "Alpine," and "Mediterranean" people were inferior to "Nordics." His report helped persuade Congress to pass the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. This law cut off almost all immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Many who were locked out of the US by this law later died in Hitler's gas chambers (based on the same kind of eugenetics theories of race inferiority btw).

The main impact of this Eugenics was to spread racist ideas, and to attack immigrants were among the strongest and most radical leaders among workers in the US, (played a big part in organizing the Communist Party, for example). Thousands were deported as "dangerous aliens." The US rulers used eugenics, along with the Ku Klux Klan and other fascist organizations, to weaken the unity of the working class and to build support for the racist and anti-communist terrorism perpetrated by the government itself, hence the creation of Red Squads and other vigelante groups under Wilson. His views on race, played, a defining characteristic of who the man was. I am not here to give you a history lesson. This is such a widely known issue that you can do your own homework.Giovanni33 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

August 22, 2007

Provide me with a source that states that racism was a defining part of his life and I'll go away. What is your definition of Woodrow Wilson? My definition is the 28th President of the United States, a Democrat who previously served as the head of Princeton and the Governor of New Jersey. A man who served as president promoting a progressive platform and became involved in the first world war. A man who gave the 14 point speech, who developed the idea for a league of nations and had a stroke in office and died right after. Racism? No just a small part of his life that has just been brought to life recently. Racism should not ever be mentioned as a defining characteristic of Woodrow Wilson because he may have had racist ideas but how did these affect anybody else? Few were affected by his "racist" ideas but many were affected by WWI and progressive reforms such as suffrage for women and the child labor acts. Did his "racism" change the course of American history? I really don't see how it can be argued but if you can provide a source that states this, my mind will change. There are enough categories here, don't Overcategorize.--Southern Texas 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with southern texas here. He may have held rascist views but he is not remembered as being notabaly rascist. After all, I have views on Iraq but I am not known as being an anti war activist--- Pheonix15 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. He is remembered in this way by virtually every historian who has written on the man. He, of course, is defined by many other notable things, but his wide impacting policies based on his classic racist beliefs are well documented.Giovanni33 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Southern, your ignorance is appalling, but not only that, but because, apparently, you are not even bothering to read my posts. If you did you could not ask such ignorant questions such as "Racism should not ever be mentioned...of Woodrow Wilson because he may have had racist ideas but how did these affect anybody else? Few were affected by his "racist" ideas..." MAY have had racist ideas? You mean you are still denying that? I see above you deny it many times, but I attribute that to ignorance, and assumed good faith. But now you ask questions after I had already given some major examples of how his well known racist ideas impacted millions through the implimentation of racist policies, and the racists he appointed to carry out their racist eugentics research. Yet you have the temerity to ask "how did these affect anyone else?"If your question is simply indicative of ignorance, and failing to read my posts, then I feel sorry for you. YOu ask me to cite a source. I ask you to cite a source that DOES NOT mention the very notable stance he had on race relations! I dare you to find one. Even hight school level history text books mention it. EVERY historian discussing Wilson has mentioned it precisiley because it IS a defining aspect of who he was, along with the other facts you mention. I guess I will assume good faith still (that you didn't bother to closely read my posts, and I'll blame your poor education--or maybe you are still in school?).

I remember in high school we learned how Wilson led the country into World War 1 and after the war led a national struggle to create the League of nation. We learned that Wilson would be associated with the suffrage movement. However, in additon to this nice stuff, we have two big antidemocratic policies that ALSO DEFINE HIM: his racial segregation of the federal government and his military intervention in foreign countries. The United States intervened in Latin America more that anytime in our history. We landed more troops in Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, and the Dominican in 1916. Wilson would maintin forces in Nicaragua, using them to determine its president and to press passage of a treaty preferential to the United States. True, these points tend to be underplayed in most US high school texbooks (they deserve much weight), altought this is not the case with other countries text books. For instance, Russian textbooks give great detail to Wilson (in 1917) giving monetary aid to “White” side of the Russian civil war. After a short hold on front lines as far west as Volga, the White Russian forces broken by the end of 1919, our troops would leave Vladivostok on April 1, 1920. Some historian accept the idea that Wilson’s interventions in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua, would set the historical stage for dictators of Batista, Trujillo, the Duvaliers, and the Somozas. You may not have learned this about Wilson in high school, as many fail to mention Wilson takeover of Haiti, for example. U.S. Marines invaded Haiti in 1915 and forced their legislature to select our preferred president. However, Wikipedia does not take a Pro-US stance. If you have a bias that reflects that, it doesn't mean the article should reflect your bias and blind spots. Rather the article should reflect the academic consensus. Again, name just ONE historian who does not prominantly mention the notable policies of Wilson in regards to race in a negative fashion. I dare you.

And to review, again, agencies that were desegregated after the Civil war were resegregated as one of Wilson's first actions -- all the way down to separate rest rooms and lunch rooms. Black managers were demoted or fired, even those with many years of service and no white could report to a black manager. You should read Wilson's letters to Colonel Edward Mandel House about Mexico. They made Stormfront look tame. Even in the context of his time, Wilson's stance on race and his policies were notable and stand out as a defining characteristic of the man and his administration. You want to white wash history with historical revisionism, it appears.

You ask who was affected by it? Are you serious. Here is a hint. The people affected were not white. It was a major step backwards for black Americans. Wilson even went so far as to praise D.W. Griffiths film "Birth of a Nation" that re-wrote the ugly history of the Klu Klux Klan portraying them as southern patriots instead of what they really were, terrorists. How did this affect things? Well, after Wilson praised the film, it became the first major box-office "blockbuster" and because of it the Klan reemerged as a potent political force throughout the south and in a number of Northern and Midwestern states where large scale black migration from the south to work in northern factories caused racial tensions. ARe you going to ask if the KKK affected anyone, too?

Let me quote just a few souces. Again, find me a reputable work on Wilson that FAILS to mention this. You wont find it. That should clearly tell you that this is not trivia, but is a defining characteristic. For example:

“With a Democratic majority in Congress, Wilson pushed through many reforms, including the graduated income tax, a lower tariff, laws restricting child labor and the Federal Reserve Act. However, he proved to be less decisive on other reform issues. He had little confidence in the ability of women to vote and participate in politics, but for political reasons he was slow to oppose the determined suffragettes. Similarly, he fought for the child labor law with obvious reluctance and supported the Adamson Act only to head off a threatened strike by railroad workers. Wilson’s most obvious failure at reform was his policy toward blacks. Segregation had never been the custom in federal government offices in Washington, D.C. However, faced with strong pressure from his fellow Southerners, Wilson allowed segregation in the capital. Challenged with his vague promises before election that he would treat blacks with fairness, he could only say that the new policy of segregation was in the best interests of blacks and he would angrily end the interview when he was disputed.”[9]

In fact this is often known as the most shameful aspect of Wilson's presidency and books written this subject alone. See Leon Litwack's excellent 'Trouble in Mind : Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow." And, Desmond King in 'Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the Us Federal Government'. Also, 'Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration: Protesting Federal Segregation in the Early Twentieth Century', by Nicholas Patler demonstrates that many Americans objected to Wilson's expansion of segregation, though ultimately to no avail.

It was an ugly period in our history and Wilson rightly deserves much of the blame. Much of the torment later in the 50s and 60s, and even to this day regarding race relations can be traced to the actions of the Wilson administration.

So yes, this is notable and a defining characteristic of Wilson, even if you were deprived of learning about it, just as his unconstitutional Federal police powers Wilson spawned during WWI with mass arrests of and detention of so-called disruptive elements -- mostly people who opposed going to war in Europe. It made the Patriot Act of today look like a civil liberties picnic. Both of these negative facts are notable.

Now, since I know I will have to repeat myself, I'll do it in advance, quoting from an article: Wilson's racist views was historically significant because it made the South have"home rule;" that is, license to pursue its racialist practices without concern about interference from the federal government. That is exactly what the 1948 Dixiecrats wanted. But "home rule" was only the beginning. Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington.

Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments. One justification involved health: White government workers had to be protected from contagious diseases, especially venereal diseases, that racists imagined were being spread by blacks. In extreme cases, federal officials built separate structures to house black workers. Most black diplomats were replaced by whites; numerous black federal officials in the South were removed from their posts; the local Washington police force and fire department stopped hiring blacks.

Wilson's own view, as he expressed it to intimates, was that federal segregation was an act of kindness. In historian Friedman's paraphrase, "Off by themselves with only a white supervisor, blacks would not be forced out of their jobs by energetic white employees."

According to Friedman, President Wilson said as much to those appalled blacks who protested his actions. He told one protesting black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." When the startled journalist William Monroe Trotter objected, Wilson essentially threw him out of the White House. "Your manner offends me," Wilson told him. Blacks all over the country complained about Wilson, but the president was unmoved. "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me," he told The New York Times in 1914, "they ought to correct it."[10]

I have a 1990 edition of 'Don't Know Much About History' by Kenneth C. Davis. And, he points out besides the terrible involvement in Latin America (Nicarauga, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc.), he talks about Wilson's racism:

"The shame of Wilson's "progressive" administration was his abysmal record on civil rights. Under Wilson, Jim Crow became the policy of the U.S. government, with segregated offices, and blacks losing some of the few government jobs they held."

And, here I pull out of my old history hight school textbook the following:

"The astonishing drop in voter registration in Louisiana [at the end of the 19th Century] is a sign of the conscious and systematic reimposition of race-conscious law in the whole country but especially in the South. As an example of their national extent, it is interesting to note that the public schools in the District of Columbia were integrated from the end of the Civil War up to the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson. Under President Wilson, the District of Columbia, which was and is largely run by Congress, was as segregated as Georgia."

This remark understates the re-segregation undertaken by the Wilson Administration. In 1913 a number of federal agencies were officially segregated, including the Post Office Department and the Bureau of the Census. Workers who complained were fired. President Wilson himself wrote the editor of a religious journal, the Congregationalist, in September of 1913, defending his actions: “I would say that I do approve of the segregation that is being attempted in several of the departments.” (Wilson to Rev. H.A. Bridgman, Sept. 8, 1913, cited in Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, by Arthur S. Link.)

During these years, white labor found, or thought it found, a protection against black competition in laws that restricted blacks or segregated them in the workplace, requiring employers to construct separate entrances or separate toilet facilities, for example. Public schools and transportation were segregated, and black participation in the basic civic duties, not only voting, but also jury duty and public employment, were also sharply reduced, all by the power of state laws. The system of laws that produced this effect were termed the “Jim Crow” laws.

The more than fifty years from the triumph of Jim Crow to the successful modern Civil Rights movement offer a rich field for historical inquiry, but the details are too manifold for coverage in this book. We mentioned above the fact that Democrat Woodrow Wilson oversaw, and approved, the de jure segregation of much of the federal government. Another Democrat, Harry S. Truman, made a dramatic move in the opposite direction, opening all the Armed Services of the United States to men of all races in 1948-9. Truman himself was moved by the sacrifice of black soldiers in the Second World War, and indignant at the treatment some of those men had received upon returning to their native land. Something of the same sentiment had moved the leaders of the Republican Party in the post bellum period. One wonders why there was not a similar sentiment after the First World War. The subject is discussed in, among other places, John Hope Franklin’s From Slavery to Freedom, chapters 24-5. Is the fact of military service, with the attendant risk of life for country, grounds or proof of aptness for citizenship?"

And here is from the PBS portrait of Wilson:

"Woodrow Wilson's record on race relations was not very good. African Americans welcomed his election in 1912, but they were worried too. During his first term in office, the House passed a law making racial intermarriage a felony in the District of Columbia. His new Postmaster General also ordered that his Washington offices be segregated, with the Treasury and Navy soon doing the same. Suddenly, photographs were required of all applicants for federal jobs.“[11]

I think that will be enough for now. Again, show me just one reputable work on Wilson which does NOT mention his notable racist views and policies, and then you can make your case that this is not a defining characteristic. The fact that its always mentioned is proof that it exactly is.Giovanni33 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and not to engage in personal attacks. I have asked you to provide me with a source that states that Woodrow Wilson's and I will show you how you failed me and I will provide you with a source that supports the argument I am making.

• http://www.virtualology.com/uspresidents/woodrowwilson.net/

he could only say that the new policy of segregation was in the best interests of blacks and he would angrily end the interview when he was disputed.

This is all that is stated about race at the website you linked and it shows that Woodrow Wilson believed what he was going was the best interests of blacks. Maybe you believe this is racism but you cannot dispute the fact that this was just one small paragraph in a huge article.

• http://www.reason.com/news/show/33906.html

Wilson's historical reputation is that of a far-sighted progressive. That role has been assigned to him by historians based on his battle for the League of Nations, and the opposition he faced from isolationist Republicans. Indeed, the adjective "Wilsonian," still in use, implies a positive if idealistic vision for the extension of justice and democratic values throughout the world.

This article is just about Woodrow Wilson's racism but doesn't state that this was a defining part of his life but instead concedes that the above is the perception of Wilson, who Wilson is and what defines him.

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_african.html

This website just states everything that we already heard but doesn't stress this as a defining part of his life. It states that the views he held were representative of Southernors during this time. Perhaps Wilson was a racist but you cannot write an article about him and include this as something that defines him. This website you directed me to was extremely helpful and allowed me to see this for myself.

• [12] This is the defining account of Wilson from the website you gave me and no where in it is race even mentioned. I have done as you asked now can we remove that category per policy and per the facts?--Southern Texas 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

More falsehoods from you, and more evidence that you either ignore the facts or don't bother to read my posts. The most glaring example is your first statement. You say:

• http://www.virtualology.com/uspresidents/woodrowwilson.net/

he could only say that the new policy of segregation was in the best interests of blacks and he would angrily end the interview when he was disputed.

You write:

"This is all that is stated about race at the website you linked and it shows that Woodrow Wilson believed what he was going was the best interests of blacks. Maybe you believe this is racism but you cannot dispute the fact that this was just one small paragraph in a huge article."

WRONG. In fact, not only does it say a lot more, I actually quote it above, which you obviously ignore to make your false claim above. I'll quote it again to prove what you said is flatly false:

"Wilson’s most obvious failure at reform was his policy toward blacks. Segregation had never been the custom in federal government offices in Washington, D.C. However....Wilson allowed segregation in the capital."And, as I show in my other sources he did a lot more than that with far reaching ramifications that, as far as race is concerned, Wilson stands out as having made a significant negative impact, and that is one of the facts that define him. You only want to pick the positive aspects and ignore the negatives. Well it so happens that this particular negative fact stands out in a way you can't deny, nor have you yet provided work on Wilson that feels this issue does not define him. The source you gave, pulls the same "see nothing" trick that doesn't fool anyone here. You used the exact same link (PBS) that I gave you and choose only one section that happens not to mention this fact. Yet, the same PBS site on Wilson felt that this issue was so important they dedicated a WHOLE page for it--more than all the other topics that you bring up. See here:[13] So you stand exposed for making repeated falsehoods, including falsely claiming that I made a personal attack. I did not. I attack the facts you present and refute them as false. Since you can't come up with a single work that fails to mention this cardinal fact of this man, then reason dictates that you must concede that it is in fact a defining aspect of his life.Giovanni33 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously lack civility and cannot have a conversation without personally attacking me. I'm done here, its not worth it. You have not provided a source that states that racism was a defining part of his life. I have provided a source that states that racism was not a defining part of his life. I linked the page on PBS that defines Woodrow Wilson and no where in it is race mentioned. I can see the ad hominem attacks coming and its not nice. You won't last long on wikipedia with the way you act, you already have been blocked numerous times. Wikipedia follows guidelines and is not anarchy, you seem to ignore these guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:Overcategorization, WP:CIVIL, WP:V. I can already predict your counter to this and its just more of the same: You will say that I am making "falsehoods", you will say that I am not reading your posts, and then you will try to make a claim that race somehow defines Wilson when your own articles refute your claim. I'm done here and its on your conscience, if you want to list "falsehoods" about Wilson its fine but once you're banned it will all revert back to the truth. Good luck.--Southern Texas 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one making personal attacks here, against me. I never have. You cite policy but if you actually read the policy, for example Wikipedia:No personal attacks you will see that it explains what a perseonal attack is, and is not. It also says: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." So you are the only one making personal attacks here, against me. Stop it. When I say your statments are false, I don't merely say it as a proclamation, as you do---I prove what you said is false. I show it: you say things that are not true, and I show such with examples above. Your response instead of showing how I am wrong, is to attack me with real personal attacks. This is not being civil. I not only provided a source I showed you EVERY source that is a discussion about Wilson does give plenty of space to a discussion of his views on race and the huge impact it had on society. I gave you many examples of how this impacted black people, and others. I showed you sourced that described what he did was out of the norm, too. I even showed you how high school level textbooks see fit to give space to mention these facts about the man. Even this article gives a large section to the issue. But you keep saying its not part of what defines him? That argument is irrational. He was the only one to segregated all federal civil service jobs. No one else did. He gave his official blessing to the pro-KKK movie "Birth of a Nation" that re-wrote the ugly history of the Klu Klux Klan portraying them as southern patriots instead of what they really were, terrorists. How did this affect things? Well, after Wilson praised the film, it became the first major box-office "blockbuster" and because of it the Klan reemerged as a potent political force throughout the south and in a number of Northern and Midwestern states where large scale black migration from the south to work in northern factories caused racial tensions. There is more: Wilson made intermarriage a federal crime. Another first. He also appointed racists, eugenics to important possistions such as the psychologist Robert Yerkes; he and his fellow eugenics colleagues "proved" that black and immigrant people were inferior. Along with Carl Brigham, he reported that "Negro," "Alpine," and "Mediterranean" people were inferior to "Nordics." And, you keep doubting that this is racism? How it impacted? The report helped persuade Congress to pass the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. This law cut off almost all immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Many who were locked out of the US by this law later died in Hitler's gas chambers (based on the same kind of eugenetics theories of race inferiority btw). The main impact of this Eugenics was to spread racist ideas, and to attack immigrants were among the strongest and most radical leaders among workers in the US, (played a big part in organizing the Communist Party, for example). Thousands were deported as "dangerous aliens." The US rulers used eugenics, along with the Ku Klux Klan and other fascist organizations, to weaken the unity of the working class and to build support for the racist and anti-communist terrorism perpetrated by the government itself, hence the creation of Red Squads and other vigelante groups under Wilson. His views on race, played, a defining characteristic of who the man was, as it had a huge impact. Every single historian of Wilson says the same. For you to say this was not a defining apspect of who Wilson was, is pretty extreme whitewashing. If it were just his peronal opinion, as you claim, with no policies reflecting that, then you'd be right. But this is not the case, no matter how much you put blinders on and ignore it. The source you provided was the same source I provided, which I showed you, proves your statment is false: the source reports significantly on race. The source you provided was the same source I provided, which I showed you, proves your statment is false. So now, having been defeated in argument, you say you are done talking here, and you are back to your edit waring and reverting (even though you are opposed by several editors).Giovanni33 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll see what the third party decides, my argument has been made and so has yours, lets stop talking in circles, repeating the same thing and resolve this issue.--Southern Texas 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• This article was listed with Third opinion. However, since more than two editors have already participated in the discussion, I don't think a simple 3o will help in this case (and 3o is only intended for disputes involving 2 editors anyway). I suggest an RFC instead. --Darkwind (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you list this in the rascism category? Just have a look a whats already there. It's stuff like Atlantic slave trade and Ku Klux Klan. If you've got sources saying he's racist, by all means put it in the article but a quick look at the Category:Racism will tell you Woodrow wilson doesn't belong there. It's full of extremist groups and neo-nazis--Pheonix15 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I recall you saying "Southern, your ignorance is appaling". Have a look at the category and you'll see this doesn't belong there--Pheonix15 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The cateogry is clear: those interested in racism can find people who they should know about to learn about their role and impact in racism. Wilson clearly belongs per the information and arguments that I need not repeat from above. I don't understand your argument. Not all who fall in this category are identical by any means, but they do and must share what the category covers: racism. Wilson clearly fits.Giovanni33 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that since the category was first added April 30 by User:Sefringle citing that nobody objected on the talk page and then was re-added by the same user last week that this user has not established a consensus for this category and therefore until the dispute is settled the category should be removed. User:Giovanni33 reverted the next day against consensus because I believe he wanted to start an edit war, this user is known for engaging in edit wars and he saw an opportunity. Personally I won't remove the category because it may lead to me being blocked for edit warring, however if another user decides it is the right thing to do to remove the category they should not be intimidated by the two editors I mentioned because at this point, removing the category is the right thing to do.--Southern Texas 18:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I wont respond in detail except to say I've noticed a disturbing pattern of falsehoods from Texas, which include violations of AGF an NPA. Regarding edit waring, that is exactly what he has been doing, and what I have not been doing. I do not condone nor accept the validity of edit waring as an acceptible means to resolve conflicts. I would hope that Texas would someday undestand this point, aside from his correct fear that should he continue he would be blocked.Giovanni33 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Category:Racism

There is a dispute over whether or not the Category:Racism should be included in this article. Help would be appreciated.

• Now that my self imposed exile is over, I still don't like the category name, but I do believe that there is enough here that I can't object to the category. I don't believe it is a case of over categorization. If somebody is interested racism in the US, they would be remiss not to check out Wilson. One of the keys of NPOV is to allow positions that you disagree with into the fray---plus, and I believe this is key, the category is racism, not Racist. If it was racist, then I would definitely oppose, but racism is a subject not a adjective. I think there are more poignant battles to be fought.Balloonman 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think Category:History of racial segregation in the United States would be more appropriate. It doesn't label him as an out-right racist, but it does suggest that he held the historic views of a large portion of our country. It puts the time in which he lived in perspective. Maybe if he was alive today he wouldn't have those views, but at the same time he really had them, and it needs to be recognized. It would also be appropriate because the article mentions that he segregated when he was in office. Isaac Pankonin 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more--Pheonix15 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. This is much better.Balloonman 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, I support it 100%.--Southern Texas 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• That category fits but not really as well, but I'll support both categories. This new category is more to do with subject, the concept, laws, or particular policies, or other historically associated events in particular (such as segregation, jim crow laws, white flight, etc)-- rather than an individual. So the racism category that certainly fits, as well. Its important to note that Wilson was not just a "man of his time" he stood out for his racists views, and policies that went way beyond the norm and set some new and serious precededents as President over the national question. As historians point out, the policies reflected return of the South to power in Washington, which never occured before, even if former presidents held similar racist views. Wilson stands out for his race pushing policies. That is why I think racism as a category is is still apropos. Giovanni33 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Therein is where I will come down firmly in opposition to you. The fact that race was a major theme in Wilson's life is not disputed. But to make the claim that he himself was a racist is entering the realm of POV. I firmly support the inclusion of the section on racism. I even support the inclusion of criticism of Wilson's policies/practices related to racism, but a category for racist is not an appropriate category. If that is what this category is being used for, to tag people as racist, then I beleive the category could very well be a candidate for deletion. As racism, it is a category that could go on people who deal with the subject of racism (Lincoln, Malcolm X, King, etc) and is thus a neutral category. As racist, it is a politically charged term that is pushing a POV.Balloonman 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstande my point. Its not to label racists, as racists, although by all standards Wilson was a racist. Its simply a category for people instead of concepts, be it legal concepts, or historical incidents or movements, which he history category is more meant for. If you look at the other things in each category, this point stands out. This article is about Wilson, and he is an individual he put into practice various policies that furthered the practice of racism in the US--or at least there is a connection between these various policies, actions, and racism. This is notable for Wilson. So, the category fits for this purpose and reason. All individuals associated with various programs or policies that are regarded as being connected to racism, would fall under racism as a matter of fact, not pov.Giovanni33 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not based upon the following comment by Sefringle. Racism is being tied to people who support racism. If it was a category used for both supporters and opposers and simply a historical account, then I would agree. But the fact that it is being used as a way around calling one a racist, it is a different story.Balloonman 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The tag is not being used to tag people as racists. That Category:Racists was deleted for that very reason. Categories that do that are POV. The only thing the category does is show that there is a connection between racism and Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and others who opposed racism belong in Category:Anti-racism.--Sefringle^Talk 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Racism, like many cutural norms, have historical implications. It is not correct to just pejoratively label historical figures "racist" especially when it may have been normative to the time. Lincoln would have been considered "racist" by our standards today. In 200 years maybe even MLK would be considered "racist" by their standard. Therefore this category is meaningless and should not be used to pejoratively tag people with these labels. --Tbeatty 06:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Therein is why I would oppose the category and am considering nominating it for deletion. By your own words, people who opposed racism belong in a Category:Anti-racism. Thus, people who are in favor of racism belong in Category:racism. The word may have been changed from Racist to Racism, but you are still applying it the same way. You are labelling people racist by saying that they support racism. If the category was broad and covered people who supported and opposed racism, then it would be a valid category. But as is, it is labelling people racist. Which I think it an improper term used in a historical context.Balloonman 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the 'History of...' category. Although it's clear to me that Wilson was a bigot, I'd say that 'racism' is too vague in this case, and lends itself to application regarding Wilson's personal life and opinions, whereas 'History of...' speaks directly to what's covered in the article, ESPECIALLY his policies regarding federal gov't segregation, which is a clear, distinct, and heavily citable instance of his public policy affecting national attitudes and history in general. ThuranX 04:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the category was nominated for deletion I would definitely support that, it is a violation of WP:NPOV and promotes severe disagreement and anger as we see from the past discussions on this page.--Southern Texas 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Category Racism should not be used as a place to categorize racists. It should be used as a source for articles which have a significant discussion involving racism. The category is "Racism", not "Racists", so whether or not Wilson was a "racist" is immaterial to the question. The question is to what extent does the article address how Wilson figures in terms of his contributions, either negative or positive, on that subject. To give some perspective, I would dispute that it is sufficient to add the article to the category based on the claim of the Princeton ban of black students. Princeton (and Wilson as president) also banned women--but that also isn't sufficiently noteworthy to warrant listing the article in the category "Sexism". I think that the contents in the article don't delve particularly into the topic "racism" in general. More narrow categories are more meaningful: History of Segregation, which is already linked, is the most obvious, Reconstruction is another.Professor marginalia 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be included. It's just not noteworthy enough on the subject of racism to be included in that category.--Gloriamarie 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Further expansion suggestion

Not a word about United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution? This is troubling, and we should fix it. Biruitorul 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wilson and WWII

I noticed this line in the opening of this article: "His contributions to this negotiations set the stage for World War Two." Is Woodrow Wilson responsible for WWII? That is the idea I get if I read this sentence. But I know that's crazy. I will remove this sentence. John 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The paragraph in the "14 points" section

The speech was controversial in America, and even more so with their Allies. France wanted high reparations from Germany as French agriculture, industry, and lives had been so demolished by the war, and Britain, as the great naval power, did not want freedom of the seas. Wilson compromised with Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and many other European leaders during the Paris Peace talks to ensure that the fourteenth point, the League of Nations, would be established. In the end, Wilson's own Congress did not accept the League and only four of the original Fourteen Points were implemented fully in Europe.

is raken directly from a page at the Woodrow Wilson library, located at http://www.woodrowwilson.org/topics/topics_show.htm?doc_id=398817

I don't edit much, but I noticed this. Is there a plagiarism tag? Cameron 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you have the audacity to publish this as total fact, when it is peppered with omission? I think this article's neutrality should be question. Was it written by members of his family or the KKK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.102.191 (talk) 21:22:35, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

why isnt there any section on wilson's hestance to join the fight against armenian genocide and his baklash with henry morganthau??? also his delay in going to ww1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.24.105 (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestic vs. Foreign Policy

I don't feel that this subject is very well explaind in this article. There should be to sections, one for each, in this article. I don't know enough about it to do tis, but someone should. (ex. view the Calvin Coolidge article. this is done niely here) Wrhapsody 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i loved him so much and i miss him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.143.113 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I am failing this article's GA nomination for several reasons. First, although it has a lot of references, many sections are entirely without in-text citations which could really help the reader. Also, the enormous length of the table of contents reflects the fragmented state of the article. Several sections only contain a few sentences of information. The TOC needs to be shortened by combining several sections into coherent prose. Lastly, a lot of the article is a bit listy and the media could use some better organization. Feel free to renominate once these issues are fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the lede, thinking how well it was written, so I stopped to see if it was a Featured Article, but no star at the top. Then I came here to find that it failed a GA. Typical. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about being "listy." Why, there's one list that 14 points long! Trim. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Wilson vis-a-vis racism

They may or may not be warrented in the article, but these comments keep being readded, despite the fact that there is no specific reference to back them up. Such comments are clearly inflamatory and controversial. They may be true, but in order to be included, it MUST be shown that such analysis of Wilson's attitudes towards race have bene previously published in reliable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for more details. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that these edits have been continually made by a sockpuppet/troll. That is not assuming bad faith that is just calling a spade a spade. I have started a post on WP:AN/I--STX 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence as such yet. I have made talk-page invitations at the user talk pages of the involved users. Let us assume good faith until evidence arises otherwise. Accusations of bad faith and trolling do NOT build an environment of collaboration and consensus building, and should NOT be taken lightly. Lets at least wait for their response before leveling such accusations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did some more research on the topic beyond this article and quick Googling and I can't find a reference for "racist by today's standards". I'm putting Segregation back up since that has references(in this article, no less) but I'm leaving "racist" and controversial out for now.Krymson (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, the reference used has already been in the article for numerous revisions. I am making the bold deduction that this means they are "approved".Krymson (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems a reasonable compromise. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)