Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Introduction

Hello, I was reading the introduction and came across the following: "in his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act... and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913." It's not technically false, but a central bank was already being crafted before Wilson was President, and the 16th amendment was proposed before Wilson was President so a progressive income was most likely underway. So I think it might be a little deceptive--and it might be a good idea to flesh out those details. I won't change it, however.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Armenian genocide

Why no mention of WW's failure to pressure, through diplomacy or force, Turkey to cease its Christian Armenian genocide. Over 1.5 million non-combatant civilian [Christian] Armenian men, woman, and children murdered in cold blood macabre by Turkish forces, yet WW goes out of his way to avoid declaring war on Turkey or even pressuring Turkey in any effective way. Meanwhile, WW claims we declare war on Germany because of their, "warfare against mankind" and "wrongs which ... cut to the very root of human life." Isn't that what Turkey was doing by lining up Armenian children in front of ditches and murdering them systematically? The New York Times apparently published 145 articles on the Armenian genocides in 1915 alone. Maybe WW considered Armenian's as a swarthy people, thus not worth the effort. "Making the world safe for democracy", was not a priority for WW.

Referencing: Power, Faith, and Fantasy, Michael B. Oren, Norton & Co., 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.185.100 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And, also, the Assyrian Genocide which happened at the same time, where about 3/4ths of the Assyrian population was killed - around 750,000 civilians. Waleeta (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)waleeta

I cut the sections on these genocides because there was no attempt to relate them to the subject of the article, Woodrow Wilson. If other editors think that the genocides, or Wilson's inaction regarding them, are important, then they should be properly incorporated, showing their relevance. NB they probably won't require separate sections. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1914, there was no country like Turkey, it was Ottoman Empire. Turkish Republic was established in 1923... It is said in the text that it is Turkey which took action against Armanians. Please be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.164.155 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

???

Why is there no title for the second heading? Major error in getting this article to at least GA. Thisisborin9^{talk · contribs · guestbook} 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail

Hi, I've looked over this article for GA Review, and it fails the Good Article criteria, and on multiple points, particularly relating to criteria one and two (writing and verifiability):

1. There are too many sections, too many of which are too short. They need to be consolidated and expanded. The article simply does not flow. One section even has an "expansion" tag.

2. The presence of numerous "citation needed" tags is enough for a quick fail.

This article is a decent start, but needs quite a lot more work before it is brought back to WP:GAN. Perhaps after some further work, it could be taken to peer review rather than directly to Good Article nominations? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

How come he doesnt have the lil medallion thingy above his name at the top left of the page like Albert Gore does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• He does now. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

It is unacceptable that this article should be filed under "Woodrow Wilson" - yes, that is how is commonly known but Ronald Reagan is not filed under "Reagan", by he is often known, and neither is Winston Churchil under "Churchill". Of course, we need not neccessarily include all names, hence John McCain is not under "John Sidney McCain III" but the inclusion of the first name is a minimum. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, your page move to "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" conflicted with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." That means Woodrow Wilson and not Thomas Woodrow Wilson; Grover Cleveland and not Stephen Grover Cleveland; Al Gore and not Albert Gore, Jr.; and see the many other examples on the cited policy page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not conflict with naming conventions. Thomas Woodrow Wilson is his actual name and it is also commonly used. Every person has a right to a proper name that is not mutilated by cutting of the first name. We don't put "Churchill" or "Walker Bush" in here.

Your explanation would be only be valid if the common name and the actual were far apart. Well they arent't. But they don't. Your version is merely a shorter version of the name. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 91,400 Google hits for "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" and 4,910,000 for "Woodrow Wilson". Which one is "the most common name" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? Ground Zero | t 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Google does not answer everything. Consider:

"Wilson" 204.000.000

"George W. Bush" 47.500.000 - "Bush" 302.000.000

"Winston Churchill" 9.650.000 - "Churchill" 34.600.000

So what is the more common name?

Not counting in each case that of course any hit for "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" will be included in "Woodrow Wilson" too.

I can respect disagreement but not silly and lazy pseudo-arguments like a google search.

Since Grover Cleveland has been used as an example: Grover was one of his first names, whereas Woodrow is Wilson's mother's maiden name.Str1977 ^(talk) 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bush", "Churchill" and "Wilson" all have to be disambiguated. (To me, Churchill is a place in Manitoba.) Similarly, we disambiguated the first George Bush as George H. W. Bush because there is a second George Bush who is very well known, even though GB Senior did not use his middle initials commonly when he was president. "Woodrow Wilson" does not have to be disambiguated. If there were a Giuseppe Woodrow Wilson, for example, who had risen to national prominence, it would be appropriate to disambiguate them. Similarly, we write about "John F. Kennedy" we only use "John Fitzgerald Kennedy" when the full name is appropriate (i.e., at the beginning of the article about him) because that is how he presented himself and how most people write about him. Woodrow Wilson chose to present himself by that name and drop his first name in everyday use, and that is how most people refer to him. Ground Zero | t 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He became mad in 1919?

I read on a book, that this american president became mad, in 1919.Is this true? The article also doesn't tells nothing, about the Wilson's support to eugenics.In fact, he enacted a law of eugenic sterilization,in american state of New Jersey, in 1910 decade.Agre22 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

It's entirely possible, but unless you can verify it... --MissMeticulous (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide, whoa

Whoa, what's up with this section? I see there was some attempts at GA and FA recently and I think this section needs to be addressed. There needs to be a brief recap on the Armenian Genocide and how it relates to Wilson. The entire quoted response by Wilson would be great to quote, but shouldn't appear here in its entirety. The entire response should be moved to Wikisource. Morgenthau's book is probably beyond the scope of the section. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the text in question, there is no reason to quote his entire speech on that subject or any subject.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Woman's Suffrage Section

Methinks there be some partiality in this section... kindof reads like a screaming hippie who has identified her first "cause".Ravagedhand (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

there is no citation for any of the suffrage information, much of it sounds like here-say and is probably unprovable or untrue 21 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.47.191 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

- I doubt "screaming hippie" is the proper characterisation, but I would call it overly colourful. If this is a true event the telling is too focused on imagery and creating emotion rather than neutral fact and, if necessary, the telling of emotion. CopiousX (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the entire section. It appears to have been a text dump, copied and pasted virtually wholesale, from another web site. I googled it, and it appears (or large sections of it appear) to be found here: [1] and here: [2] and here: [3] and in other places. Famspear (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the short term, deleting a plagiarized section is a good idea. For the long term, though, I would have rather seen that section overhauled instead of scrapped completely. It is a historical fact that Wilson was for women's suffrage, and that he made appeals to both houses of Congress that they pass that bill. From an historical perspective, it seems a bit strange not to mention that women gained the right to vote during Wilson's time in office. It isn't every day that the Constitution of the USA is amended. Thus, I think it definitely warrants either some mention or (at least) a link to History of women's suffrage in the United States. LoneStarWriter82 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

- it is somewhat of a spin to simply state that "women gained the right to vote during Wilson's time in office" when he was very opposed to women's suffrage and the congress passed the bill despite his opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawkeslives (talk • contribs) 12:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information

In the Wikipedia Article on Woodrow Wilson, It states that he is the only U.S. president to have a doctorate degree. This will need to be changed when Barack Obama is elected the 44th president for he has a J.D.(Juris Doctor) which is a doctorate degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwedgewood (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If a J.D. is treated as a doctoral degree then it's already incorrect (because Clinton, Nixon, and others also earned J.D.s). However, it is accurate to say that he's the only Ph. D., so that's what it now says.Wikijsmak (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information directly under Presidency 1913-1921: "Wilson defeated two former U.S. presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, to win the election of 1912."

Wilson defeated ONE former president, Roosevelt, and THE sitting president, Taft, in the election of 1912. Can this be fixed please? Taft wasn't the former president until Wilson became president, which he couldn't have done without first winning the election of 1912. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.113.226 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fixed. Please don't hesitate to make corrections yourself. New editors are always welcome. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored section on Support of Zionism

I have restored the section, when I found it was no longer extant. It was deleted here[4], by a 2-edit whiz-bang editor[5], with 'unreliable source' in the edit summary. Give me a break; three book references for the first sentence; it looks pretty reliable to me. People watching vandalism/deletion of sourced material should have done a better job; that happened back in September. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Wilson's Visits to Great Britain

Why does the article on Woodrow Wilson state that he did not visit Great Britain until 1919? His earlier visits to England (during his time as professor and president at Princeton University) are well documented, most especially by his letters home. One of those visits was a bicycle tour of the Lake District. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwduffy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

return book in 2/18/09 about WOODROW WILSON.

Wilson's wife was Ellen Wilson and they were marride during june24,1885 also had 3 children their names were Margaret Woodrow,Jessie Woodrow,Eleanor Randolph by the way she died in washington,D.C. Aug.6,1914 at age 54. Now going on outher BUISNUSS the president was born in Staunton,va., Dec.28,1856. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.255.22 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wilson secured passage of the Federal Reserve system in late 1913 in exchange for campaign support"? CITATION NEEDED

A Federal Reserve conspiracy theorist told me that Wilson secured passage of the Federal Reserve system in late 1913 in exchange for campaign support (from bankers). I asked for proof; he pointed me here. And there it is! But I don't buy it. Footnotes 43 and 44 say no such thing. I'm wondering where this came from. Citation needed.

Maybe this is related: a certain movie alleges that Wilson was elected with the help of America's financial elites with the promise he would sign off on their interests after Jekyll Island.68.126.28.186 (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work

This article is far too long, containing too detailed information about persons other than the subject for an encyclopedia article. Looks like a book in spots, yet is underdocumented. Fails to note Wilson was the only Ph.D. political scientist ever to serve as U.S. President, was elected President of the American Political Science Association, and his address upon taking office there about "taking the politics out of political science" was published in American Political Science Review. Needs work. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"A devout Presbyterian"

Why is this important enough for the intro? - 72.9.18.179 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. While there is reliable sourcing to verify that he was Presbyterian, what source(s) confirms that he was a "devout" one?--JayJasper (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Wilson's father was well known as a Presbyterian - whether Woodrow Wilson himself had a strong faith in the traditional doctrines of Christianity (or treated them as things to "evolve" with the times - his attiutde to the Constitution) is a matter of heated debate.91.107.236.241 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

here's what recent historians say: (1) "Woodrow Wilson, a devout Presbyterian" [Amanda Porterfield, Religion in American History (2010) Page 251]; (2) "As a scholar and a devout Presbyterian — indeed, the son of a clergyman — Wilson preferred the high moral ground" [Mark T. Gilderhus, The second century: U.S.--Latin American relations since 1889 (2000) Page 41]; (3) "Woodrow Wilson, the new president of the United States, reacted with moralistic righteousness and committed determination.... a devout Presbyterian — indeed, the son of a clergyman — he preferred the high moral ground..." [John Milton Cooper, Reconsidering Woodrow Wilson (2008) Page 169]. Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting secondary sources (i.e. recent historians) is of no use when dealing with this question (or any other) - the point is to try and find out what WOODROW WILSON believed (about the empty tomb or anything else) not to try and find out what various academics think would be nice to say about him. The only way to try and find out what someone believed (for example whether they believed Jesus physically rose from the dead or not) is to read their own writings - their letters, journal (if they have one) and so on. Of course this applies to anti Woodrow Wilson historians as well as pro Woodrow Wilson historians - a work is only of use in so far as it quotes a person's own words (in context). This requires a lot of work.91.107.238.164 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia reports what the reliable secondary sources say. Original research i

is frowned upon here. Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist?

Woodrow Wilson is the first American President (and, perhaps, the only American President - as Barack Obama's writings mostly remain closed and, therefore, any comment upon their contents is speculation) to produce academic writings treating socialism sympathectically (both in his book "The State" and in his general writings). Yet neither Wilson's attitude towards socialism (nor that of his close friend and "other self" E.M. House - the author of "Philip Dru: Administrator") is dealt with in the article.

It is hard to see why not. Is it because the writer does not wish people to know of Woodrow Wilson's many sympathetic comments regarding socialism? Or is it because it would be thought problematic for socialists to be associated with the most extreme (I use the word "extreme" in its literal sense - not as a value judgement) racist to be President of the United States in the 20th century (and, it should be remembered, Woodrow Wilson was also more extreme in his racism than any person who had been President in the late 19th century either). Neither of these reasons is legitimate for keeping the information on Wilson's attitude to extent of State power out of the article.

However, references should be nonjudgemental. Both socialism and racism may be correct - so that the fact that Woodrow Wilson was at least favourable to both should NOT be presented in a negative way, "Wilson was evil because......" is not acceptable. Readers should simply be given the bare bones of Woodrow Wilson's favourable attitude toward both socialism and racism, and be left to make up their own minds about how this information effects their opinion of him.91.107.236.241 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Both socialism and racism may be correct - so that the fact that Woodrow Wilson was at least favourable to both should NOT be presented in a negative way"

This is the best joke I've read all day. Good show! I've never seen a send-up of both Glenn Beck's hatred of Woodrow Wilson *and* his disingenuous "Let's present the worst aspects of a person and let the viewer decide if they're bad" schtick in the same sentence. Plus it mocks the spirit of Wikipedia's non-POV stance; sort of like how presenting Hitler as an anti-Semitic genocidal leader should NOT be presented in a negative way, just an objective one. I think you hit a hat trick of comedy here. =D Lothar76 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"He tried to maintain U.S. neutrality"

From what I know of Wilson, he did everything within his power to push the U.S. into declaring war on the Central Powers. This sentence should be changed to, "he claimed to maintain U.S. neutrality." -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

no mention of the Espionage Act?

No mention of the Espionage Act? Surely this needs to be rectified. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The Espionage Act was the unconstitutional pretext that Wilson used to imprison Eugene Debs and other dissidents during world war one. It's at least as significant as FDR's illegal imprisonment of Japanese-Americans. 24.6.159.76 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Sedition Act is meant--people on the left never liked it but it was unanimously approved by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States. Rjensen (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You can count that along with the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions among examples of the failure of the supreme court to do its duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he means the Espionage act. The Sedition act was a full century prior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.195.197 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're referring to the Sedition and Libel Act, there was a Sedition act of 1918 as well. But the dispute here pertains to the Espionage Act of 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.104.25 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death???

The article never gives a cause of death. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Only president to have a Ph. D?

What about Obama, who was a law professor? 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama has a JD, which is different from a PhD. Binarybits (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles As noted in your article on the Treaty of Versailles, this Treaty was THE prime cause of the 2nd world war.... Wilson was one of the 4 chief authors of the treaty and bears much of this responsibility. IMHO If Hitler had not come along, someone else would have. Lewishb (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Lewis Brackett San Diego

Ludlow Massacre

Shouldn't Wilson's role concerning the Ludlow massacre be treated in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.170.194 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you know something about his role, why don't you add it? Skywriter (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving two grafs to related article

I'm moving the folloing two grafs to the article on his presidency. They were in the section on Race but are part of his foreign policy.

Wilson was a friend of the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. A sword, a gift from Selassie, is on display at Wilson's Washington, DC house, now a museum.

Wilson also appointed an African American, Dr. George Washington Buckner, to be minister to Liberia. Buckner served in the post from 1913 to 1915. Skywriter (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of presidency

Wow. I come to this article looking for information about Wilson's presidency, but there's not a WORD on it, just a link to the main article! What kind of failure writes an article about a major US President but completely leaves out his presidency? If the article is too long, which it is NOT per WP:LENGTH and the huge number of images and references and the importance of the topic, then you use WP:Summary style, not deletion of the bulk of the information! You claim that it's still there in the subarticle. Yeah, but nobody goes to the subarticle! Woodrow Wilson was viewed 82,000 times in August, but Presidency_of_Woodrow_Wilson was only viewed 3,500 times. That means fewer than 5% of the readers went on to the subarticle. I have merged the information back together, and please do not inconvenience everyone by reverting me. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilson and Race

The title should be labeled "Civil Rights" and put in the Presidency section, or at least the actions or nonactions on Civil Rights of President Wilson should be in the Presidency section. (Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

There is allot of good information on Wilson and race. I believe it should be incorporated in the Presidency section, as far as what he actually did as President. The Wilson and race section can be kept, it is just that what he did as President should be in the Presidency section. It will also get rid of any repeats, such as Wilson's segregation policy. (66.81.222.254 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Under the heading Civil Rights the article states "Many black leaders supported Wilson in the 1912 election." If this is true it might be helpful to give some examples. Which black leaders supported him? Was there division among black leaders at that time? What were there reasons for doing so? I simply think more information should be included if a claim like this is to be made at all. The claim should either be removed or explained with more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.13.195 (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed quotes from Federal Rederal section

I've removed the two quotes from the Federal Reserve section. The first quote ("I have unwilling ...") has been shown to be a fake. The second quote ("We have come to be ...") is real, although mis-quoted here, but it's from Wilson's 1912 campaign speeches as organized in The New Freedom, obviously from well before the Federal Reserve Act. There's a fairly good discussion here] about this, if you're interested. Also, the end of this Salon article has an interesting comment (and for a laugh, this article was actually used as a source for the misquote by someone who apparently didn't read the article all that well). Ravensfire (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wilsonian Idealism

I think this should be deleted because its pure bullshit. How can you invade Mexico(Twice), Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Soviet Union(Twice), occupy Nicaragua, ignore the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, and still have an idealist foreign policy for trumpeting self-determination and democracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe this section just needs to be re-written by someone with a better grasp of the complex inheritance of Wilson's years and the gap between the concept of Wilsonian idealism and the practice thereof. That person would just need to make more careful assessments than those made in the previous comment, though it does make a valid point.

Done well, Wilsonian idealism might make a good standalone entry and substitute for the very lame (IMHO) entry at Wilsonian.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First term as President, 1913–1917

For consideration to edit and add under the section:
==First term as President, 1913–1917==

( after: Wilson's first wife Ellen died on August 6, 1914 of Bright's disease. In 1915, he met Edith Galt. They married later that year on December 18. )

The first Mrs. Wilson, Ellen Loise Axson Wilson, had commissioned the landscape architect Beatrix Farrand to design the East Colonial Garden (now the redesigned Jacqueline Kennedy Garden) and the West Garden (now the redesigned White House Rose Garden) in 1913. After her 1914 death the project languished until the second Mrs. Wilson, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, had their work installation completed in 1916. --thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation to film

The very last item in the article, at the end of the "Death" section, includes a mention of the 1944 biographical film about Wilson. It should be included as Wilson, not Wilson without the link. Since the article is locked, though, I can't do this; can someone else?LanternLight (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. You should have been able to make that edit though; you've been around a lot longer than I have. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the lock in the upper right corner and figured that it was off limits to mere mortals like myself. Anyway, thank you for the edit/improvement to the article, Fat&Happy. LanternLight (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Most of the locks I've run into just keep out anon IP users and extremely new registered users (< four days or < ten edits). No problem though, just letting you know for other articles. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.202.9.65, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

With a registered users help, I want to add a quote of Wilson on the "Government" or "Evolvong Views" portion of the article.

"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."---- Woodrow Wilson

75.202.9.65 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. • ɔ ʃ → 03:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.111.88.84, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I realize that wikipedia is neutral in its point of view, but are we still locked into needless promotion of 1950's style, pollyanna, American history by neglecting to include that President Wilson was actually inducted into the Ku Klux Klan in a white house ceremony? In my opinion it is intellectually dishonest to fail to incorporate fully one of the most historically important themes of the Wilson administration... his blatant racism and deliberate attempts to push back on black civil rights on several fronts.

sources: -Howard Zinn, Peoples History of the US -James Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me

68.111.88.84 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

it's totally false. Actually the rumor is about Harding--and that rumor is also false. No president ever belonged to KKK. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of your "sources" mention that Wilson was inducted into the Klan, although he was famously quoted when describing it as the "protector of the Southern country". However, Wilson's stance with regard to the African American population is already well covered in the article, and in any case you haven't provided a specific change which is required with an edit request. Not done: for the aforementioned reasons. haz (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Seaman's act has absolutely no business being in "economic views." It's tossed in there with no context, and no citation that it actually improved working conditions for sailors as once a ship reaches international waters it isn't bound to federal law.

Please delete reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.195.197 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange citation

115. Woodrow Wilson, A History of the American People (1931) V:59. I downloaded that book and read it, and there is no Volume 59. If you consider the Appendix to be Volume 5 (not how the book TOC lists it), I can't find anything in there that corresponds to the cited quotation. I also read about 100 pages of the book, and also did some searches, and I can't find anything remotely like this quote anywhere. Can someone elucidate for this poor soul how I should actually be finding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.105.8 (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Redid the citation to include a Google link to page 59 of volume IX of the 1918 edition (someone more familiar with Google's URL formats may be able to make this a direct link; I left it as a two-step process). Fat&Happy (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)