Jump to content

Talk:Woodrow Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:8f8:173d:46d5:e508:7776:5e87:dae3 (talk) at 18:09, 13 October 2022 (→Pompous Wilson: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWoodrow Wilson has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
March 17, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Keep getting reverted under the guise of GAN, even though at least some of it was certainly an improvement

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

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

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

Differences between versions
Current version

By the 1910s, African-Americans had become effectively shut out of elected office. Obtaining an executive appointment to a position within the federal bureaucracy was usually the only option for African-American statesmen. It has been claimed Wilson continued to appoint African-Americans to positions that had traditionally been filled by black people, overcoming opposition from many southern senators.[1] Such claims deflect most of the truth however. Since the end of Reconstruction, both parties recognized certain appointments as unofficially reserved for qualified African-Americans. Wilson appointed a total of nine African-Americans to prominent positions in the federal bureaucracy, eight of whom were Republican carry-overs. For comparison, Taft was met with disdain and outrage from Republicans of both races for appointing "a mere thirty-one black officeholders", a record low for a Republican president. Upon taking office, Wilson fired all but two of the seventeen black supervisors in the federal bureaucracy appointed by Taft.[2][3] Wilson flatly refused to even consider African-Americans for appointments in the South. Since 1863, the U.S. mission to Haiti and Santo Domingo was almost always led by an African-American diplomat regardless of what party the sitting president belonged to; Wilson ended this half-century-old tradition, though he did continue appointing black diplomats to head the mission to Liberia.[4][5][6][7][8]

Since the end of Reconstruction, the federal bureaucracy had been possibly the only career path where African-Americans “experienced some measure of equity”[9] and was the life blood and foundation of the black middle-class.[10] Wilson's administration escalated the discriminatory hiring policies and segregation of government offices that had begun under President Theodore Roosevelt, and had continued under President Taft.[11] In Wilson's first month in office, Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson urged the president to establish segregated government offices.[12] Wilson did not adopt Burleson's proposal, but he did allow Cabinet Secretaries discretion to segregate their respective departments.[13] By the end of 1913, many departments, including the Navy, Treasury and Post Office, had segregated work spaces, restrooms, and cafeterias.[12] Many agencies used segregation as a pretext to adopt a whites-only employment policy, claiming they lacked facilities for black workers. In these instances, African-Americans employed prior to the Wilson administration were either offered early retirement, transferred or simply fired.[14]

Racial discrimination in federal hiring increased further when after 1914, the Civil Service Commission instituted a new policy requiring job applicants to submit a personal photo with their application.[15]

As a federal enclave, Washington D.C. had long offered African-Americans greater opportunities for employment and less glaring discrimination. In 1919, black veterans returning home to D.C. were shocked to discover Jim Crow had set in, many could not go back to the jobs they held prior to the war or even enter the same building they used to work in due to the color of their skin. Booker T. Washington described the situation: "(I) had never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time."[16]

Current refs formatting

References

  1. ^ Berg (2013), pp. 307, 311
  2. ^ Stern, Sheldon N, "Just Why Exactly Is Woodrow Wilson Rated so Highly by Historians? It's a Puzzlement", Columbia College of Arts and Sciences at the George Washington University. historynewsnetwork.org/article/160135. Published August 23, 2015. Retrieved December 7, 2020.
  3. ^ "Missed Manners: Wilson Lectures a Black Leader". historymatters.gmu.edu. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
  4. ^ “George Washington Buckner: Politician and Diplomat.” By Bobby L. Lovett and Karen Coffee. Black History News and Notes, Number 17, at pages 4-8 (May 1984). images.indianahistory.org/digital/enwiki/api/collection/p16797coll66/id/25/download. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
  5. ^ "U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian".
  6. ^ "Indiana Slave Narratives". Archived from the original on July 16, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2009.
  7. ^ "Johnson, J." Political Graveyard. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  8. ^ "Department History – Joseph Lowery Johnson (1874–1945)". Office of the Historian. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  9. ^ Glass, Andrew, “Theodore Roosevelt reviews race relations, Feb. 13, 1905.” Politico, February 13, 2017. www.politico.com/story/2017/02/theodore-roosevelt-reviews-race-relations-feb-13-1905-234938. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
  10. ^ "African-American Postal Workers in the 20th Century – Who We Are – USPS". about.usps.com. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
  11. ^ Meier, August; Rudwick, Elliott (1967). "The Rise of Segregation in the Federal Bureaucracy, 1900–1930". Phylon. 28 (2): 178–184. doi:10.2307/273560. JSTOR 273560.
  12. ^ a b Kathleen L. Wolgemuth, "Woodrow Wilson and Federal Segregation", The Journal of Negro History Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr. 1959), pp. 158–173, accessed March 10, 2016
  13. ^ Berg (2013), p. 307
  14. ^ Lewis, David Levering (1993). W. E. B. Du Bois: Biography of a Race 1868–1919. New York City: Henry Holt and Co. p. 332. ISBN 9781466841512.
  15. ^ The alleged impetus behind this policy was to guard against applicant fraud. However only 14 cases of impersonation/attempted impersonation in the application process were uncovered the year prior. Glenn, 91, citing December 1937 issue of The Postal Alliance.
  16. ^ "How Woodrow Wilson Stoked the First Urban Race Riot". Politico.
My proposed version

By the 1910s, African-Americans had become effectively shut out of elected office. In the spoils system, obtaining executive appointment to a position within the federal bureaucracy was usually the only option for African-American statesmen. Wilson continued to appoint African-Americans to positions that had traditionally been filled by black people, overcoming opposition from many southern senators. Oswald Garrison Villard thought that Wilson was not a bigot and supported progress for black people, and he was frustrated by southern opposition in the Senate, to which Wilson capitulated. In a conversation with Wilson, journalist John Palmer Gavit came to the realization that opposition to those views "would certainly precipitate a conflict which would put a complete stop to any legislative program."[1] Since the end of Reconstruction, both parties recognized certain appointments as unofficially reserved for qualified African-Americans. Wilson appointed a total of nine African-Americans to prominent positions in the federal bureaucracy, eight of whom were Republican carry-overs. For comparison, William Howard Taft was met with disdain and outrage from Republicans of both races for appointing thirty-one black officeholders, a record low for a Republican president. Upon taking office, Wilson fired all but two of the seventeen black supervisors in the federal bureaucracy appointed by Taft.[2][3]

Since 1863, the U.S. mission to Haiti and Santo Domingo was almost always led by an African-American diplomat regardless of what party the sitting president belonged to; Wilson ended this half-century-old tradition but continued to appoint black diplomats like George Washington Buckner,[4][5] as well as Joseph L. Johnson,[6][7] to head the mission to Liberia.[8] Since the end of Reconstruction, the federal bureaucracy had been possibly the only career path where African-Americans could experience some measure of equality,[9] and was the life blood and foundation of the black middle-class.[10] Wilson's administration escalated the discriminatory hiring policies and segregation of government offices that had begun under Theodore Roosevelt and continued under Taft.[11] In Wilson's first month in office, Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson urged the president to establish segregated government offices.[12] Wilson did not adopt Burleson's proposal but allowed Cabinet Secretaries discretion to segregate their respective departments.[13] By the end of 1913, many departments, including the Navy, Treasury, and Post Office, had segregated work spaces, restrooms, and cafeterias.[12] Many agencies used segregation as a pretext to adopt a whites-only employment policy, claiming they lacked facilities for black workers. In these instances, African-Americans employed prior to the Wilson administration were either offered early retirement, transferred, or simply fired.[14]

Racial discrimination in federal hiring increased further when after 1914, the United States Civil Service Commission instituted a new policy requiring job applicants to submit a personal photo with their application.[15] As a federal enclave, Washington, D.C., had long offered African-Americans greater opportunities for employment and less glaring discrimination. In 1919, black veterans returning home to D.C. were shocked to discover Jim Crow laws had set in, many could not go back to the jobs they held prior to the war or even enter the same building they used to work in due to the color of their skin. Booker T. Washington described the situation: "I had never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time."[16]

My refs formatting

References

  1. ^ Berg (2013), pp. 307–311. Quote at p. 307.
  2. ^ "Missed Manners: Wilson Lectures a Black Leader". History Matters. George Mason University. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
  3. ^ Stern, Sheldon N. (August 23, 2015). "Just Why Exactly Is Woodrow Wilson Rated so Highly by Historians? It's a Puzzlement". History News Network. Columbia College of Arts and Sciences at the George Washington University. Retrieved December 7, 2020.
  4. ^ Lovett, Bobby L.; Coffee, Karen (May 1984). "George Washington Buckner: Politician and Diplomat". Black History News and Notes. No. 17. Indiana Historical Society. pp. 4–8. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
  5. ^ "George Washington Buckner (1855–1943)". United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. Retrieved August 9, 2022.
  6. ^ "Johnson, J." The Political Graveyard. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  7. ^ "Department History – Joseph Lowery Johnson (1874–1945)". United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  8. ^ "Indiana Slave Narratives". Archived from the original on July 16, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2009 – via Access Genealogy.
  9. ^ Glass, Andrew (February 13, 2017). "Theodore Roosevelt reviews race relations, Feb. 13, 1905". Politico. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
  10. ^ "African-American Postal Workers in the 20th Century – Who We Are – USPS". United States Postal Service. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
  11. ^ Meier, August; Rudwick, Elliott (1967). "The Rise of Segregation in the Federal Bureaucracy, 1900–1930". Phylon. 28 (2): 178–184. doi:10.2307/273560. JSTOR 273560.
  12. ^ a b Wolgemuth, Kathleen L. (April 1959). "Woodrow Wilson and Federal Segregation". The Journal of Negro History. 44 (2): 158–173. JSTOR 2716036.
  13. ^ Berg (2013), p. 307
  14. ^ Lewis, David Levering (1993). W. E. B. Du Bois: Biography of a Race 1868–1919. New York: Henry Holt & Company. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-4668-4151-2.
  15. ^ The alleged impetus behind this policy was to guard against applicant fraud; however, only 14 cases of impersonation/attempted impersonation in the application process were uncovered the year prior. Glenn, 91, citing December 1937 issue of The Postal Alliance.
  16. ^ Lewis, Tom (November 2, 2015). "How Woodrow Wilson Stoked the First Urban Race Riot". Politico. Retrieved August 9, 2022.

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

Davide King Personally, I see nothing wrong with your edits. The content you corrected is in line with reliable sources (such as Berg 2013) and certainly improve the article. Antiok 1pie (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Davide King please for future reference it is not difficult to tag or ping another editor on wiki and doing so is a common courtesy when you are aware of their involvement in the topic you're attempting to have a productive discussion regarding. Re the spoils' system, the term is linked accordingly but to its plain use in that section dims the tone of what was happening, but more importantly virtually none if even any sources use that term when referring to the historical events being described. The other changes that you claim to be objective are far from it and in making those changes you are disregarding prior discussions had as part of the GAN process for this article in addition to unilaterally trying to significantly alter long standing content. I can agree that perhaps some of your structural changes should remain and you should restore them separately. Berg is widely cited throughout this article-as well he should be as I highly regarded Wilsonian scholar, however Berg is also unapologetically sympathetic towards Wilson and it has been increasingly noted over the last 5-10 years that his works either consciously or subconsciously seek to deflect or downplay Wilson's racist tendencies. In the same vain, the view you present of Oswald Garrison Villard is extremely misleading. Villard supported Wilson's when he first ran for President and initially served as an apologist of his racist policies believing that Wilson had better intentions, however Villard quickly came realize that Wilson's agenda was in fact clearly not what he had been led to believe and morphed into a committed opponent of his. OgamD218 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OgamD218, sorry about that — you didn't reply to my message on your talk page, and I simply assumed you were already watching the page, so I forgot about it. Regarding the spoils system, the bottom line is that is a clear example not only of WP:PIPED but of WP:EASTEREGG too, so either don't link it at all for a better tone, or link it and spell it out directly. If sources do not use that term, that is more reason to unlink it in the first place rather than pipe it like that, and contradicting those sources that do not use that terminology; it may be bordering on WP:OR to link something you say sources do not actually refer to when discussing the events.

Please, entail me on how exactly my changes (which ones) are "far from it", and also link me to those discussions — I'm really curious to see whether there is a discussion where this section is discussed word-by-word, rather than generally (e.g. 1). GA doesn't imply one can no longer edit the page or try to further improve it or that the wording must remain perpetually the same (WP:OWNERSHIP), unless you think all my edits are somehow in bad faith (WP:GOODFAITH). As for Berg in the racial relations section, then my addition can simply be attributed rather than outright removed as you did. Also how is that view misleading? That is what Berg says, and is what my proposed text says too, I really don't understand you; perhaps we may add that he became an opponent of his, which is the only thing missing — of course, Berg does not actually says the bolded part here: "Villard supported Wilson's when he first ran for President and [initially served as an apologist of his racist policies] believ[ed] that Wilson had better intentions." But the rest, including my summary of the source, is on point and what it says at p. 307.

By your own standards, Berg must have been discussed in the GAN process, and since he is still widely cited, there seems to be no blacklisting — I simply expanded and contextualized what he actually says, and could be fixed by simply attributing it rather than remove it. Davide King (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive any structure/grammatical errors, it has been a long day. Accordingly, I am going to continue assuming good faith but I am going to have ask you to please knock it off with rephrasing what I say, drawing a separate/divergent conclusion and trying to attribute it to me. As an important aside, and I apologize because it is difficult to tactfully convey this especially via a wiki talk page but how thoroughly informed are you on this specific topic? I'm not saying you have less than an elementary knowledge of the subject don't get me wrong but some of this seems to just be off the cuff disagreeing. For example, the title of the wiki article for the bygone system where the US federal civil service was dominated by political appointees is the spoils system-it is common sense that this title/label carries an inherently negative connotation and always has-wiki page titles are based on many factors especially notoriety not universal historical applicability. I provided the link as appropriate to help better inform the reader as is standard but i will concede not absolutely necessary. However both contemporary and modern sources alike almost always distinguish where and when to refer to the system as the federal civil service or bureaucracy vs spoils system given the impression it carries-something of particular relevance here as the topic pertains to race and hiring. But, by all means if you are aware of a seperate wiki article centered on the system where federal employment was in mass determined by political appointment during the time period of 1896-1920 by all means link it.
Regarding your imo unnecessary (borderline dispersion) reference to ownership-being one of multiple editors who is thoroughly familiar with the long term development and improvement of this particular page is not a claim to ownership-accordingly it is not my job to go dig up past discussions that you can go find yourself. It is once again standard to retain content molded/approved/agreed by the wiki community during GAN-that is all that was said so please do not pretend to be refuting claims anything here is set in stone or "owned" just because you don't like it. I'll be honest: idk where you went in the final third of your argument, you can't seriously be defending including a quote as representative/general summary of a position that so fully contradicts Villard's ultimate conclusion re Wilson's racial policies as President. Villard was an outspoken critic of Wilson for virtually his entire time as President-It is cherry picking at best.
Regarding Berg, once again I will continue assuming good faith but I'm not going to have a debate with you on a point of contention you seem to have imagined. Berg is quoted throughout the article-possibly more so than any other source, no one said anything about blacklisting him and to cast that dispersion is just too absurd. OgamD218 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is titled "Spoils system", and while it mentions nepotism and cronyism, it doesn't say it is a negative or pejorative term, there is no section about etymology or terminology, so I didn't see any issue in unpiping the link and use the direct link instead; if you prefer the previous wording, no issue with that, but we must respect our linking MoS (WP:PIPED/WP:EASTEREGG/WP:OVERLINKING), and that is not the only linking issue I found, if you let me copyedit all the links to be in line with our MoS; e.g. elections links, why not have "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States" at WP:SEEALSO rather than pipe/Easter Egg it twice, etc. The bottom line is that I've been reverted only by you, another user agree with me, and you can't assume all the other users automatically agree with you, and of course I don't assume the reverse is true either, so let's ping them (Buidhe, BlueMoonset, Politicsfan4, Rjensen, et al.) and hear what they say rather than edit warring. Regarding Berg, it was an exaggeration on purpose because your previous wording suggested, from how I understood it, that Berg was being relied on too much, but that seemed to be your personal view; the GAN version relies heavily on him, so I thought it was no issue if I contextualized and expanded what Berg actually says in a cited page. But I think you're overlooking this and ignoring the other fixes I did (e.g. refs formatting, imrporing the refs bombing for the Liberia mission, fixing a single-sentence paragraph that was abrubtly separated from the relevant paragraph, etc.)

I could not read all the pages due to being Google Books but Berg 2013 does say this: "Oswald Garrison Villard thought that Wilson was not a bigot and supported progress for black people, and he was frustrated by southern opposition in the Senate, to which Wilson capitulated. In a conversation with Wilson, journalist John Palmer Gavit came to the realization that opposition to those views 'would certainly precipitate a conflict which would put a complete stop to any legislative program.'" In fact, this summary is very close to what Berg actually says in the book but enough to avoid verbatim. I've since revised this to address your concerns, and mention that he became of opponent of his that I must have missed form the page. So what I get from that is that Berg is saying Wilson capitulated to those Southern senators because he realized, as he told the journalist, that if he did not pander to them, they would not support his legislative agenda (The New Freedom). Perhaps I missed something in a previous or later page, but there is a part saying that, and the same page also discusses the federal segregation that is already discussed in the next paragraphs.1 I could very well have made a mistake, but I don't think your unilaterality and reverts are a good solution; we should work together—you should try to fix my good-faith mistakes, for example by expanding and clarying what Berg actually wrote (e.g. attribute to him, mention that Villard later became an opponent of his) if I misread him, not simply revert every single edit I make, without keeping even the slightest minor thing that was improved (e.g. refs formatting and good copy editing). Davide King (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA is not FA. And this article did not go through the most detailed or rigorous GAN that I have seen. (t · c) buidhe 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall you were a fairly active participant and probably the most experienced editor during GAN, accordingly I feel it best then and now to defer to you but with that said I do not recall you voicing any reservations re the article's quality by the end of the GAN process. @Davide King, I agree it is best to involve other editors and go from there. I will also affirm I would not object to you restoring the purely structural edits you mention above. I also never said nor is it my opinion that Berg is oversourced in this article. The section regarding Wilson and race was one that went through extensive revising during GAN and it was ultimately agreed that a separate article altogether would be best. What remains is a condensed summary of a detailed subject. I cannot say your position will be altered by doing so but I encourage you to consider reading Woodrow Wilson and race and from there determine if some of your proposed changes belong in the main Wilson article as opposed to there. OgamD218 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pompous Wilson

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

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

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

(Fix the "Wiorld" typo) 174.89.102.34 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Change "Later in 1920 the Wall Street bombing on September 16, killed 50 and injured hundreds in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil up to that point." to "Later in 1920 the Wall Street bombing on September 16, killed 40 and injured hundreds in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil up to that point." 50.4.97.167 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ––FormalDude (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodrow_Wilson&oldid=1115882002"