Talk:Woke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Re Awakening

I've referenced 2020jun11 time.com cover-story "America’s Long Overdue Awakening to Systemic Racism" here (diff): time/jun11cover"The Overdue Awakening"[1] - "For Many Who Have Spent Their Lives Fighting for Racial Equity, These Nationwide Protests and Moment of Reckoning Have Been a Long Time Coming." (Also, see Miroslav Hroch's generalization about "nationalistic" movements occuring[2] (with corollaries applicable to other types of social movements, perhaps): When a group (1) Has ruling class that shares under-class's own literary tradition and language; but, possession of this mutuality is "incomplete"/"interrupted" (2) Has educated class who reach conclusion the group as whole, now slumbering and "still unconscious", must "be awakened, revived, and made aware"; receive peer-group recognitions; and, "beg[i]n purposeful activity aimed at achieving all the attributes of a fully-formed [(]nation[)]..")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither of these sources mentions the term "woke" or the concept of "wokeness". Any connection to the topic of this article or the idea of "consequences for business" is WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis, according to the article "Washington" in the Sept. 1866 British magazine Fraser's, was part of the committee deciding what murals to put in the new capitol in Washington, D.C., within it, the Northeast's being represented by representations of seats of learning and of industry; the West, by steamboats and plows; and the South, by a black man sleeping on a bale of hay. As Fraser's correspondent relates: "Mr. Davis's single comment on the picture was—' What becomes of the South when that negro wakes up? ' The painting was rejected."

In Leila Amos Pendleton's 1912 A Narrative of the Negro (it seems the 2nd-published textbook of ["race vindicationist"] African[-American] history; with the first, by Edward A. Johnson, published in 1890), after an oral variant of the above, she says: "But the Negro in freedom at once woke up and began to buy the homes which his masters had owned, began to eagerly receive education, to acceptably fill high positions[.... ]His detractors were disappointed and chagrined and they agreed that 'the Negro must be kept down'[...]."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

1912's A Narrative of the Negro, although a primary source in relation to the African-American/independent historian Mrs. Pendleton herself; being 2ndarily so, as far as the word woke is concerned.

– Proposed text –:

Leila Amos Pendleton used the word woke in the context of racial awakening in her earlier race-vindicationistical historical work A Narrative of the Negro (1912). After relating how Jefferson Davis (who became president of the Confederate States of America) expressed skepticism with regard to the meaning symbolized by the sight of a slumbering black man on a bale of cotton, Pendleton wrote: "But the Negro in freedom at once woke up and began to buy the homes which his masters had owned, began to eagerly receive education, to acceptably fill high positions"; Pendleton's adding, "His detractors were disappointed and chagrined and they agreed that 'the Negro must be kept down'."

Sources

( – with our noting that use of woke in print and in a labor-movement context in the 1942 Negro Digest piece "Southern Awakening" by Prof. Redding [1st African-American prof. in "the Ivies," via Brown University in '49; later, 1st black prof. at Cornell, attaining there a named professorship], although dated more than a half a century before the term's recent revival, post-dates by a couple of score of years Pendleton's earlier use of woke in print, that is also within a context even more-closely aligned that at inauguration of the term's 21st-C. revival).
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Givens says Pendleton's book was an example of how "race vindicationism ... challenged dominant white sociological and historical story lines that portrayed blacks as irrational, subhuman, and outside of history". That's not the same as being "woke". Pendleton is using "woke" as a verb, not as a past participle or adjective. The metaphor of "waking up" to some possibility or situation is not limited to the topic of "woke(ness)". This is at best tangentially related without a published, secondary source making the connection. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"wp:NEO's" damn-break happening, with concern "War on woke"?

An excellent run down, of which, is here:

Politics.co.uk's editor, Ian Dunt:

". . It started, as it often does, with some gibbering nonsense in the Sunday Telegraph. Government briefings to the newspaper revealed that there would be a new two-pronged attack in its ‘war on woke’ – a phrase so mind-bendingly stupid the brain starts to shrink upon contact with it.

"Education secretary Gavin Williamson would be establishing a new position of “free speech champion” at the Office for Students to regulate things like no-platforming. . ."

Then, there's a take, in the UK-edition of the HuffPo – Nadine White:

". . 'Woke' is an ebonics (African American English) slang term that means being alert to injustice.

"But the term has been weaponised by some on the right, reducing struggles for equality to their symbols (toppling statues, renaming streets and using people’s chosen pronouns) instead of recognising them as part of more fundamental fights for people’s rights and safety.

"The use of 'woke' as an insult is seen by some as dogwhistle racism. . ."

---

Anyway, war-on-woke-'s phrasing, by means of its tone, pretty much looks askance at both sides, simultaneously, whether pro or con, in my opinion. — Any wa-hoohoo, for back-up "cites" ad abundantiam, see the following with concern to the British premier (plus a sprinkling re North Amer.-side of the Atlantic):

1. theeconomist[https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/02/18/tories-bet-on-culture-wars-to-unite-disparate-voters - Long before he or any of his readers had ever heard the term, Boris Johnson cast himself as the antithesis of all that is woke.
2. spectator[3] - In recent months, MPs have been piling pressure on Downing Street to step up and engage in a war on woke.
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
3. telegraph[4] - war on woke won't be won until it's no longer toxic to admit you're a conservative. The welcome fightback against identity politics
4. independent[5] - Boris Johnson had three months to realise a war on 'woke' was a very bad idea
5. financialtimes[6] - urged [Johnson] to declare a 'war on woke' to shore up the Tory base
6. thetimes[7] - Can Boris woo Biden while at war with woke?
7. bloomberguk[8] - Bloomberg Westminster: The War On Woke
8. cbc[9] - Quebec premier joins 'war on woke'
9. universitédemontréal[10] - Quebec premier joins 'war on woke'
10. marxist.com[11] - Tory 'war on woke' – a divisive distraction
11. washingtonpost[12] - Europe's Absurd and Hypocritical Aar against Wokeness
12. theweek[13] - Conservatives criticised for 'war on the woke'
13. politicoeu[14] - Britain's 'war on woke'
14. vox[15] - The Legal War on 'Cancel Culture' and 'Wokeness'
15. gqmagazineuk[16] - 'war on woke' in Britain's universities is insincere
16. newstateman[17] - Tories' nascent war on woke
17. columbia university economist jeffrey sachs[18] - The New War on Woke: State and national governments try to suppress critical race theory, social justice, and related concepts
18. theguardian[19] - Boris Johnson does have a strategy on racism after all. It's called a 'war on woke'
19. bylinetimes[20] - The 'War on Woke' & the Great Free Speech Czar Paradox
20. ukinachangingeurope[21] - Should No10 Prepare for a 'War on Woke'?
21. thedailybeast[22] - War on Woke: The British prime minister is desperate
22. nytimes[23] - 'Woke' American Ideas Are a Threat, French Leaders Say
23. nytimes' Michelle Goldberg [24] - Campaign to Cancel Wokeness: How the right is trying to censor critical race theory. It’s something of a truism, particularly on the right, that conservatives have claimed the mantle of free speech from an intolerant left that is afraid to engage with uncomfortable ideas. Every embarrassing example of woke overreach — each ill-considered school board decision or high-profile campus meltdown — fuels this perception.
24. city-journal[25] - Left has denounced the 'war on woke,' but it is afraid to defend the principles of critical race
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
25. women/equality minister elizabeth truss[26] - Equality should be for everyone - not just for the woke warrior's favoured few - My article in the Daily Mail . . Too many people have jumped on this woke bandwagon and lost sight of what most people want: a life in which they can live happily in a secure home, work in a good job and send their children to a decent school. Rather than engage with these priorities, the Left has been swept up by a warped ideology and all its bizarre obsessions. As a result, there is a misguided emphasis on policing our vocabulary so as not to offend, rather than policing our streets. And the woke brigade is angrier about the ‘sins’ of historical figures rather than trying to make a better life for those who live today.
26. spectator[27] - Liz Truss and the War on Woke
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
27. nytimes[28] - Nish Kumar’s satirical late-night show “The Mash Report” ran for four years on the public broadcaster. Some believe it was a casualty of a “war on woke.”
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

More than half (16) of these sources are opinion pieces or published in opinion journals/websites. What is the purpose of listing them here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

<initiatemessage>Although they cannot dominate, opinion pieces are very often of prime importance in giving encyclopedic coverage to subjects of controversy: such, as in our present case's sub-set of the culture wars. To save from repeatedly pushing the exact same combination on my keyboard (...and, Who knows? perhaps resulting in my developing a pernicious carpal-tunnel condition, or something!): When you subsequently come to refer to your contention w/o proper guidelines support, I'll simply write Excelsior! — or better yet, will copy and paste the present, turquoised comment, by way of my reply.<conclude message>--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is explicitly against policy: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source ... examples of primary sources include ... editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews.

You made a similar claim under § Criticism section above regarding featured articles, which I showed to be false. See also WP:V: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. Opinion pieces, as a rule, do not have such features. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the unreliable source Wikipedia: "Talking past each other" describing where people talk about different subjects while believing themselves talking about the same thing.

Inasmuch as the guidelines you cite are these among those on which I'm relying, I believe we've such a case of parallel verbiage here. In my foray into what 2ndary & primary credible sourcing might exist on subjects of interest, I include, yes, both. But, in buttress your contention that I'm incorrect in this, you quote (and, it seems to me quite oddly!): "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source.... – leaving me in a muddle, it impossible to avoid asking a pertinent and sincere question: How can I reference "interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources" to a secondary or tertiary source if, indeed, no primary sources whatsoever are to be included in what preliminary caches I amass of research?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

By citing secondary and tertiary sources. Talk pages are a place to discuss improvements to the article with other users, not a repository of preliminary caches ... of research. That's what user sandboxes and user pages in general are for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the thanks I get for illustrating a compound term's prevalence in British usage (esp. vis-a-vis the couple to small handful of times that "woke capitalism" is found in RSes)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But do any of these pieces directly remark on the usage as a thing in itself? It is fine to notice a trend, but it is another if RS consistently report on it. I don't see clear evidence of the latter (though perhaps it is hidden under the flood of articles). Jlevi (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NEO: An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Take these suggestions and thoughts of mine, though – such as any of mine – for what they might be worth, is all.

Anyway, many of the articles are about reactions to the woke movement (granted any readers of this thread believe such a thing exists) by Boris Johnson's government (plus, there are a couple about, for example, reactions of the same nature specifically by Republicans in the American Congress and in some U.S. states' legislative committees; etc.).

Also, by the way: How many times a term is used in a piece is not always a perfect arbiter of what topic the overall piece is about; as an example, this examination of onomatopoeia uses the word many times whereas the dozen paragraphs dedicated to the concept in this newspaper column only mentions that descriptor once.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Then propose changes based on articles ... about reactions to the woke movement, insofar as any "woke movement" exists, which is POV regardless. Otherwise this thread is a waste of time and energy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Derivatives

Meghan Daum's coinage of wokescenti

1. wbur[29] - [primary source] "...I was irritated by the smug vibe of many young activists within the new left. This vibe was especially observable in the ones who had embraced the concept of being 'woke,' a term borrowed from the black civil rights movement that signaled one’s allegiance to a more general ethos of progressive righteousness. (In the spirit of all of this, I coined my own term to describe the class of NPR-listening, New Yorker–reading, Slate-podcast-downloading elites once called the cognoscenti. They were now the wokescenti.) ..."
2. nytimes[30] - "... she expresses contrarian delight at John McWhorter ... ... sure to dismay those Daum calls the 'NPR-listening, New Yorker-reading, Slate-podcast-downloading' 'wokescenti.')
   MORE"Thirty-five and younger, this cadre occupies a new world, particularly if culturally 'woke.' ... Twittering S.J.W.s (social justice warriors) 'call out' and 'cancel' their oppressors. Daum acknowledges such behavior is understandable... "
3. washingtonpost[31] - "... Daum is hardly the first to complain about the excesses of the 'wokescenti,' to use her term, and she admits that her own irritation at the smug vibe ..."
4. newyorker[32] - "... Daum complains about the overuse of 'gaslighting' but fails to recognize her own carelessness with language, including her reliance on Internet shorthand. Her book is littered with found phrases, from 'purity policing' to 'virtue signalling' to 'cancel culture.' She has fallen into the right-wing trap of thinking of intersectional theory as a 'doctrine' rather than a frame of reference. She has proclaimed independence by joining another herd. ..."
   Ready for inclusion in our article, yet?
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
5. [33] - [Daum]: At its best, Woke Twitter elicits greater awareness and sensitivity around issues of social justice. At its worst, it functions as the purity police and calls people out for the slightest missteps beyond the bounds of intersectional doctrine.

I'm confused. You don't want to mention Nike and Gillette under § In business and marketing, but you want to include Daum's new book on the strength of a handful of trivial uses of a term she coined (one in literal parentheses)? isn't that a bit WP:PROMO-ish? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Keeping track of cute, common coinages for movement proponents; and, if the term becomes picked up by other than its originator, why not? (without necessarily mentioning in text-proper who coined it)? "The Awokening"] as a tag for the movement seems one to watch, too, IMO.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cute is POV, as is using "woke" for any movement. A handful of book reviews making trivial references to a term used by the author do not mean that the term has been picked up by the media. Even if it were, these would be primary sources for such usage. Unless reliable sources describe "wokescenti" as a common coinage, including it would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no argument for inclusion at this point. Jlevi (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Everyone's clever-in-their-own-timemind with these – witness elon musk's woketopia:

1. thehill[34] - "Elon Musk: Not Broke, Never Woke, And In on the Joke: Last weekend, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted out a shot at the 'woke' wave washing over our country: 'Woketopia. Battle for the Moral High Ground in this new game!'"
2. news-24.fr[35] - Elon Musk laughs at 'Woke Culture' with 'Woketopia' Jibe, Twitter says 'Ok, Boomer'
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Meghan Daum, "wokescenti", or improving the article in general? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf: Musk's commentary, although admittedly glancing, supplements Daum's, which, at, e.g., "At its best, Woke Twitter elicits greater awareness and sensitivity around issues of social justice. At its worst, it functions as the purity police and calls people out for the slightest missteps beyond the bounds of intersectional doctrine – is precisely spot on, with concern to woke's oft become-negative connotations' provenance (see the talkpage thread at #Main critique).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please provide an independent source for this analysis; otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

nytimes' Ligaya Mishan speaks of "a fear-mongering specter of wokeness" [36] "To say 'cancel culture,' then, is already to express a point of view, implicitly negative. . . persistently attributed to the extremes of a political left and a fear-mongering specter of wokeness, itself a freighted term, originally derived and then distorted from the Black vernacular “woke,” which invokes a spirit of vigilance to see the world as it really is. / cancel culture has uncomfortable kinship, as the American essayist Meghan Daum has written, to the 'broken windows' policing put into practice starting in the 1980s, based on a theory[ . . ]that cracking down on minor crimes would prevent larger ones. Instead, it led to the scourge of stop-and-frisk / Fear of cancel culture is itself a moral panic — a moral panic over moral panics, one orchestrated on high over those generated extempore below."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Daum is mentioned in connection with "cancel culture", not "wokeness" per se, let alone "wokescenti". Not every search result containing the desired keywords will contain useful information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Woke capitalism"

Under § In business and marketing, I removed the statement that woke capitalism ... refers to businesses' associations with liberal causes ... and thus avoidance of public displeasure, the latter part sourced to an Economist article from May 2019. There is only a brief mention of "woke capitalism" in the article, saying "More than a quarter of millennials said they had backed away from an organisation because of its political position ... Sending an illiberal message may drive workers and consumers away". This is both more specific and more equivocal than the idea that businesses can simply avoid "public displeasure" by signaling support for liberal causes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as how it goes that worker/consumer dissatisfaction is not what drives them away, although you lost me there, I trust that something might click in its regard if I kept thinking about it (which, full disclosure, I'm not inclined to do).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Them" in this case means millennials specifically, not the "public" at large. "Displeasure" could mean anything from mild irritation to violent hatred. The word "may" (as in "may drive consumers and workers away") introduces uncertainty that is lost with the phrasing "thus avoidance of public displeasure". It's all mentioned rather in passing , which is a poor basis for encyclopedic information. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a minimalist when it comes to deletionism but truly there's a multiplicity of such companies/products that could be mentioned as trying to benefit from woke capitalism. If we're to throw a couple out there randomly, maybe it'd be best to avoid any appearance of such favoritism by our not giving mention to specific companies'/products' names? (Kashana Cauly 1 February 2019 The Believer, issue 123[37]: "Word: Woke": "...Lyft is woke—because John Zimmer, the company’s president, said so. One of the cash registers at the Whole Foods in my neighborhood declares, via a fluorescent lamp on its side, that it’s 'staying woke.' ...")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not going to argue with the removal, but Nike and Gillette were the central focus of the other cited Economist article. That isn't random. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC) edited 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

cmt - Not only theeconomist, through its collective voice that "an illiberal message may drive workers./.away", but, so-too, forbes[38] (in specific, its CEO) believe workers' satisfaction drives stakeholder capitalism ah (what, now, per WP's sufficient-RSes threshold, we can also term) "woke" capitalism: Alan Murray: "The outpouring of CEO sentiment after the George Floyd killing wasn’t just because 'woke' CEOs suddenly decided to speak up. It happened because talented employees demanded it, and talent is today’s top driver of corporate value."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

These are trivial uses. An editorial by Fortune's CEO Allan Murray that uses "woke" once in quotation marks is not a reliable source for any interpretion/synthesis about "woke capitalism". Per WP:NEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). Murray's point seems to be that "stakeholder capitalism" is not the result of CEOs getting "woke". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• To explain this diff: The woke[-sensitive ]advertising to which referred (Sobande: "'intersectional' feminist and Black social justice activist ideas [as] are drawn on in marketing content related to the concept of being 'woke'(invested in addressing social injustices)") may or may not include woke itself; eg, Gillett's ad that received notice by theeconomist & others[39] uses[ seemingly "femadvert"-term ]"toxic masculinity".--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• As an aside w rgd to this edit: @ Google scholar, fwiw, I get 124 results for 'woke washing.' ('woke capitalism' gets [#71). Should 'woke washing' be named en lieu of 'woke capitalism'? named along with it? or, the concept of which to be considered as subsumed in our mention of 'woke capitalism'?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Your source in that edit was a Forbes.com contributor, essentially a self-published source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Main critique

There is a common critique (eg: over-fear of offence, etc., found in mainstream news-media RSes (albeit this one to which I've linked is, admittedly in an op-ed), of what's commonly associated with the word woke; and, my main critique of our article is that this reaction hasn't found its way into this article yet.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Where are these mainstream news-media RSes? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Since we're talking about a neologism, the usual go-to option of text books (per wp:NPOVS "...sources that are designed to fulfill a function similar to Wikipedia: to provide an overview of debates without becoming enmeshed in them. These sources refrain from the cornerstone of academic work (forming and defending controversial hypotheses) and instead offer a perspective on the field to students. They are called textbooks, and in the opinion of this author, their use should be encouraged above all else.") -- can't an option; ditto, as of yet, much in the way of scholarship. Bringing us, instead, to:

"... A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right-wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, a good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

"It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

"This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics, the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right."

Anyway, with regard to the critique, pretty much in a nutshell (surprisingly) . . . this is it:

nbcnews[40]: "'SNL' parodied a game show, 'Can I Play That,' in which a diverse set of working actors test their skills at choosing roles in the 'woke' era. / "The host, played by [Kenan] Thompson, explained, 'This game is produced by Twitter. Twitter, one mistake and we'll kill ya.'"

Also, from a review by Yale's Sam Sackeroff's published in thelosangelesreviewofbooks[41]:

'Letter on Justice and Open Debate,' [published in Harpers] that cautioned against the 'forces of illiberalism' that were threatening the 'free exchange of information and ideas'[: ]While it alluded to Trump, its main target was Woke Twitter and the increasingly popular practice of de-platforming. Reception was mixed, with some, like Michelle Goldberg, agreeing with the letter’s premise that “even sympathetic people will come to resent a left that refuses to make distinctions between deliberate slurs, awkward mistakes and legitimate disagreements,” and others, like Gabrielle Bellot, describing it as “a carefully veiled invitation to use dehumanizing rhetoric under the bastion of the 'free exchange of ideas.' "

– in any case, when I've come up with a suggested edit, I'll bring it to Talk (and a collection of possible supports, I'll post here: User:Hodgdon's secret garden/sandbox/woke).
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOVS is an essay and is directly contradicted by WP:NPOV: when reputable sources contradict one another ... describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves ... drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Neither of your sources explains what "woke" means. See WP:NEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Of the various editorial decision-tree nodes, wp:NEO concerns (1) when to create an article on a neologism (2) when able to use a neologism in an article, both of which thresholds have been met.

1. See: Wp:NEO, concerning when To support an article about a particular term: [W]hen secondary sources become available,[*] it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.)
2. When this threshold met, see: Wikipedia:NOTEWORTHY

   Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists
   The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

________

*thus enabling the ability to "cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term[...], not just sources that use the term")
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEO is not just about notability. It also focuses on avoiding original research, which applies to all articles. Citing random opinions does raise due weight concerns (it's not clear what reliable opinions are supposed to be). Feel free to cite cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Damon Young's belief woke garnered ironic usage early

According to writer Damon Young's anecdotal observations "In Defense of 'Woke'" in the nytimes[42]: "Woke was used exclusively by black people to refer to other black people ... to recognize when that pro-blackness was a performance."

For a 2ndary source we need someone's reference to Young on this point.

MORE

Young: ". 'woke.' Rarely has a colloquialism had as many mutations. ./. Woke, however, described a racial awareness and cynicism so extra that it bordered on parody; where you’re so awake that your 'third eye' saw things that aren’t there. ./. Also, woke was used exclusively by black people to refer to other black people. It was our word, because only we were mindful enough to recognize when that pro-blackness was a performance. As the aughts approached, the term started to lose its racial connotation, becoming instead a catchall for any sort of progressive behavior. ./. And now? Well, woke floats in the linguistic purgatory of terms coined by us that can no longer be said unironically, levitating next to 'swag' and 'twerk' in the 'Words Ruined by White People' ether. What was a compliment just a few years ago has become, at best, an eye roll. ./. Admittedly, woke's current iteration has been earned. It became a thing you can accessorize like a hoodie. But to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable. / And when I find myself giving the insufferably woke a hard time, I remember: Someone has to stay awake. ."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If we need a secondary source for this to be useful, what's the point of posting this here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I think coverage, successfully(*) investigated & documented, of how [Edited: whether] ironic usage has come to outstrip "non-"^† will benefit the encyclopedia ( . . . and, also, that this issue remains an alive and not a wp:Dead horse!).

Overall footnote: Your inquiries often pertain to what may be my "process" understandings. Which assistance is appreciated, surely. Still, they put a lot of focus <chuckles> — on me!; thus, let me "return the favor" and say how it is that your seeming equanimity/coolness of disposition^‡ well-compensates for this oft-need of mine to resort to self-justification in response to the Socraticisms: So, thanks!

_______

(*)As the Nobel laureate Bob Dylan observes: An individual isn't in need of a weatherperson in order to know which way the wind is blowing ( . . . with the caveats stated @ wp:Crystal).

^† [Edited]: Personal knowledge ( – viz., mine and others' observations).

^‡ As an aside: /-froid/ (which I idiosyncratically associate with 1st-syll. of ur username) means "coolness."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for users' [p]ersonal knowledge ... [or] observations about a topic. Users' opinions about which way the wind is blowing are irrelevant here. Please cite a published, reliable source for how ironic usage has come to outstrip [non-ironic usage]. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Inasmuch as my sense of humor appears to be unappreciated (! :~), I've re-edited my three-dozen word sentence (immediately above).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than prolong a continuing stale mate between our differing opinions about reasonable-or-unreasonable process considerations versus unreasonable-or-reasonable-or-unreasonable considerations of content, I took the liberty to initiate a wp:3O(?).

  Impartial summary of dispute - I argue that, per eg wp:PARTISAN, upon wikieditor discretion, opinions such as Damon Young's opinion about lessening nonironic use of woke may be thought worthy of inclusion. User:Sangdeboeuf's argument (please tell me if I misunderstand it) is that my suggestion of coverage being given opinions such as Young's do not merit "promotion of further investigation" in that it can be readily seen they "do not meet policy requirements." (Note: I've near-quoted from the wp:TALK's top-most bullet-point (underscoring mine): "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."). --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It has been pointed out multiple times (mostly archived) by multiple users on this talk page that opinion pieces generally do not meet policy requirements as sources for facts about the topic. Continuing to take up space on the talk page with lengthy quotes from primary opinion sources is disruptive.
    Hodgdon seemed to agree with the former point when they stated, For a 2ndary source we need someone's reference to Young on this point. Are they now saying Young's essay is a valid source on its own? If so, WP:PARTISAN does not support inclusion, inasmuch as opinion pieces generally fail the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control [and] a reputation for fact-checking. This specific source, written largely as a personal reflection, also lacks independence from the topic the source is covering.
    Whether the source is "biased" or "partisan" isn't the issue; as I stated in an earlier thread, I'm not opposed to these sources because they're biased, but because they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, hence the author(s)' opinions are WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The very rigidly defined editorial decision tree that you've patented has certain advantages in its predictability; its most obvious drawback, however, is in its pre-loadings of the dice of empiricism by way of an undermining of the conscientious catholicity of eg WP's "wp:POV" guideline, in the interest of favoring voices that it seems inevitably turn out to be those conceived of as noble. Anyway, by this point, it's hard to determine who between the two of us is WP:BLUDGEONing the other; the difference is I don't insist it's my-way-or-the-highway! Your methodology might be very common among Wikipedians, for all I know – but, note such things as its swiss-cheese approach to wp:RS which conflates the inclusion of unsupported fact (such as: "Woke has often been used ironically") with the inclusion of sourced opinion (such as: "According to Damon Young, woke has often been used ironically), thereby twisting it, wp:DUE, & wp:POV, etc., to a protocol plainly not nearly equivalent with the much more supple one in such guidelines. Can we somehow agree to disagree, as far as Talkpage goes?

Analogy

My analogy would be the actual Edwardian event of a push to purge Oxford's library of atrocious (literally conspiratorial and inflammatory) in-house debate transcripts and such that were critical of the Oxford Movement. As with a wikitalkpage, a "majoritarian" !vote at the Oxford Union apparently would have effected this: But, it failed! Those criticizing the idea reasoned that doing so would be analogous to deleting Cicero's atrocious attacks on noble Julius Caesar. (The more I think about this analogy the more I like it: One side sees Oxford–Oxford Movement essentially as nearly equivalent in their missions, "her" library & the Oxford Union both as academics-supporting handmaids/manservants; the other sees Oxford–"her" library&ndashthe Oxford Union as nearly equivalent in their missions, avoiding hurt feelings among the Oxford Movement's adherents subservient thereto. Hah!)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're proposing. The article already mentions pejorative/ironic use of the term, cited to reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: It is difficult to understand what is being proposed. An effort to state it more plainly and comprehensibly might be very helpful toward resolution here. Insofar as the question as to whether more than an opinion piece is necessary to include something in the article, my answer would be that yes, more and better reference material than that would be needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort to provide a third opinion to the dispute, User Seraphimblade.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Continuing to take up space on the talk page with lengthy quotes from primary opinion sources [etc. etc.] ... . Believing my contributions to the article's mainspace and discussion helpful: Please see wp:OWN – as I think appreciation thereof possibly blinkered in a would-be dominating editor by a highly individualistic yet overly narrow editing/discussion methodology.
2. I re-(X what number?)-iterate: I intended/ Young Re "woke" chichiness as qua opinion, not fact. As User Sangdeboeuf re-(etc.)minds us, "[O]pinion pieces generally do not meet policy requirements as sources for facts about the topic." "Hodgdon seemed to agree[...]when they stated, For a 2ndary source we need someone's reference to Young on this point." Having never disagreed, I do thus remain in agreement. "Are they now saying Young's essay is a valid source on its own?" OK. Let me explain. <thoughtfully pauses> I believe it preferable to find more than solely self-support (or SSS) for, say, some primarily-sourced opinion that in context would be pithy and useful. That said, according to my understanding of the guidelines, there existing one or two SSS instances in an article do not render it "an article based primarily on primary sources."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes Young's opinion/experience relevant then? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Awaiting glosses for a neologism from ostensibly-neutral corporate media/the academy/writers of texts saves from the definitional free-for-all proffered among the commentariat (to wit: professionals' descriptions through multifarious journalistic/academic/political/et al lenses, of the mass ventings of/listening to voices of subjugation currently amplified through ubiquitous, interactive media; and of the distinct-yet-amorphous spirit comprising these voices' genesis (such that individual approaches to definition/applications/when-acceptable-ends-met ad infinitum can end up mutually contradictory: See pedagogist Timothy Babulski's unraveling[43] of various of these threads and his examinations of them, for example).

Hwooh! Anyway, my argument for our declining to swiss-cheese out wp:YESPOV from wp:POV is that by so doing, we entirely miss some nuances of intrinsic importance entirely. For example, in the current case, our article very accurately reflects and even amplifies e.g. UofMinn linguist Anatoly Liberman's professional-and-expert observation-in-passing at oxford press,[44] of our current year's 17mar: "woke and cancel culture have become words of the day."

But, we've missed the boat reflecting e.g. the impression that Penn's likewise professional-linguist Nicole Holliday has of how woke's original meaning among African Americans was becoming somewhat abandoned with its appropriation (my paraphrase; direct quoting: Of 27dec2916 and at oxford dictionaries,[45] Holliday notes: "one of the most well know hashtags in th[e "black liberation"] genre is #StayWoke[, ./. ]frequently appear[ing] in tweets"" – Yet, she argues (as in-some-measure informed by her African-American status, perhaps) that woke, "racially sanitized for a mainstream audience" and "removed from its ties to black communities as well as its reference to black consciousness and political movements," "can no longer perform the function of promoting and indexing black consciousness and liberation.")

Motivated by my anecdotal observations, I suggested filling in this absence by a reference to Young: who is a go-to opinion writer for the US's de-facto newspaper of record, this toward reader enlightenment about culture's nexus with race,^{nytimes(Damon Young)} who's also noted elsewhere as an important social critic^{[https://theundefeated.com/features/damon-young-of-very-smart-brothas-new-book-what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-blacker/ theundefeated('blackhistoryalways')} verysmartbrothers@theroot(ed.inchief) motherjones &c&c ( – not to mention, language commentator: including, along with "woke": "motherf*cker-as-slur,-endearment,-or-rhythmic-intensifier"; "people of color"; and some others).

Okay okay okay: After lunch, if my wife lets me – I mean[ remains amenable to my editing here], I'll come back, fwiw, with a proposed edit. (Which is to say: per Damon Young!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If Holliday's statement is WP:DUE, we should include it. Any filling in the gaps in one source with another source seems WP:SYNTHY to me. If no more reliable sources have commented on this, that's a red flag that the material is not encyclopedic. RS guidelines allow for citing opinion pieces by recognized experts. In my understanding that doesn't extend to important social critics, which itself is POV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia Assumes good faith: this article is deeply biased towards one side of the political spectrum. Do not remove the NPOV Unless you met the good faith criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.148.125 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not explained why you believe it is biased, what you believe is missing, or proposed reliable sources which support your proposed changes. It is unhelpful to demand that other editors read your mind to try and figure out how the article violates NPOV and what you think should be added, removed, or modified. In accordance with WP:DETAG, I have removed the tag accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the article completely misrepresents the use of the word here in the UK in 2021. Woke means 'excessively woke' (in the Wikipedia context of the word). I looked at a few recent newspaper articles - Woke is always perjorative. ... "accused of being woke" ... "wokies" ... How is it used in the USA? (I'm not the writer of the paragraphs above - I tried to add something to the article but it was removed ... by Wikipedia wokies ?!)

From the Washington Post - "wokeness” and “cancel culture” — two amorphous terms, with the former now often invoked as a pejorative for overzealous left-wing dogmatism, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:1594:e600:c896:8b53:b0d0:4cbc (talk • contribs) 08:27, April 27, 2021 (UTC)

Wide Awakes

diff - wikipedia: "The Wide Awakes never marched anywhere in the South, in 1860, but they represented the South’s greatest fear, an oppressive force bent on marching down to their lands, liberating the slaves and pushing aside their way of life. Their outfits and equipment only further incited this fear with beliefs that 'they parade at midnight, carry rails to break open our doors, torches to fire our dwellings, and beneath their long black capes the knife to cut our throats.'"
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

1. 1860aneyeopenerforthewideawakes(Elizur Wright)[46] - statistics, like those of Helper, can never adaquately inform us. No man can guage it without traveling with his eyes open in both Free and Slave States; and any man who has travelled in both, without having both his eyes and ears shut, may safely be appealed to to testify that the wrong is incalculable.

Hmmm. Wikipedia also says:

Abraham Lincoln: Nevertheless, the campaign of 1856 was waged almost exclusively on the slavery issue—pitted as a struggle between democracy and aristocracy—focusing on the question of Kansas. The Republicans condemned the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery, but they advanced a program of internal improvements combining the idealism of anti-slavery with the economic aspirations of the North. The new party rapidly developed a powerful partisan culture, and energetic activists drove voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers. People reacted with fervor. Young Republicans organized the "Wide Awake" clubs and chanted "Free Free Labor, Free Men, Frémont!"

And, I've now read elsewhere that the Wide Awakes were formed for Fremont's candidacy. I'll research this point after lunch.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

1. All sorts of sources credit the Hartford Courant for Wide-Awakes's coinage, in coverage given the Lincoln partisans who marched at (before? after? during?) abolitionist Cassius Clay's "famous" speech there on 25feb1860 – Eg Ronald C. White's award-winning A. Lincoln (2009):[47] "Lincoln was escorted to his hotel by the "Wide Awakes," a newly formed group of young Republican men who marched in solemn military procession with torches held aloft. They adopted their name from a recent Hartford Courant description of them as "wide awake.""
2. sep1887thecenturyvol34(John G. Nicolay & John Hay)[48]: ""Lincoln's Nomination and Election" §"Lincoln Nominated at Chicago" ./. Two of the young men who were to carry torches, D. G. Francis and H. P. Blair, being dry-goods clerks, in order to protect their clothing from dust and the oil liable to fall from the torches, had prepared capes of black cambric, which they wore in connection with the glazed caps commonly worn at the time. Colonel George P. Bissell, who was marshal, noticing the uniform, put the wearers in front, where the novelty of the rig and its double advantage of utility and show attracted much attention. It was at once proposed to form a campaign club of fifty torch-bearers with glazed caps and oil-cloth capes instead of cambric; the torch-bearing club to be "auxiliary to the Young Men's Republican Union." A meeting to organize formally was appointed for March 6th; but before the new uniforms were all ready, Abraham Lincoln addressed a meeting in Hartford on the evening of March 5th. After his speech, the cape wearers of the previous meeting with a number of others who had secured their uniforms escorted Mr. Lincoln to the hotel. The club was formally organized on the following night. Mr. William P. Fuller, city editor, had, in noticing this meeting for organization, written in the "Courant" of March 3d: "THE WIDE AWAKES.--The Republican club-room last evening was filled as usual with those who are going to partake in the great Republican triumph in this State in April next," etc., etc. The name "Wide Awakes" was here applied to the Republican Young Men's Union, torch-bearers included; but at the meeting of March 6th, the torch-bearers appropriated it by making it the distinctive title to their own special organization, which almost immediately, there as elsewhere, swallowed up the names and the memberships of other Republican clubs."
3. "Bloody"-KS non-slavers, returning there in 1857 who'd previously been run out of state by the slavers' posse, allegedly adopted for the name of their own posse the "wide awake" society apparently (according to the chronicler Wm. Cutler's implied folk etymology) in emphasis of intended vigilance against their being re-dispossessed – 1883theearlyhistoryofbourbon-co[KS](William G. Cutler)[49]: "In 1857, the Free-State men, driven from their homes the year before, began to return. A considerable number of new settlers entered the county this year, so that with increased strength they acquired increased confidence in their ability to maintain their rights. As a preliminary step to the regaining possession of their stolen stock and claims they organized themselves into a "wide awake" society, in opposition to the "dark lantern lodge" of the Pro-slavery men."
4. 1912kansas:a-cyclopediaofstatehistory[50]: "In order to gain possession of the claims from which they had been driven , they organized a " Wide Awake " society , in opposition to the "Dark Lantern" lodges of the pro-slavery men. [Organizers' names.] The meetings were held at different settlers' cabins at intervals, to avoid surprise by the men of the "Blue Lodges." When all the plans of the "Wide Awakes" were perfected, they notified the pro-slavery men who had seized claims that did not belong to them, that they must leave."
5. Adam Goodheart (2012). 1861: The Civil War Awakening. Vintage Books. pp. 25–.

Chapter 1: "Wide Awake"

... across the North, almost imperceptibly at first, a grassroots army was banding together ... Some proslavery men claimed it was born that summer as part of a vast and sinister conspiracy in the West ... Republicans denied this, saying they could trace its origins back to a similar organization in the campaign of ’56. / Eventually, though, the explanation that gained the most currency was a tale about five young dry-goods clerks in Hartford, Connecticut. ... // ... similar groups were forming across the country ... A first glimpse of a Wide Awake battalion on parade was a strange, even frightening, experience. Late at night, city dwellers would be startled from their sleep by the rhythmic crashing of a drum drawing closer and closer. Rushing to the window, they would see the darkened street below them suddenly blaze up with fire as a broad row of men with torches rounded the corner in marching formation, and more followed, rank upon rank, their boots striking the cobblestones in perfect cadence. ... / ... The sinister symbol of the new organization, painted on its banners and printed on its membership certificates, was a single all-seeing, unblinking eye.40 / There were special clubs of German Wide Awakes and Irish Wide Awakes. In some places, women formed Wide Awake units and, wearing the same familiar hats and cloaks, rode on horseback alongside the marching men.42 The one thing nearly all members had in common is that they were young—many were teenagers not even old enough to vote. ... “Schoolboys have become so excited by the sport in hanging Abolitionists that the schools are completely deserted,” one Texas paper reported. ... By the time the vigilantes finished their work, somewhere between thirty and one hundred blacks and whites had been killed ... without a single person ever caught in any act of sabotage or insurrection. ... sometimes mobs formed, screaming, “Kill the damn Wide Awakes.” ... often it was the Wide Awakes themselves who started the brawls. In New York, one company attacked a firehouse at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Thirteenth Street, smashing the glass and woodwork with their “Lincoln” axes ... a youthful army streamed into Boston from all over New England. ... Railroad cars wobbled and steamboats rocked precariously as men and boys arrived in groups of hundreds from county seats and market towns in upland ... by the thousands. They carried bundles of oilskin cloth folded under their arms and torches waiting to be lit. ... The Wide Awake rally of October 16, 1860 ... the austere brick mansion of Charles Sumner was ablaze with candles in every window, and rank upon rank of men cheered lustily as they passed.52 ...

1. Goodheart, cont.: From a corner on Dover Street, William Lloyd Garrison was watching. Twenty-five years earlier, almost to the day, a mob had tied a rope around him and dragged him through the streets of Boston, howling for the blood of the Negro-loving abolitionist. Now he stood, bundled up against the autumn chill, while company after company swung into view. As the banners passed, he read them one by one: Vigilance the Price of Liberty; No More Slave Territory; The Pilgrims Did Not Found an Empire for Slavery. But the sight that made his heart leap was the company of West Boston Wide Awakes: two hundred black men marching proudly in uniform, keeping stride in perfect tempo with their white comrades, under a banner that read God Never Made a Tyrant or a Slave. ... On a rainy Boston morning, meanwhile, “vote distributors,” the men who handed out the ballots with each party’s slate of candidates printed on them, patrolled outside the polling places in each ward. So did the Wide Awakes, dressed in their civilian clothes and without torches. ... Vote casting was more or less public business in those days—the rival parties’ vote distributors, who usually happened to be on the burly side, hovered close to see whose ballot you dropped into the box ... In neighborhoods with many black voters, white politicians stood outside the polls shaking hands and addressing everyone as “Sir”—the only time until next election day, the Post hinted, that colored men would enjoy this extraordinary honor. (Massachusetts was one of five states, all of them in New England, that allowed free blacks to vote.56) ... Wendell Phillips strode onstage to address a large audience of abolitionists in the Tremont Temple, just off the Common. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he intoned as the hall fell momentarily quiet, “if the telegraph speaks truth, for the first time in our history, the slave has chosen a President of the United States.”

'Underground RR'

Stephen David Kantrowitz (2013). More Than Freedom: Fighting for Black Citizenship in a White Republic, 1829-1889. Penguin Books. p. 265. ISBN 9780143123446.:

Under the leadership of Lewis Hayden(*) and Mark De Mortie(**), they formed one of the city's "Wide-Awake" clubs – a marching company whose men promoted the candidates in public parades and worked to worked to get out the vote on election day. In October a hundred or more uniformed and torch-bearing "West Boston Colored Wide-Awakes" paraded across the channel and on to Chelsea, in company with several white Wide-Awake companies.

DeMortie: "In 1851, I went to Boston and met Mr. Lewis Hayden; I told him that many more men would run away if they had the means[... etc.]" (from "Men of Vision (No.) I.: Mark Réné Demortie", by Pauline E. Hopkins, in the Feb. 1916 New Era Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly Devoted to the World-Wide Interests of the Colored Race (vol. 1, no. 1; Pauline E. Hopkins, ed.). ______
(*)Lewis Hayden, figure in the underground railroad in Boston - sharing story of his escape and facilitated others' sharing theirs with Harriet Beecher Stowe when she was researching Uncle Tom's Cabin, written "expressly to show up the workings of the Fugitive-Slave Law." Norfolk VA undergd RR figure was the "uneducated freeman 'Dr.' Harry Lundy ... in turn assisted by—
(**)Mark Renie (or Réné) DeMortie (image here on pg. 31). Encyclopedia Virginia (Brent Tarter)[51]: b. in slavery in Norfolk VA; emancipated, 1850, "a few weeks before his twenty-first birthday. He assisted other men and women who fled slavery by way of the Underground Railroad in Virginia." AfricanAmericanNat'lBiography[52]: At/soon after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, future abolitionist/politician/businessman) DeMortie arrived in Boston. DeMortie's sister, Louise ([https://creolegen.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/louise-demortie-pic.png (photograph ... a dramatic reader, singer, and philanthropist), emancipated, early 1850s.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

1. 1906yarb&cretine(George Banghart Henry Swayze)[53] - ch.xxxiii 'Negro Newspaper Convention' ./. The incubatory stages of reconstruction, with the native Negro an essential integral, gleamed with shining opportunities for the colored wide - awakes to rush into arenas of political function, and, by the influx of increasing thousands of virgin colored votes, they were prematurely landed there by their enthusiastic Republican colored followers.
2. 2020rebelsinthemaking(William L. Barney)[54] - ch.9 'The Confederacy' ./. A South Carolina editor was furious that “colored wide awakes” formed in support of the Republicans in the campaign of 1860.
3. 2012morethanfreedom(Stephen Kantrowitz)[55] - ch.1 'A Place for "Colored Citizens"'§'The Winter of Our Discontent' ./. In October a hundred or more uniformed and torch—bearing "West Boston Colored Wide-Awakes" paraded across the channel and on to Chelsea, in company with several white Wide—Awake companies.
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

1861, Goodheart (This precedes quotes from Goodheart above.) - The capital of New England—still in those days almost a separate principality within the union of states—was also the capital of the abolitionist movement. ... In 1854, when an escaped slave named Anthony Burns had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act, an urban mob—variously composed of free Negro laborers, radical Unitarian ministers, and others—gathered to free him. ... Democratic newspaper editors and stump speakers, far more than any Northern Republicans, began turning the election into a national referendum on slavery, race, and equality in the very broadest sense—often in the ugliest possible terms. ... “Today,” [Senator William H.] Seward proclaimed to the wildly cheering throng, “the young men of the United States are for the first time on the side of freedom and against slavery.”44 --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Douglas anti-nativist; Lincoln, not so much (at least openly)

Matt Fackler (Fall 2010). "Holding Together the Multifaceted Republican Party: The Primary Reason Why Abraham Lincoln Was Able to Win the Presidential Election of 1860" (PDF). The Menlo Roundtable (7). "

§"Lincoln: The Former Whig and Born Diplomat" ./. Lincoln was the best choice for ex-Know Nothings since he had never cast himself as an open opponent of their Nativist beliefs. Stephen A. Douglas, on the other hand, had done so.[...]Lincoln was also a more attractive option for the ex-Know Nothings because he was an ex-Whig, just as many Know Nothings were.

1. Matt Fackler (cont.): §"Mobilization of Young Men by the Wide Awakes" ./. the Republican Party aided Lincoln’s victory through the formation and support of the Wide Awakes, a quasi-military political marching club that successfully encouraged large numbers of young male northerners to vote for Lincoln. The presidential election of 1860 had the highest percentage voter turnout rate to that time[...]numerical proof of the success of the “get out the vote” efforts of the Wide Awakes. Young men, who typically had not voted in past elections, were swept up in the energy and commotion generated by the parades and torchlight processions conducted by the Wide Awakes. An article in the New York Herald attested to this fact when it described the Wide Awakes as “the greatest feature of the campaign of 1860: semimilitary in character, political in purpose, and…unparalleled in the political annals of our country.”10[...]The role of the Wide Awakes, however, was not limited to inspiration. They were also charged with the task of rounding men up on Election Day and “encouraging” them to vote for Lincoln."
2. 16dec2011'theknownothings:fromtriumphtocollapse'(Patrick Young)[56]: "The Know Nothings also had their own paramilitary organization called the Wide Awakes to intimidate immigrants on election day.⁴ // Footnote 4: "When the Know Nothing movement disintegrated and many of its activists joined the Republican Party, the new party’s paramilitary was also called the “Wide Awakes.”"
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
3. 1906theknow-nothingpartya-sketch(Humphrey Joseph Desmond)[57]: "On the first Sunday of June, 1854, an anti-Catholic preacher was escorted through Brooklyn by a Know-Nothing mob of 5,000. This "no - Popery demonstration collided with an Irish mob, and a free fight ensued. On the following Sunday the disturbance was renewed. During the spring of 1854, a young man named Patten, organized in New York a nativist secret society for younger men. They were known as the Order of the American Star, and sometimes as The Wide-Awakes, from their rallying cry.
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Louis Dow Scisco coined the term "nativism" in this, his PhD thesis--> Louis Dow Scisco (1901). "Ch. 4: Political Nativism in New York State". Columbia Studies in the Social Sciences. Vol. 13. Columbia University Press. pp. 94-95.

   (ch.IV) "Rise of the Know-Nothing Order, 1853-1854" ./. — Appearance of the Wide Awakes in 1854 — ./. William W. Patten conceived the idea of founding a nativist secret society for the younger men who were ineligible to the Know-Nothing organization.[...M]ore often they were known as the "Wide-Awakes," from their rallying cry. It was this society whose members were at the front in the street disturbances and which gave rise to a certain style of hat the name of the "wide-awake," because favored by the members. By the middle of June the white felt "wide-awake" hats were everywhere deemed the insignia of nativism, and exposed the wearers to attack from Irishmen at very short notice.

   "
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Alvin F. Harlow, Old Bowery Days (New York: D. Appleton, 1931)[58]

   the American Party maintained an attitude of secrecy and mystery. Whenever a member was asked a question regarding the organization, he professed ignorance — whence the nickname "Khow-Nothings,” applied to them by other partisans. Their meetings were held in secret places ... // ... One of the most famous of the Fascist societies was ... known as Wide Awakes. It was first intended for boys too young for admittance to other organizations, but gradually increased its age limit and became at length, in New York, at least, more or less of a hoodlum band. ... The members wore white felt hats of peculiar shape, and their rallying cry was “Wide awake! Wide awake!” ... / p.303 / // In 1857 ... Just what was the political complexion of the Bowery Boy gang at this time it is hard to determine. They were long in alliance with the native American element; but ... the New York Express just after the great riot of 1857 insisted that the Bowery Boys then represented the Custom House wing of the local Democracy and the Dead Rabbits another clique. Those were days of factions, split-ups, and recantations. ... The Bowery Boys spread the report that the Dead Rabbits were coming ... while a counter-rumor in the Five Points had it that the Know-Nothings and members of the newly-organized Republican Party were planning to burn St. Patrick's Cathedral. //// The demise of the Know-Nothing party did not mean that Native Americanism was dead. But its importance was paling somewhat before the greater problem of a division between the states over slavery.

   
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)