Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 11 April 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7.5 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7.5 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Woke appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 January 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Bloomberg Businessweek asked, "Is Misplaced Pages woke?" A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2017/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Woke.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyborghi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Watkina, Abamzai, Ujwalamurthy.

"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: "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 (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 wokeadvertising to which referred (Sobande: "'intersectional' feminist and Black social justice activist ideas 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 uses"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

  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 Misplaced Pages: 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: "'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 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:

'Letter on Justice and Open Debate,' 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: 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: Misplaced Pages: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: "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.

--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 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).

: 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' ersonal knowledge ... 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 . --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 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?

--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 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 ... . 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, "pinion pieces generally do not meet policy requirements as sources for facts about the topic." "Hodgdon seemed to agreewhen 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 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, 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, Holliday notes: "one of the most well know hashtags in th genre is #StayWokefrequently appear 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, who's also noted elsewhere as an important social critic 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, 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

Misplaced Pages 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)

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) - 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. Misplaced Pages 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): "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): ""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(William G. Cutler): "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: "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. 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."

1. Adam Goodheart (2012). 1861: The Civil War Awakening. Vintage Books. pp. 25–.

1. 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" (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): 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: At/soon after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, future abolitionist/politician/businessman) DeMortie arrived in Boston. DeMortie's sister, Louise (

1. 1906yarb&cretine(George Banghart Henry Swayze) - 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) - 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) - 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)

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 timenumerical 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.”10The 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): "The Know Nothings also had their own paramilitary organization called the Wide Awakes to intimidate immigrants on election day. // 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): "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.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)

   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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class culture articles
• Low-importance culture articles
• WikiProject Culture articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• High-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles