This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is not exactly what I expected it to be. While I aware that the concept of "cool" originates in from Black American culture, I'm a little unsure about the deeper background. It is a little disconcerting that the main source for this article is a 30+ year old art exhibition catalogue. Brian Schlosser42 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
wtf is this shit?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this!
1) 'Cool' being used as a word may be of African origin, but unless we actually are a linguistic expert (or are from the region of west africa where the word supposedly comes from) it is difficult and unwise of us to argue about it.
2) Cool might still be an African Origin word (it certainly seems to have emerged from slang terms used by African Americans. However it could still be based on the English word cool, but having the spiritual meaning associated to it that the original article writer was talking about.
3) Cool in English originally meant being calm, controlled and level headed (e.g. Keeping your cool)
4) Nowadays however people use cool to mean something is ace, or wicked, exciting or arousing in general
5) Occasionally they still use the older meaning. (e.g. he played it cool)
6) 'Cool' people are often those who keep calm in stressful situations, e.g. Steve McQueen in the great escape springs to mind. However, some people use the word cool to describe people who are attractive. In this sense an actor such as Russel Crowe might be considered to be cool, even though he is often reported as being very angry.
7) The Sanskrit word 'Nirvana' has either been translated as 'extinguished' or 'cool'. In this sense it is referring to Buddhist philosophy, in which Nirvana is the cooling of the 'fires' of passion. Interestingly this is very similar to the older English meaning (keeping ones cool), as is expressed well by Rudyard Kipling 'If you can keep your head, whilst all around you are losing theirs'
Reference http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-coo1.htm
Signed Mostly Zen (sorry I don't know how to sign wikis yet! :)
ok, i hope i can help end conflict here, check it out:
1.some people are mad because they see a universal concept being treated like an invention or commodity. even if cool was central to african philosophy, that doesnt mean that people weren't cool in europe even though they didnt have a word for it. just as someone can be a feminist or liberal without knowing the philosophies, the same goes with cool. and if you dont want a political example, consider that someone can be funky without knowing what the funk is(or without being black)
2.we should NOT deracialize this article. im white and i know that coolness was set as one of the major themes in our culture after the black slaves were taken to america. I read an article once which said that the slaves were cool because they made something out of nothing.
3.there are parts of the article that dont agree with each other. please source everything disagreed on, and dont make general statements needlessly.
4.i dont think it Cool (African philosophy) should have its own article. We should have one article for cool. This is really UNCOOL to create your own article so you can have your own african philosophy area. Wikipedia is supposed to be about people contributing to each other's work, not about splitting up into seperate groups.
Be cool.-- Urthogie 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaving Wikipedia and so will not be able to flesh this out as I had intended. Cool is, indeed, an African philosophy. This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's, for that matter). Have you read Thompson? Unless and until you do, please refrain from such ill-informed commentary.
Further, devoting an article on cool in an African and African-American cultural context does not, ipso facto, say such a philosophy/aesthetic is exclusive to these cultures. But the route of transmission, if you will, from Africa to African-Americans to American/world pop culture is a widely acknowledged one -- particularly among people who generally are outside the primary age demographic of Wikipedia. Most well-read/worldly people over, say 50 -- possibly 55 -- are well aware of how the African American jazz scene transformed American and, subsequently, world, popular culture. Before African-American Iceberg Slim/Stagga Lee/"bad-ass nigger" cool came on the scene, the general model of male virility and manliness that white folks strived for was a kind of squeaky clean, "Golly gee, aw, shucks, ma'am," Roy Rogers/John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart kind of persona -- what's, for better or worse, now pretty much generally perceived as cornball/lame. The African American jazz scene of the 1920's not only influenced beatnik culture, but earlier gangster/Mafioso "mystique", as well.
I have a couple of Thompson's books, one which I've had for 30+ years and another which I purchased with the express intent of working on this piece, and have another on order by another author. But it looks like I'll be reading them for my own edification only. I urge anyone seeking to edit this article to do your research first and put aside all preconceptions you may hold. Keep an open mind and report what you find clearly and honestly. I'm certain that what you read will bear out the assertions I've made herein. deeceevoice 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There are lots of sources for cool in this context and the subject is rich enough and complex enough to deserve an article of its own. As I noted, the book I have on order is not by Thompson. I'm sure those wishing to write about cool in this specific context likewise can find numerous sources. After all, much has been written about African, African-American and jazz culture and beatnik and 1950s pop culture, etc.
Further, I disagree that the article as framed somehow limits or stifles input. If someone wishes to write about cool outside of its African/African-American roots and its offshoots from those cultural traditions, they are more than welcome to do so elsewhere. That's what disambiguation pages (one already exists for "cool") and "compare" and "see also" subsections containing links to other articles are for.
About me leaving? I'm bored and disgusted with Wikipedia. I'm tired of rehashing the same pointles arguments (like this discussion we're currently having -- no offense intended) and dealing with the intellectual biases of the ignorant, hidebound and vicious. I'm not embittered so much as aware that there are far more positive, productive and fulfilling ways to expend my time and apply my editorial skills -- ways that feed my spirit. The atmosphere at Wikipedia for black contributors is poisonous, and I choose not to expose myself to it any longer.
If that doesn't answer your question, read my user page [1] and follow the links. Peace. deeceevoice 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate you. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You may be interested to know that, after much debate about cool being an African philosophy at all, users urged me to create a separate article from "cool" -- precisely for the reasons I've already stated. (You obviously haven't bothered to check the article or its talk page's edit history.) And doing so has nothing to do with "isolating" anyone. I have nothing else to say on the matter. deeceevoice 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
About racism -- presumably, you're not black, so it's a good bet you're far less likely to be in a position to judge whether this site is racist or not. FYI, there is a Wikipedia project to combat the systemic racism that lots of people readily acknowledge afflicts and hamstrings the project. And, here again, I have nothing else to say on the matter. deeceevoice 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
1.There is no article on being cool linked to by the disambiguation page. Why? Because the scope of the subject has been limited by the title of this article.
2.I am not disputing the factuality of this article. Merely the title, which disallows the many voices of wikipedia to take part and contribute.
3.The decision to make this into a new article was essentially an acceptance of the idea that because we couldn't agree, we should create seperate articles based on our beliefs on this subject. This isn't the way we should approach things at wikipedia.
4.When someone enters cool into the wikipedia search bar, it should go directly to the article 'Cool'. The article should deal with the subject of cool, and include this information about cool as an african philosophy. In italics, there would be descriptions, and links to other related subjects(such as the ones that appear on the current cool disambiguation page).
5.If this proposal is not accepted, I am extremely willing to discuss alternatives, because currently the entire situation is very bad.
6.If deeceevoices is correct, and cool is an african concept, then that can be established in the article, through the use of facts and quotes, and writing, as its supposed to be. What we've done instead is the very unwikipedian thing where we simply give up on the truth. We dont have an article called Hitler (Evil Dictator) or Freedom(Greek Philosophy), because both articles would limit the scope of their subject. If deeceevoices is correct about it being an african philosophy, that can be established, in the same way that its established that Hitler is evil. However, naming the article Cool(African Philosophy) is essentially giving up on the ability of wikipedia to sort out truth. Urthogie 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The article should remain separate for the reasons expressed above. The most recent individual to suggest the article should be a catch-all, all-purpose one seems to suggest cool in African and African-American culture doesn't deserve a separate article. He's clearly wrong:
Cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic (a very quick Goodle for those who care enough to do the tiniest bit of research, rather than push a POV)
And that's only online sources, and that's just for starters. There is no doubt that black African aesthetics are fundamentally different from those of Europe, and that an essential -- indeed fundamental -- element of African philosophy, the African aesthetic, is cool. Given the paucity of articles on this website treating non European -- and specifically black/African subject matter -- it seems clear that separate and in-depth treatment of this subject, which has implications for how and why black African peoples have certain values, comport ourselves, move and adorn our bodies in certain ways, why we create music and functional art and art objects the ways in which we do is sorely needed. Especially here. A quick look at the sketchiness of African art should tell anyone that pretty quickly. A thorough examination and elucidation of cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic would be an important addition to the project -- as a stand-alone piece, but also as a resource for informing other articles treating the indigenous cultural expressions of Africa and of the African diaspora.
This subject was discussed at length before. The proposed merger tag should be removed. And ASAP. deeceevoice 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This entire thing relies on secondary sources. If you are going to cite sources, feel free to use Thompson's book as a tool, and to help explaining things. However, this is written like an essay that relies on secondary sources. If you want to prove a point about cool, please cite AFRICAN literature or AFRICAN griots. Using a secondary source is unreliable, for such a long article to rely on.
-- Urthogie 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: This response was copied from my user page, because due to ANOTHER collateral-damage block, I was unable to edit this page.
(But your insistence that secondary sources are illegitimate sources is wholly inappropriate and inaccurate -- particularly in this case. That is like saying a study of voudun by an anthropologist is worthless because its author is not black and not a practitioner him or herself. And that's just plain garbage.) deeceevoice 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the secondary source tag -- again -- because I believe it was affixed in bad faith, given that it was not fully discussed on the talk page before it was slapped on the article. Also, please see my comments above. In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. deeceevoice 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-- Urthogie 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
First, you assume that, since Thompson is so far the only source quoted, that the article is a "book review" and based solely on Thompson's scholarship, and that is simply incorrect.
Second, I find it curious that you would question Thompson's methodologies, assuming that he writes without primary sources. That's your erroneous assumption. Forget about reading his works. Try reading anything about the man and you will find he's spent decades studying black African culture first-hand and, indeed, consulting primary sources. You continue to write from ignorance. deeceevoice 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And no. It was improper for you alone to unilaterally decide to affix such a tag without discussion, and it is particularly improper since, at the moment, you are clearly outvoted. It goes, and should stay gone until the matter is discussed further. deeceevoice 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not even being logical at this point. I said it's the equivelant of a book review [in respect to its obvious POV]...then again book reviews are based on primary sources, so I suppose this article is a step behind a book review when it comes to sources. The difference between the right word and the wrong word is important when quoting someone.
I scientific work can't be written without primary sources. A scientist needs to methodologically analyze something. If he has no primary sources, he has no methodology. Basically, it's his opinions on art, right? Please. It's not methodological, it's simply a guy with an opinion. He HAS to have a primary source to even be talking about anything. Why can't you provide anything that he talks about? Your only even remotely reasonable argument here is that I'm eurocentric. Even if I was, you can try and change wikipedia's policies to be more afrocentric. I'm not gutting your article, simply using the tag as it's supposed to be used. If it weren't used in cases as obvious as this, it would have no purpose. I'm going to request a vote soon on this, if you still can't see the obvious logic.
Allow me to lay it out quite simply once again:
He has to be talking about something. Please show me what that something is by using that content in the article. -- Urthogie 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read some of his stuff, to guarantee objectivity in this article. He is simply observing patterns in african art. Art is subjective. This article is written objectively. Please don't revert my attempts to point out the subjectivity. -- Urthogie 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted Mr. Thompson himself and I will soon have his reply on the objectivity of this article.-- Urthogie 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This source [10] contains a request, "Draft only: Do not quote or cite without author's permission". She gives an email address, have you contacted her? I wonder about using a source that even the author considers unfinished. 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Cool (Black culture). The idea the coolness is a African-American creation is somewhat common in academic studies, but the idea the its related to some pan-African philosophy is held by (at most) 2 or 3 professors. Can I have a second opinion on this? Thanks.-- Urthogie 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This passage:
"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing [11]. This is in marked contrast to the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented [12]. In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts [13]. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion."
Is supported by these references:
http://www.djworksmusic.com/smarter_kids.html supposedly supports "the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented". The page is a blurb for an album by the artist Deborah Johnson written by an unknown author which, citing experimental work by Rauscher and others of the University of California, Irvine which measured performance on a test which measures spatial IQ compared to control groups found improved performance. Supposedly listening to the album Classical Spice will "make your kids smarter", the Mozart Effect, see http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mozarteffect2.shtml for an extended discussion. There is some language in the blurb which somewhat resembles the supported language "Rauscher stressed that all classical music that is highly structured and complex has the same effect.", but there is no further discussion. Fred Bauder 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing" is supported by a passage from http://www.uwm.edu/Course/660-102/ClassThree.html which follows:
The texture of the music is often complementary layered patterns This is sometimes referred to as polyrhythm or polymeter (multiple rhythms and meters occurring at the same time – particularly 3-against-2)
The principle in question, under the heading "Ontological framework", is that embodied in "Traditional West African ontology " set forth as:
"Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another. It is an intuitively existential acknowledgement and acceptance of the duality of nature and the balance of forces—of, for example, feminine and masculine, physical and spiritual, seen and unseen, of the living and the ancestors. These forces are not separated, but conjoined; and, in fact, interact continuously and with fluidity in aspects of everyday life— in the natural world, in religion and philosophy, in visual art, in folklore, in music and dance.
Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet— as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact— but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally. Sometimes, one element inhabits the interstices of another in time and space."
The ontological principle is contrasted with that of traditional Persian culture: "In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion." The ontological principle of traditional is sourced in http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM which does contain a brief outline of Zoroastrianism and its ontological principle, "All of creation, all gods, all religions, and all of human history and experience can be understood as part of this struggle between light and dark, good and evil."
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,555860,00.html an excellent on jass in the Guardian there is a passage, "I put on horn-rimmed sunglasses at night." This would seem to support the language in the article, "For decades, African American jazz musicians and, later, black-power activists in the 1970s were known for wearing sunglasses, even indoors and at night." A further conclusion "The dark, impenetrable lenses of a pair of "shades" help to mask emotion and, thus, "cool" the face." is unsupported.
http://www.soul-patrol.com/soul/jerry.htm contains material regarding Jerry Butler which more or less supports 'Another example of cool in African American culture is the intensely emotional vocal style of soulful crooner Jerry Butler, delivered with trademark, inscrutable composure, which earned him the moniker "The Ice Man"', but not explicitly, there being no information on his demeanor, "trademark, inscrutable composure".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hip is put forth as a source for "African American use of 'cool' has evolved to include related meanings. In addition to indicating an absence of conflict, 'cool' also is used to communicate agreement or compliance and to describe something 'hip' (from the Wolof word "hipi," meaning to open one's eyes, to be aware ) [7], meaning fashionable and current; as well as something desirable, aesthetically appealing, or something of sublime or understated elegance." from an entry in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition":
which does contain the language:
"[Perhaps from Wolof hipi, hepi, to open one's eyes, be aware.]"
Wolof is a West African language, see Wolof language.
I removed the following paragraphs:
Why? Because the standard at wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Although it may be true that "cool is feminine energy", you can't verify it. However, you can verify that a notable scholar holds this view. My attempts at rewriting it as such have failed so far, as DCV has simply reverted them and refused to continue discussion. I don't want an edit war, but if you don't discuss this issue and reach consensus, your edit has no value-- both by policies/guidelines and by failure to reach consensus. If you are willing to talk this out with me, you'll find I'm just a rational person trying to enforce wikipedia's policies, and I can be swayed by reasonable arguments. Thank you,-- Urthogie 16:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Your ongoing, ill-informed hostility toward this article is precisely one of the reasons why I'm not doing it. You've challenged the very existence of it, disputing even its fundamental premise from a posture of abject, but opinionated, ignorance. I have better things to do than fight with people who don't know anything about a subject -- but refuse to allow a contributor the time to develop a piece without constant antagonism and b.s. RfDs. One such case: you've challeneged me to provide documentation that "cool" is considered a feminine attribute, challenging the notion because whites commonly associate it with black men. Such a contention, IMO, displays an appalling ignorance of not only traditional African culture, but of a virtually universal, fundamental truth. The association of female with quietude, passivity, even the moon; and of male with energy, aggression, the sun is pretty much universal. I can easily cite sources which not only reinforce this general tenet, but also the statement specific to cool (kuele) in indigenous African cultures -- and was fully prepared to do that. But, again, I am no longer contributing new information on this site; it's a wasted exercise. In your ignorance, antagonism and obtuseness, your approach to this article has been to deconstruct it, to gut it, rather than to contribute to it. If that's your idea of contributing to Wikipedia, then have at it. I couldn't care less what you do or what you think; IMO, it's par for the course. It's, IMO, what happens when intellectual arrogance/obtuseness, cultural bias and ignorance prevail. deeceevoice 05:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL. No matter how many scholarly authoritative quotes you find, you can never claim, based on secondary sources, that "cool is feminine". all you can ever prove is that some professor says that :)-- Urthogie 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell from the article very well, and I'm not much of an expert myself. But is "cool" as an African philsophy taken seriously by mainstream scholarship, or is it just a few Afrocentrists? I was under the impression that a lot of Afrocentric theories were considered rather "fringe", and I wonder if a whole article on this concept is an example of giving undue weight to a few academics? Friday (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind all users to remain civil, not to make personal attacks and not to escalate them. - FrancisTyers 09:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Miles Davis is really cool. Agreed. But by your definitions here, DCV, he wasn't-- he lost his cool all the time and got pissed quite easily on several occasions.-- Urthogie 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we have anyone other than Thompson that calls this a "philosophy" (and does Thompson??) If not this article should be deleted.
Justforasecond 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with original research, but everything to do with the opposition this subject (including cool) has received since I introduced it. All along, I have maintained that the notion of cool cannot be examined, defined or explicated without examining its African/African-American roots -- a position that has been borne out. This started as an article on Cool. Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy), which was left as essentially a blurb/stub. I maintained then, and see that my contention has proven out, that the article eventually would come full circle to its African/African-American roots; it was inevitable. What? So now you want to merge the articles as I originally intended? Hey, that's fine with me. It's what should have happened, and what I wanted, in the first place. There is ample information in the literature not only clearly establishing the African/African-American roots of cool and its infusion into American popular culture through jazz and other appropriated/assimilated forms of African-American cultural expression, and then to world popular culture via American cultural imperialism/aggression and international appropriation/assimilation. And there is ample evidence of how the African aesthetic of cool has been retained in, and continues to manifest in, African-American culture. By all means, combine the two -- but this silly grousing about something that is clearly African in origin has got to stop. Deeceevoice 12:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, with regard to the "weaselword" notation that has been added to the introduction as it was revised by another editor, links to that information and lots more were provided in a bulleted submission by me on the talk page of one of the articles involved, when I intended to stop editing on this website. But I no longer can find it. I either wasn't looking in the right place, or someone has expunged it. The information was laid out for others to read/research, if they were so inclined. Apparently, no one cared enough to do so. I've been busy with other things. In the past, when I've returned to work on this piece, I've found myself (as I still do) hampered by collateral-damage blocks which occur constantly because of the way my ISP interacts with Wikipedia. It's a bother, and I often have neither the time nor the patience to rewrite contributions I cannot retrieve as a result. Deeceevoice 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand perfectly what the opposition to this article has been and is about. Again, the links were provided. Those who are sincerely interested in the piece can do with it what they will. Deeceevoice 13:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your thoughts and the origin of the article, DCV. What you've described above is a classic example of an undesirable content fork. If people at Cool (aesthetic) felt that the "Cool is an African philosophy" view was over-emphasized, that probably means it needs a representation in the article somewhat proportionate to how accepted this view is by reputable scholars. When someone makes a new article on an existing topic but written to represent a different point of view, people call it a "POV fork". Such articles need to be merged back into the main one, creating a balanced, neutral article that covers the whole topic. Friday (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Those who complain about the purported African-American bias of the article, it seems to me, haven't lifted a finger to broaden its scope, other than to post a tag at the top requesting multicultural input." (Deeceevoice)
That's incorrect again, as the edit history shows [21], there were umpteen attempts by several editors to broaden the articles scope, but Deeceevoice reverted those edits immediately CoYep 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Off topic side note: Can somebody explain to me why
Deeceevoice edits my comment 5 times
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] and then says in her edit history "restoring my original text. please do not tamper with someone else's post."
[27] even though nobody ever touched her edits? Just curious.
CoYep 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A reconsideration
I've reconsidered my position, which was based on an earlier approach I had to the article. I suppose I couldn't resist saying "I told you so." :p When I proposed and worked on Cool in its earliest stages, it included the African origins. Encountering opposition from people who knew of the concept in only the shallow, pop-culture context, I left the article and started Cool (African philosophy) to deal with cool as a complex African cultural concept.
I've stated earlier here that I was in favor of merging the two articles, based on my original approach to the subject matter. But I've since then, I've rethought that statement in light of the subsequent reading I've done. It makes no sense. And particularly because Wikipedia has such a paucity of articles dealing with Africa, I think it's important that it remain separate. But -- again -- because of collateral damage from a block of someone else, I'm unable to make my thoughts known on the AfD page. It seems that more academicians refer to cool as simply an "African aesthetic." Those who refer to it as a philosophy are quoting Thompson, so I propose renaming the article "Cool (African aesthetic)". I suggest that Cool (aesthetic) be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)" to distinguish between the two. Combining the two articles runs the risk of doing both subjects a disservice and forcing those interested in cool in the pop culture context to wade through information in which they have no interest. Deeceevoice 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved as requested. - FrancisTyers 11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)
If there was any question, it is now undeniable this is a POV fork and no one has ever called "Cool" a philosophy. Whatever content is cited in here, feel free to merge it into the Cool article. The AFD is almost complete and the article will probably not be around much longer. Justforasecond 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is probably going to get deleted or merged, so DCV, I suggest you save it on a subpage of your userpage, as you have clearly put some serious work into this piece of original research :P-- Urthogie 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Gee, according to your account of things, you've been working feverishly on this article, as well. LMAO (right) :p Deeceevoice 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is you've contributed little, if any, information whatsoever to either article. You'd rather tear it apart than lift a finger to contribute useful material. The result of this process? An article dealing with a far more authentic phenomenon with deep cultural and spiritual significance is being obliterated in favor of a nothing article on its pale, pop-culture-kitsch imitation/incarnation -- which simply continues the process of detachment and degeneration of cultural expression from the originating culture, trivialization -- in effect, a textbook case of cultural appropriation. (Why am I not surprised?) Deeceevoice 13:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
An extremely weak comeback. That's like doing an article -- as happens on this website -- of a groundbreaking song originally cut a solid, old-school black group, but writing about only its watered-down, blatantly (and ineptly mimetic) bumble-gum-music cover by some white boy band and mentioning the original cut as an afterthought. Yep. Typical. It's what certain people do. :p Deeceevoice 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is not exactly what I expected it to be. While I aware that the concept of "cool" originates in from Black American culture, I'm a little unsure about the deeper background. It is a little disconcerting that the main source for this article is a 30+ year old art exhibition catalogue. Brian Schlosser42 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
wtf is this shit?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this!
1) 'Cool' being used as a word may be of African origin, but unless we actually are a linguistic expert (or are from the region of west africa where the word supposedly comes from) it is difficult and unwise of us to argue about it.
2) Cool might still be an African Origin word (it certainly seems to have emerged from slang terms used by African Americans. However it could still be based on the English word cool, but having the spiritual meaning associated to it that the original article writer was talking about.
3) Cool in English originally meant being calm, controlled and level headed (e.g. Keeping your cool)
4) Nowadays however people use cool to mean something is ace, or wicked, exciting or arousing in general
5) Occasionally they still use the older meaning. (e.g. he played it cool)
6) 'Cool' people are often those who keep calm in stressful situations, e.g. Steve McQueen in the great escape springs to mind. However, some people use the word cool to describe people who are attractive. In this sense an actor such as Russel Crowe might be considered to be cool, even though he is often reported as being very angry.
7) The Sanskrit word 'Nirvana' has either been translated as 'extinguished' or 'cool'. In this sense it is referring to Buddhist philosophy, in which Nirvana is the cooling of the 'fires' of passion. Interestingly this is very similar to the older English meaning (keeping ones cool), as is expressed well by Rudyard Kipling 'If you can keep your head, whilst all around you are losing theirs'
Reference http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-coo1.htm
Signed Mostly Zen (sorry I don't know how to sign wikis yet! :)
ok, i hope i can help end conflict here, check it out:
1.some people are mad because they see a universal concept being treated like an invention or commodity. even if cool was central to african philosophy, that doesnt mean that people weren't cool in europe even though they didnt have a word for it. just as someone can be a feminist or liberal without knowing the philosophies, the same goes with cool. and if you dont want a political example, consider that someone can be funky without knowing what the funk is(or without being black)
2.we should NOT deracialize this article. im white and i know that coolness was set as one of the major themes in our culture after the black slaves were taken to america. I read an article once which said that the slaves were cool because they made something out of nothing.
3.there are parts of the article that dont agree with each other. please source everything disagreed on, and dont make general statements needlessly.
4.i dont think it Cool (African philosophy) should have its own article. We should have one article for cool. This is really UNCOOL to create your own article so you can have your own african philosophy area. Wikipedia is supposed to be about people contributing to each other's work, not about splitting up into seperate groups.
Be cool.-- Urthogie 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaving Wikipedia and so will not be able to flesh this out as I had intended. Cool is, indeed, an African philosophy. This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's, for that matter). Have you read Thompson? Unless and until you do, please refrain from such ill-informed commentary.
Further, devoting an article on cool in an African and African-American cultural context does not, ipso facto, say such a philosophy/aesthetic is exclusive to these cultures. But the route of transmission, if you will, from Africa to African-Americans to American/world pop culture is a widely acknowledged one -- particularly among people who generally are outside the primary age demographic of Wikipedia. Most well-read/worldly people over, say 50 -- possibly 55 -- are well aware of how the African American jazz scene transformed American and, subsequently, world, popular culture. Before African-American Iceberg Slim/Stagga Lee/"bad-ass nigger" cool came on the scene, the general model of male virility and manliness that white folks strived for was a kind of squeaky clean, "Golly gee, aw, shucks, ma'am," Roy Rogers/John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart kind of persona -- what's, for better or worse, now pretty much generally perceived as cornball/lame. The African American jazz scene of the 1920's not only influenced beatnik culture, but earlier gangster/Mafioso "mystique", as well.
I have a couple of Thompson's books, one which I've had for 30+ years and another which I purchased with the express intent of working on this piece, and have another on order by another author. But it looks like I'll be reading them for my own edification only. I urge anyone seeking to edit this article to do your research first and put aside all preconceptions you may hold. Keep an open mind and report what you find clearly and honestly. I'm certain that what you read will bear out the assertions I've made herein. deeceevoice 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There are lots of sources for cool in this context and the subject is rich enough and complex enough to deserve an article of its own. As I noted, the book I have on order is not by Thompson. I'm sure those wishing to write about cool in this specific context likewise can find numerous sources. After all, much has been written about African, African-American and jazz culture and beatnik and 1950s pop culture, etc.
Further, I disagree that the article as framed somehow limits or stifles input. If someone wishes to write about cool outside of its African/African-American roots and its offshoots from those cultural traditions, they are more than welcome to do so elsewhere. That's what disambiguation pages (one already exists for "cool") and "compare" and "see also" subsections containing links to other articles are for.
About me leaving? I'm bored and disgusted with Wikipedia. I'm tired of rehashing the same pointles arguments (like this discussion we're currently having -- no offense intended) and dealing with the intellectual biases of the ignorant, hidebound and vicious. I'm not embittered so much as aware that there are far more positive, productive and fulfilling ways to expend my time and apply my editorial skills -- ways that feed my spirit. The atmosphere at Wikipedia for black contributors is poisonous, and I choose not to expose myself to it any longer.
If that doesn't answer your question, read my user page [1] and follow the links. Peace. deeceevoice 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate you. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You may be interested to know that, after much debate about cool being an African philosophy at all, users urged me to create a separate article from "cool" -- precisely for the reasons I've already stated. (You obviously haven't bothered to check the article or its talk page's edit history.) And doing so has nothing to do with "isolating" anyone. I have nothing else to say on the matter. deeceevoice 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
About racism -- presumably, you're not black, so it's a good bet you're far less likely to be in a position to judge whether this site is racist or not. FYI, there is a Wikipedia project to combat the systemic racism that lots of people readily acknowledge afflicts and hamstrings the project. And, here again, I have nothing else to say on the matter. deeceevoice 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
1.There is no article on being cool linked to by the disambiguation page. Why? Because the scope of the subject has been limited by the title of this article.
2.I am not disputing the factuality of this article. Merely the title, which disallows the many voices of wikipedia to take part and contribute.
3.The decision to make this into a new article was essentially an acceptance of the idea that because we couldn't agree, we should create seperate articles based on our beliefs on this subject. This isn't the way we should approach things at wikipedia.
4.When someone enters cool into the wikipedia search bar, it should go directly to the article 'Cool'. The article should deal with the subject of cool, and include this information about cool as an african philosophy. In italics, there would be descriptions, and links to other related subjects(such as the ones that appear on the current cool disambiguation page).
5.If this proposal is not accepted, I am extremely willing to discuss alternatives, because currently the entire situation is very bad.
6.If deeceevoices is correct, and cool is an african concept, then that can be established in the article, through the use of facts and quotes, and writing, as its supposed to be. What we've done instead is the very unwikipedian thing where we simply give up on the truth. We dont have an article called Hitler (Evil Dictator) or Freedom(Greek Philosophy), because both articles would limit the scope of their subject. If deeceevoices is correct about it being an african philosophy, that can be established, in the same way that its established that Hitler is evil. However, naming the article Cool(African Philosophy) is essentially giving up on the ability of wikipedia to sort out truth. Urthogie 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The article should remain separate for the reasons expressed above. The most recent individual to suggest the article should be a catch-all, all-purpose one seems to suggest cool in African and African-American culture doesn't deserve a separate article. He's clearly wrong:
Cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic (a very quick Goodle for those who care enough to do the tiniest bit of research, rather than push a POV)
And that's only online sources, and that's just for starters. There is no doubt that black African aesthetics are fundamentally different from those of Europe, and that an essential -- indeed fundamental -- element of African philosophy, the African aesthetic, is cool. Given the paucity of articles on this website treating non European -- and specifically black/African subject matter -- it seems clear that separate and in-depth treatment of this subject, which has implications for how and why black African peoples have certain values, comport ourselves, move and adorn our bodies in certain ways, why we create music and functional art and art objects the ways in which we do is sorely needed. Especially here. A quick look at the sketchiness of African art should tell anyone that pretty quickly. A thorough examination and elucidation of cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic would be an important addition to the project -- as a stand-alone piece, but also as a resource for informing other articles treating the indigenous cultural expressions of Africa and of the African diaspora.
This subject was discussed at length before. The proposed merger tag should be removed. And ASAP. deeceevoice 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This entire thing relies on secondary sources. If you are going to cite sources, feel free to use Thompson's book as a tool, and to help explaining things. However, this is written like an essay that relies on secondary sources. If you want to prove a point about cool, please cite AFRICAN literature or AFRICAN griots. Using a secondary source is unreliable, for such a long article to rely on.
-- Urthogie 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: This response was copied from my user page, because due to ANOTHER collateral-damage block, I was unable to edit this page.
(But your insistence that secondary sources are illegitimate sources is wholly inappropriate and inaccurate -- particularly in this case. That is like saying a study of voudun by an anthropologist is worthless because its author is not black and not a practitioner him or herself. And that's just plain garbage.) deeceevoice 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the secondary source tag -- again -- because I believe it was affixed in bad faith, given that it was not fully discussed on the talk page before it was slapped on the article. Also, please see my comments above. In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. deeceevoice 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-- Urthogie 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
First, you assume that, since Thompson is so far the only source quoted, that the article is a "book review" and based solely on Thompson's scholarship, and that is simply incorrect.
Second, I find it curious that you would question Thompson's methodologies, assuming that he writes without primary sources. That's your erroneous assumption. Forget about reading his works. Try reading anything about the man and you will find he's spent decades studying black African culture first-hand and, indeed, consulting primary sources. You continue to write from ignorance. deeceevoice 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And no. It was improper for you alone to unilaterally decide to affix such a tag without discussion, and it is particularly improper since, at the moment, you are clearly outvoted. It goes, and should stay gone until the matter is discussed further. deeceevoice 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not even being logical at this point. I said it's the equivelant of a book review [in respect to its obvious POV]...then again book reviews are based on primary sources, so I suppose this article is a step behind a book review when it comes to sources. The difference between the right word and the wrong word is important when quoting someone.
I scientific work can't be written without primary sources. A scientist needs to methodologically analyze something. If he has no primary sources, he has no methodology. Basically, it's his opinions on art, right? Please. It's not methodological, it's simply a guy with an opinion. He HAS to have a primary source to even be talking about anything. Why can't you provide anything that he talks about? Your only even remotely reasonable argument here is that I'm eurocentric. Even if I was, you can try and change wikipedia's policies to be more afrocentric. I'm not gutting your article, simply using the tag as it's supposed to be used. If it weren't used in cases as obvious as this, it would have no purpose. I'm going to request a vote soon on this, if you still can't see the obvious logic.
Allow me to lay it out quite simply once again:
He has to be talking about something. Please show me what that something is by using that content in the article. -- Urthogie 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read some of his stuff, to guarantee objectivity in this article. He is simply observing patterns in african art. Art is subjective. This article is written objectively. Please don't revert my attempts to point out the subjectivity. -- Urthogie 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted Mr. Thompson himself and I will soon have his reply on the objectivity of this article.-- Urthogie 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This source [10] contains a request, "Draft only: Do not quote or cite without author's permission". She gives an email address, have you contacted her? I wonder about using a source that even the author considers unfinished. 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Cool (Black culture). The idea the coolness is a African-American creation is somewhat common in academic studies, but the idea the its related to some pan-African philosophy is held by (at most) 2 or 3 professors. Can I have a second opinion on this? Thanks.-- Urthogie 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This passage:
"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing [11]. This is in marked contrast to the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented [12]. In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts [13]. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion."
Is supported by these references:
http://www.djworksmusic.com/smarter_kids.html supposedly supports "the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented". The page is a blurb for an album by the artist Deborah Johnson written by an unknown author which, citing experimental work by Rauscher and others of the University of California, Irvine which measured performance on a test which measures spatial IQ compared to control groups found improved performance. Supposedly listening to the album Classical Spice will "make your kids smarter", the Mozart Effect, see http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mozarteffect2.shtml for an extended discussion. There is some language in the blurb which somewhat resembles the supported language "Rauscher stressed that all classical music that is highly structured and complex has the same effect.", but there is no further discussion. Fred Bauder 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing" is supported by a passage from http://www.uwm.edu/Course/660-102/ClassThree.html which follows:
The texture of the music is often complementary layered patterns This is sometimes referred to as polyrhythm or polymeter (multiple rhythms and meters occurring at the same time – particularly 3-against-2)
The principle in question, under the heading "Ontological framework", is that embodied in "Traditional West African ontology " set forth as:
"Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another. It is an intuitively existential acknowledgement and acceptance of the duality of nature and the balance of forces—of, for example, feminine and masculine, physical and spiritual, seen and unseen, of the living and the ancestors. These forces are not separated, but conjoined; and, in fact, interact continuously and with fluidity in aspects of everyday life— in the natural world, in religion and philosophy, in visual art, in folklore, in music and dance.
Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet— as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact— but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally. Sometimes, one element inhabits the interstices of another in time and space."
The ontological principle is contrasted with that of traditional Persian culture: "In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion." The ontological principle of traditional is sourced in http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM which does contain a brief outline of Zoroastrianism and its ontological principle, "All of creation, all gods, all religions, and all of human history and experience can be understood as part of this struggle between light and dark, good and evil."
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,555860,00.html an excellent on jass in the Guardian there is a passage, "I put on horn-rimmed sunglasses at night." This would seem to support the language in the article, "For decades, African American jazz musicians and, later, black-power activists in the 1970s were known for wearing sunglasses, even indoors and at night." A further conclusion "The dark, impenetrable lenses of a pair of "shades" help to mask emotion and, thus, "cool" the face." is unsupported.
http://www.soul-patrol.com/soul/jerry.htm contains material regarding Jerry Butler which more or less supports 'Another example of cool in African American culture is the intensely emotional vocal style of soulful crooner Jerry Butler, delivered with trademark, inscrutable composure, which earned him the moniker "The Ice Man"', but not explicitly, there being no information on his demeanor, "trademark, inscrutable composure".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hip is put forth as a source for "African American use of 'cool' has evolved to include related meanings. In addition to indicating an absence of conflict, 'cool' also is used to communicate agreement or compliance and to describe something 'hip' (from the Wolof word "hipi," meaning to open one's eyes, to be aware ) [7], meaning fashionable and current; as well as something desirable, aesthetically appealing, or something of sublime or understated elegance." from an entry in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition":
which does contain the language:
"[Perhaps from Wolof hipi, hepi, to open one's eyes, be aware.]"
Wolof is a West African language, see Wolof language.
I removed the following paragraphs:
Why? Because the standard at wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Although it may be true that "cool is feminine energy", you can't verify it. However, you can verify that a notable scholar holds this view. My attempts at rewriting it as such have failed so far, as DCV has simply reverted them and refused to continue discussion. I don't want an edit war, but if you don't discuss this issue and reach consensus, your edit has no value-- both by policies/guidelines and by failure to reach consensus. If you are willing to talk this out with me, you'll find I'm just a rational person trying to enforce wikipedia's policies, and I can be swayed by reasonable arguments. Thank you,-- Urthogie 16:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Your ongoing, ill-informed hostility toward this article is precisely one of the reasons why I'm not doing it. You've challenged the very existence of it, disputing even its fundamental premise from a posture of abject, but opinionated, ignorance. I have better things to do than fight with people who don't know anything about a subject -- but refuse to allow a contributor the time to develop a piece without constant antagonism and b.s. RfDs. One such case: you've challeneged me to provide documentation that "cool" is considered a feminine attribute, challenging the notion because whites commonly associate it with black men. Such a contention, IMO, displays an appalling ignorance of not only traditional African culture, but of a virtually universal, fundamental truth. The association of female with quietude, passivity, even the moon; and of male with energy, aggression, the sun is pretty much universal. I can easily cite sources which not only reinforce this general tenet, but also the statement specific to cool (kuele) in indigenous African cultures -- and was fully prepared to do that. But, again, I am no longer contributing new information on this site; it's a wasted exercise. In your ignorance, antagonism and obtuseness, your approach to this article has been to deconstruct it, to gut it, rather than to contribute to it. If that's your idea of contributing to Wikipedia, then have at it. I couldn't care less what you do or what you think; IMO, it's par for the course. It's, IMO, what happens when intellectual arrogance/obtuseness, cultural bias and ignorance prevail. deeceevoice 05:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL. No matter how many scholarly authoritative quotes you find, you can never claim, based on secondary sources, that "cool is feminine". all you can ever prove is that some professor says that :)-- Urthogie 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell from the article very well, and I'm not much of an expert myself. But is "cool" as an African philsophy taken seriously by mainstream scholarship, or is it just a few Afrocentrists? I was under the impression that a lot of Afrocentric theories were considered rather "fringe", and I wonder if a whole article on this concept is an example of giving undue weight to a few academics? Friday (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind all users to remain civil, not to make personal attacks and not to escalate them. - FrancisTyers 09:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Miles Davis is really cool. Agreed. But by your definitions here, DCV, he wasn't-- he lost his cool all the time and got pissed quite easily on several occasions.-- Urthogie 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we have anyone other than Thompson that calls this a "philosophy" (and does Thompson??) If not this article should be deleted.
Justforasecond 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with original research, but everything to do with the opposition this subject (including cool) has received since I introduced it. All along, I have maintained that the notion of cool cannot be examined, defined or explicated without examining its African/African-American roots -- a position that has been borne out. This started as an article on Cool. Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy), which was left as essentially a blurb/stub. I maintained then, and see that my contention has proven out, that the article eventually would come full circle to its African/African-American roots; it was inevitable. What? So now you want to merge the articles as I originally intended? Hey, that's fine with me. It's what should have happened, and what I wanted, in the first place. There is ample information in the literature not only clearly establishing the African/African-American roots of cool and its infusion into American popular culture through jazz and other appropriated/assimilated forms of African-American cultural expression, and then to world popular culture via American cultural imperialism/aggression and international appropriation/assimilation. And there is ample evidence of how the African aesthetic of cool has been retained in, and continues to manifest in, African-American culture. By all means, combine the two -- but this silly grousing about something that is clearly African in origin has got to stop. Deeceevoice 12:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, with regard to the "weaselword" notation that has been added to the introduction as it was revised by another editor, links to that information and lots more were provided in a bulleted submission by me on the talk page of one of the articles involved, when I intended to stop editing on this website. But I no longer can find it. I either wasn't looking in the right place, or someone has expunged it. The information was laid out for others to read/research, if they were so inclined. Apparently, no one cared enough to do so. I've been busy with other things. In the past, when I've returned to work on this piece, I've found myself (as I still do) hampered by collateral-damage blocks which occur constantly because of the way my ISP interacts with Wikipedia. It's a bother, and I often have neither the time nor the patience to rewrite contributions I cannot retrieve as a result. Deeceevoice 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand perfectly what the opposition to this article has been and is about. Again, the links were provided. Those who are sincerely interested in the piece can do with it what they will. Deeceevoice 13:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your thoughts and the origin of the article, DCV. What you've described above is a classic example of an undesirable content fork. If people at Cool (aesthetic) felt that the "Cool is an African philosophy" view was over-emphasized, that probably means it needs a representation in the article somewhat proportionate to how accepted this view is by reputable scholars. When someone makes a new article on an existing topic but written to represent a different point of view, people call it a "POV fork". Such articles need to be merged back into the main one, creating a balanced, neutral article that covers the whole topic. Friday (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Those who complain about the purported African-American bias of the article, it seems to me, haven't lifted a finger to broaden its scope, other than to post a tag at the top requesting multicultural input." (Deeceevoice)
That's incorrect again, as the edit history shows [21], there were umpteen attempts by several editors to broaden the articles scope, but Deeceevoice reverted those edits immediately CoYep 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Off topic side note: Can somebody explain to me why
Deeceevoice edits my comment 5 times
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] and then says in her edit history "restoring my original text. please do not tamper with someone else's post."
[27] even though nobody ever touched her edits? Just curious.
CoYep 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A reconsideration
I've reconsidered my position, which was based on an earlier approach I had to the article. I suppose I couldn't resist saying "I told you so." :p When I proposed and worked on Cool in its earliest stages, it included the African origins. Encountering opposition from people who knew of the concept in only the shallow, pop-culture context, I left the article and started Cool (African philosophy) to deal with cool as a complex African cultural concept.
I've stated earlier here that I was in favor of merging the two articles, based on my original approach to the subject matter. But I've since then, I've rethought that statement in light of the subsequent reading I've done. It makes no sense. And particularly because Wikipedia has such a paucity of articles dealing with Africa, I think it's important that it remain separate. But -- again -- because of collateral damage from a block of someone else, I'm unable to make my thoughts known on the AfD page. It seems that more academicians refer to cool as simply an "African aesthetic." Those who refer to it as a philosophy are quoting Thompson, so I propose renaming the article "Cool (African aesthetic)". I suggest that Cool (aesthetic) be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)" to distinguish between the two. Combining the two articles runs the risk of doing both subjects a disservice and forcing those interested in cool in the pop culture context to wade through information in which they have no interest. Deeceevoice 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved as requested. - FrancisTyers 11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)
If there was any question, it is now undeniable this is a POV fork and no one has ever called "Cool" a philosophy. Whatever content is cited in here, feel free to merge it into the Cool article. The AFD is almost complete and the article will probably not be around much longer. Justforasecond 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is probably going to get deleted or merged, so DCV, I suggest you save it on a subpage of your userpage, as you have clearly put some serious work into this piece of original research :P-- Urthogie 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Gee, according to your account of things, you've been working feverishly on this article, as well. LMAO (right) :p Deeceevoice 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is you've contributed little, if any, information whatsoever to either article. You'd rather tear it apart than lift a finger to contribute useful material. The result of this process? An article dealing with a far more authentic phenomenon with deep cultural and spiritual significance is being obliterated in favor of a nothing article on its pale, pop-culture-kitsch imitation/incarnation -- which simply continues the process of detachment and degeneration of cultural expression from the originating culture, trivialization -- in effect, a textbook case of cultural appropriation. (Why am I not surprised?) Deeceevoice 13:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
An extremely weak comeback. That's like doing an article -- as happens on this website -- of a groundbreaking song originally cut a solid, old-school black group, but writing about only its watered-down, blatantly (and ineptly mimetic) bumble-gum-music cover by some white boy band and mentioning the original cut as an afterthought. Yep. Typical. It's what certain people do. :p Deeceevoice 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)