Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Source

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?

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Also could you be less rude and more specific? Hyacinth 09:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but this article really needs to have unbiased and non-specialist sources. aababab

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! :)

a 3rd party comment on the disagreements involving this article

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)

A response

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)

Its impossible to say your edits on this article haven't been valuable. I just think that Thomson is one VIEW on the idea of coolness, and it shouldn't be accepted as given that everything he says is correct. There are many ideas on cool, and by calling this article Cool(African Philosophy) you have limited the sharing of ideas that is essential to wikipedia, where many different viewpoints can coincide. Also, you have to consider that action can proceed ideas. The philosophy of cool was not the result of theorization-- it was the result of observing "cool" people. It definitely is more an African American concept than Caucasian, but the fact that it can exist in anyone, and did exist before it was theorized, means that it should not be Cool(African Philosophy). As a sidenote, I was wondering why you're leaving wikipedia? It seems like you've been doing a lot of great work.--Urthogie 12:51, 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 really think you're isolating someone who largely agrees with you. I agree with most the points in the article. The thing is, its legitmacy of content doesn't make it fair to create an article seperately for this aspect of cool. It really takes away from the open-source element, and basically divides us into camps. While wikipedia isn't a democracy, it surely isn't tribalism. We shouldnt be dividing ourselves like this, even if the content is valid.

Sure, people can write all they like on the other pages on cool, but why should they have to. We are essentially giving up on varied viewpoints when we go off and make our own section like this.

I hope you can see that I'm not being vicious or ignorant, and I just want everyone working together, black and white, on this article, so that it can be contributed to by many parties-- instead of dividing into multiple viewpoints, like some other wiki's out there.

Also, I don't see how the environment here is anti-black. Unless there's some systemic racism(which there may be-- but that results from our demographics), I don't see how viewpoints that oppose yours are anti-black. Not all black people hold the same views, and not all white people hold the same views. Perhaps some wikipedia users have been biased against you upon discovering that you are black, but I assure you that my only goal here is to improve the article by allowing many different viewpoints to address it.

--Urthogie 17:01, 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)

Reasons/Explanation for Merger

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)

Regarding item 1, that's due to recent vandalism. The reference and link have been restored. deeceevoice 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Support for cool as an essential African philosophy/aesthetic

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)

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

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)

Like I said, you are correct in saying the connection is very well established between cool and african american culture. However, you are wrong in saying it deserves its own article. It is obvious that the content of this article is not really an open forum, and has become a way for us to seperate ourselves on wikipedia.--Urthogie 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for huge deletions

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)

Hi. On what Wikipedia policy do you base that assessment on? Please expand on your rational, in general. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No response. Hopefuly one is fourthcoming. In the meantime, you may wish to review and/or comment on the template talk page. El_C 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On the use of secondary sources and that (now removed -- again) tag

Note: This response was copied from my user page, because due to ANOTHER collateral-damage block, I was unable to edit this page.

I've been blocked from the article talk page (typical collateral damage crap), which is why I haven't responded sooner. Here's what I have to say about your comments.

Your yardstick for what constitutes authoritative sources is arbitrary and inappropriate for a topic such as this and is based on a European cultural model which is does not easily lend itself to the study of traditional West African culture. Scholarly secondary sources are perfectly legitimate, and there are certainly other articles where there are subheads left open for further development. To do so in this case does not mean that future contributions necessarily will include only information by Thompson. (Again, see Internet sources provided above.) And as I've already stated, there are certainly other monographs also available which treat cool which also can be used to flesh out the subheads. If your arbitrary requirement were applied universally to all subjects treated on Wikipedia, a lot of articles would be gutted. Robert Farris Thompson is a respected scholar in the field and, to my knowledge, his research on this subject has never been called into question by his peers.

I'm no longer actively involved in the writing of this piece. My latest contributions are merely to keep people like you, who are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter, from screwing with it, perverting it into something it should not be -- some sort of catch-all piece for this and that culture. ( now see the merge tag you'd applied earlier has been removed -- only to e replaced with a ridiculous one about secondary sourcess, which I've removed again, first after providing you this explanation on my talk page.) I've provided links to possible online references on the discussion page. I'll leave further development of the piece to those who are seriously interested in the subject matter and who are willing to do the necessary research to flesh out the article in an accurate manner. Again, the scholarship is there. But the fact is West African culture historically and typically does not do the sort of navel gazing and academic examination of itself to which Europeans are prone. I have a few books on African spirituality/religion written by a well known West African author (whose name escapes me at the moment), but they are not written in an academic fashion, but from an experiential standpoint. There's nothing out there of which I am aware written by Africans specifically on the subject of cool. If other interested parties know of such information, then perhaps they'll contribute it.

(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)

Huh? I never said a bushman needs to write a thesis. I said you could quote griots and stuff like that too. tell me, how did this thomson write a paper without primary sources? huh? did he make a paper out of thin air? unscientifc. Please answer these questions because they are the most important at hand in the point im making.

Look, you're missing the point. First off, I'm not gutting your article at this point-- I know that doing such would just result in another quick revert. I'm simply making it clear that it relies on a secondary source. Because of this secondary source, the article is the equivelant of a book review.

Second off, African culture doesn't need to examine itself for this article to work with primary sources. I'm not asking for african cultural self-examinations(AKA SECONDARY SOURCES). I'm asking for primary sources, actual examples of African oral history and writings. Obviously this guy came to his conclusions based on research of such primary sources. if he is scientific, as the article seems to suggest, then he must have used primary sources, and you should use those as well. if he does not rely on primary sources, then he is unscientific, merely a guy enjoying the riches of african culture.

--Urthogie 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S Please look up secondary sources, because you seem to understand the definition as sources coming from the same area, when the real defintion pertains to direct quotes from the subject itself(in this case griots and writings and sayings would work well). Until you get these your article is unscientific, and these tags will stay on it.

Since I seem to be invisible, I'll reiterate. Why the insistence on primary sources? What are you disputing that requeires this? El_C 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm insisting on primary sources because currently the article is written from the POV of the book, without any backup. It's just an opinion article with one source. If deeceevoices thinks that Thompson's writing is provable through science, then she'll quote his primary sources to show that his writing is grounded in REALITY rather than opinions made out of thin air. Also, she removed a tag that stated it was primary sources, because apparently she thinks the rules don't apply to her. It's not an issue of debate-- there are no primary sources used. It's not grounded in reality. Even if thompson is correct, which he very well may be, I'm asking that she grounds the article in reality. She's deligitmazied a template which has never even been to vFd on grounds of eurocentricity. Ugh.

--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 thompson

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)

contacted the real guy

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)

Draft only: Do not quote or cite without author's permission

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)

Very well. I'll find a new source.--Urthogie 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A marginal source anyway, which trades on a different definition of cool. Fred Bauder 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought of a better way of showing how unscholarly established it is: a dictionary. So I'll look the word up in the meantime. Thanks for pointing that out by the way Fred(The disclaimer on the source).--Urthogie 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

page move

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)

Adequacy of references

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:

Footnotes

1. ^ CLASSICAL SPICE - Can Classical Music Make Your Kids Smarter?
2. ^ Mesopotamia - The Persians
3. ^ The Roots of American Popular Music - The Music of West Africa and 19th Century African-American Music
4. ^ The Guardian - Too good for this world
5. ^ Robert Farris Thompson, African Art in Motion. Exhibition catalogue, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (University of California Press, 1974)
6. ^ Jerry Butler - The Ice Man
7. ^ Dictionary.com - Hip

Analysis

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:

West African musical style (continued)

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)

Further analysis

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."

Jazz and sunglasses worn at night

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.

The ice man

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".

Easy enough to verify. I did it in less than a minute at www.askjeeves.com. :p [14] deeceevoice 07:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hip

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":

1. Keenly aware of or knowledgeable about the latest trends or developments.
2. Very fashionable or stylish.

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.

Summary

• Brilliant original research Fred Bauder 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What you term "original research" is merely the synthesis/analysis/explication of information -- which is what any good (well-informed, talented) writer does. "Brilliant"? That's your call, but thanks. deeceevoice 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• References given support isolated passages, not the framework of the article as a whole. Robert Farris Thompson's work is not considered, as the book is not at hand. Fred Bauder 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one who added the recent references. The original article (before the trimming) was (in my opinion) much better than the article after the trimming. I was attempting to provide citations to support this. You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia. (WP:CITE).

I didn't write this material, and I have no special knowledge of African-American or Black culture, I just think it is rather harsh when some text is removed without a basic effort to try and cite it, especially when the user in question removing the text does not make some effort to find citations and does not appear to understand the subject matter. This may seem bass ackwards to people, but I really think that if you look for references they will be forthcoming. I spent maybe ten minutes attempting to find references, which does not seem to be a long time and may explain the poor quality of some of them. I'm not saying all of the article is supported, but I believe the majority could be. You are correct that I don't have access to Tompsons book.

The article does have an original researchy tone to it. This is a result of the style of the prose rather than anything else. I would encourage any competant editors to reword the examples and prose to make it more encyclopaedic, however rewording does not involve removing whole swathes of text. If you think that I have been rash, not followed policy or not made a worthwhile contribution to this article, feel free to revert. I would however encourage you to read around the subject for a number of hours before coming to this conclusion. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Deeceevoice's work, I suspect she is quite well read, but doesn't have the patience to look up sources again. Fred Bauder 01:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated, I was in the process of gathering additional information from disparate resources, scholarly and otherwise (including a transcript of the Gumbel/Travolta intu on the "Today" show), to beef up, document and complete this piece. But I just got tired of the crap. Let someone else do it -- if they can. Good luck finding someone with the requisite depth of knowledge/understanding of African/African-American culture (and the willingness to deal with the politics, pervasive biases and simple-minded antagonism -- as evidenced in the repeated RfDs targeting this piece) of this place surrounding topics treating people of African descent) to do so. The rampant cultural appropriation/nearly complete assimilation of the African/African-American cool aesthetic (as with other African-American cultural contributions) into American and world popular culture has led people -- particularly the youth, who have no real knowledge/memory of the jazz era and the beat generation and jazz's pervasive influence -- to assume that "cool" as discussed in this article is some universal phenomenon with diffuse roots. The fact of the matter is that "cool" as it is commonly referred to and known today is distinctly African in origin -- and imminently traceable back to the Motherland. deeceevoice 07:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I find in the original edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, I believe you are correct. While the meaning was not entirely unknown in 19th century English usage, it is a minor definition which is restricted to remaining cool under hot circumstances, cool under fire so to speak. Editing Wikipedia is something you should do only if you are enjoying the experience of sharing knowledge. Our mutual loss if it has not been fun. I hope you will reconsider as you mull over the matter. One way of avoiding your informed work being considered original research is to work from your contemporary reading, whatever you happen to be reading. As the source is at hand it is relatively easy to include sourcing in the relevant Wikipedia article. Fred Bauder 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

removed paragraphs

I removed the following paragraphs:

• 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.

• Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. The cool aesthetic permeates traditional West African cultures and African-American culture, as well— in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban, African American men; in African American dress and adornment, demeanor and speech.

• This dualistic ontological perspective, of motion and stasis, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, of heat and cool, grounded in the interplay of opposites, helps form the framework of the mask of the cool.

• The intrinsic value of cool in West African cultures lies in the fundamental belief that a certain detachment from one's surroundings is emblematic of spiritual centeredness and strength. This value of "the mask" resonates deeply in and pervades African American culture. In displaying cool, one also possesses it; thus, cool is both a means and an end. Cool manifests and conserves energy, as well as personal and spiritual, or psychic, power. In the dozens, an often ribald African American oral tradition in which two opponents take turns "signifying" or otherwise insulting one another's family line, the ultimate failure, the ultimate disgrace in this contest of wit and self-possession is not the failure to return a "snap" (insult) with a more cutting or side-splitting one; it is to "lose one's cool." Paradoxically, it is in the inscrutable mask of cool that the dualism of cool as a philosophical construct is, perhaps, most readily apparent. Physical composure under excitement or duress exercises strength and mental toughness (masculine energy); but as well manifests serenity, spiritual vitality and stillness (feminine energy).

• One meaning 'cool' shares with Standard English is an absence of excitement in a person, especially in times of stress. However, in African traditions, the cool aesthetic encompasses concepts of luminosity of motion, rebirth and reincarnation, healing or a state of wellness, calm, general well-being, and harmony — an absence of conflict. Some of these meanings have resonance in African American culture today.

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)

You are correctly following policy, but also removing interesting material. But my perspective is a minority one. Wikipedia is responsible for the consequences of its established policy. Fred Bauder 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He's simply throwing a tantrum. :p And this is Wikipedia. deeceevoice 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fred that the research is interesting, well compiled, and really good writing. That's why I want it to be verifiable. If you could do this, DCV, this article wouldn't go through circuitous edit wars. Thanks.--Urthogie 17:26, 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)

He's obviously not even bothered to google for it.

The Confucians celebrated traditionally 'male' virtues like duty, discipline and obedience, while the Taoists promoted the 'female' values of receptivity and passivity. [15]

The Maya metaphorically gendered much of the world and the cosmos by asserting supposed male aspects as dominant and female aspects as submissive.[16]

Bertha Coles wrote that the “man is the sun of the African Universe while woman is the moon, without man, woman has no place in the scheme of things.” [17]

Probably none of those are conclusive, but I'm sure if he bothered to spend more than the five minutes I've spent he could find something. - FrancisTyers 15:47, 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 would imagine that you can also prove, based on secondary sources that a number of professors, and not a single one says that. - FrancisTyers 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding your reply. Rephrase?--Urthogie 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You stated that all you can ever prove is that some professor says that (in the singular), I was attempting to point out that you can also prove that some professors say that (in the plural). E.g. It isn't necessary to say Dr. Jeremiah Hansen of the University of East Iceland states that blah blah blah..., we can also say that A number of academics ... or The majority of academics ..., or Academics working in the field of ..., so long as we provide sufficient references. For example, I can envisage being able to say something along the lines of A majority of anthropologists state that in many cultures the moon is identified with the feminine [1] [2] [3]. As a matter of interest have you read any books (i.e. dead tree format) on African philosophy or anthropology? I would encourage you to. - FrancisTyers 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right-- I would wholeheartedly support a sentance like "Several notable professors understand cool as feminine energy." In fact, in previous edits I have added such things. As far as African philosophy, I think it's impossible to know African philosophy without primary sources— thus, the field is filled with interesting guesswork a lot of the time. I agree with most the paragraphs I deleted from the article in several ways, but I don't think they're fit for the encyclopedia.--Urthogie 19:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship or Afrocentrism?

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)

There are several white academics who hold such views, so I don't think it can be pigeonholed into afrocentrism(but the article is biased towards the afrocentric view).--Urthogie 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have names of these several white acadmics and/or citations where they describe their views? Justforasecond 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Farris Thompson, in all of his works supports this idea that DCV puts forward. I've talked with the guy. The problem is that his viewpoint is being treated as science, when its really not.--Urthogie 12:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thompson[18] is a learned man who has spent his life studying indigenous African art and culture. He is imminently qualified to write on the subjecs he addresses and is well respected in his field. To my knowledge, no one has challenged his scholarship except, of course, the "contributors" here -- if that tells you anything (it certainly does me :p). To complain that Thompson is not a scientist is ridiculous. That's like arguing that Baldwin's treatise on the creative literary process has no validity because he's not a scientist. Sheer hogwash. Oh. And did I mention (check the link) he's white There's even a sho' nuff photo (since JFAS seems to believe only white academics can have any credibility on this subject) -- and, yes, the guy is white. Quite. deeceevoice 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your style, deecee. Regarding Justforasecond's request for the opinion's of white academics, I'll ignore for now the implication the these opinions are somehow more valuable since they come from "white" academis (how very white of you!), and just point out that you can be white and be an afrocentrist, just as you can be male and be a feminist (eg yours truly). Just keep that in mind for a second before you go dismissing all the "black" scholars and welcoming the "white" ones. ThePedanticPrick 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave the guy what he asked for. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your comments with a response -- except to say that dismissively branding information "afrocentrist" simply as a knee-jerk, reactionary, uninformed response is not a useful addition to the discussion. deeceevoice 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[disparaging remark removed - FrancisTyers 09:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)], but it gets old mighty fast. [19] Justforasecond 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

DCV, your logic here is flawed. I never said he has no validity, I just said his methods aren't scientific. I suggest you read up on the scientific method, which requires that findings are falsifiable. We can never know if Thompson's findings are scientifically sound, even if they are insightful.--Urthogie 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So does it all come down to Thompson or are there others who hold these views? Justforasecond 16:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some others, based on my discussion with him. Of course, it's a view...the problem is that this article was (and still is, to a certain extent) presenting said view as scientific.--Urthogie 16:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Did he give you the names or mention any of their works? The problem is the article right now mentions that there are more than one that subscribe to this "philosophy" description, but Thompson seems to be the only one mentioned. Justforasecond 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the email, but he listed several other professors that agree with him. Want me to ask again?--Urthogie 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you on gmail by now? :) No deletion necessary. Seriously though, it would improve the article immensely, especially anyone that actually uses the term "philosophy". I am not sure that Thompson himself has done so. Justforasecond 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it interesting that Urthogie failed to report very little of the findings of his conversation w/Thompson after announcing publicly that he intended to consult him in an attempt to verify certain assertions made in this article. He said little. Only that Thompson said cool was associated with dignity. Urthogie then stated that whatever Thompson had to say didn't have much value. Why? Because he's not a scientist. :p So, Thompson stated that there were other academics in agreement, huh? (No surprise there.) So sorry to disappoint. :p deeceevoice 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DCV, stop putting words into my mouth. Of course what he says is of value. Its possible to have a valuable opinion based on your research, and still not be a scientist. A scientist's findings are falsifiable among other things. So, thats why I have a problem with his findings being presented as completely authoritative, when theyre more of an expert opinion than the results of science.--Urthogie 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to fail to grasp, Urthogie, is that expert opinions are sufficient here. Thompson is the recognized authority in such matters, and pretty much has been for 30 years or more. His scholarship is, as far as I'm aware, unchallenged and much respected worldwide. deeceevoice 12:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Even respected opinions must be stated as such: respected opinions; not scientific facts.--Urthogie 12:51, 6 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)

contradiction

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)

No doubt Miles had his diva moments. But he could blow sweathotfire and coolblueice behind those dark shades of his and never flinch. He was a law unto himself. The kat was cool. Troof, roof. Deeceevoice 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this info seems to be propped up by hand-waving. If it's hand-waving done by reputable sources, that might be ok, but we need to make sure we're not inserting original hand-waving. Friday (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD -- anyone other than Thompson?

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)

You wanna try a third time for an article delete? Don't waste our time. Deeceevoice 17:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil deeceevoice. AfD is up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (2nd nomination) Justforasecond 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lotsa luck. Deeceevoice 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the same question as JFAS. We need a quote describing cool as a philosophical "construct" or concept, hopefully distinguishing it from the more general concept of cool. DC, I imagine you can see how other contributors don't want their time wasted by original research. Hyacinth 19:30, 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)

DCV, you really don't understand opposition to this article. You think we have a problem with the concept. Some of us do, some of us don't. Personally, I agree with at least 90% of the article-- I think its true. But the policy at wikipedia isn't to present what you think is true, and what opinions you value, as objective fact. For example, we can verify that Thompson believes X on this subject. However, we cannot verify that X is true-- the realm of cultural studies and philosophy rarely reaches places of objective truth at any point.--Urthogie 13:20, 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)

"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)

That's incorrect. The talk pages show that it was the other way around, that you objected to cross-cultural, non-African/non-African-American references and created Cool (aesthetic) an then Cool (African philosophy) because you wanted a "separate page devoted exclusively to cool as an aesthetic with roots in West African culture" without the "limited concepts that parallel English-language usage of the word "cool."" [20] CoYep 13:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are most certainly at least partially incorrect and most assuredly a misrepresentation of my position. I wanted an article that treated the subject with respect and comprehensively, rather than one that concentrated on the shallow, pop-culture appropriation/concept of "cool" as little more than adjective or slang expression. Information about cool in popular culture was included in the earliest incarnations of the piece. The constant carping that led to the bifurcation of the article into two, separate documents was all about people in denial of the phenomenon's African/African-American roots. Deeceevoice 13:46, 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)

A "POV fork" is one only if it is not supported by existing scholarship. Again, the original article, cool, has come full circle to support the information provided in the secondary article -- because the fact is clear: pop culture notions of cool originated in/are grounded in African/African-American cultural sensibilities. Dissenters were invited to write Cool in any way they chose while I worked on a piece examining the authentic roots of the phenomenon. And so far, all they've come up with is a return to commentary on African-American culture, utilizing the same information I provided earlier. What amuses me is that not a single, solitary soul has thought to examine cool and the phenomenon of the anti-hero, like the archetype of the "bad nigger" -- Stagga Lee; like Iceberg Slim; like, later, biker boys and Clint Eastwood's nameless drifter. 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. You dno't like the piece? Use your imagination/creativity. "Be bold." Do something about it! Deeceevoice 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

DCV, its not a fact-- its an opinion held by scholars. You hold that opinion so strongly that you treat it as fact.--Urthogie 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So was, once, the notion that the earth is round regarded as fact only by scholars. That the ignorant masses thought it flat did not make it so. :p Deeceevoice 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The earth has been proven to be round through empirical science, something that is actually falsifiable and verifiable. Thompson's opinions and the others' opinions are neither.--Urthogie 14:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) I've got deadlines. You guys talk amonst yasselves.Deeceevoice 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The kinds of solid "truths" we routinely get in hard sciences are often difficult to come by when studying things like sociology or origins of complex concepts. "Africa" is a very huge place with many different languages and cultures, so I personally doubt that academics tend to talk about anything as an "African philosophy", so I'd want good sources for that. Equating "African" with "African-American" is a huge, obvious error. One could just as easily suggest that "cool" is best described as an American concept, rather than an African one. Was it influenced by Black American culture (which was influenced by American slave culture, which in turn was influenced by various African cultures)? Certainly. But, like jazz, "cool" might well be something uniquely American. Anyway, unless good sources show differently, I very much doubt there's one consistant consensus among scholars as to the One True Origin of "cool". We should present whatever important and verifiable views of this concept exist among experts- we should not assume there is only one answer. Friday (talk) 14:16, 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)

Probably just an honest mistake by her. Although, one must admit that the way DCV changes her comments after you replied to them can be annoying-- it often renders the conversation unreadable in hindsight.--Urthogie 14:48, 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)

POV Fork

"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)

"No one"? Thompson has, which is why the article was titled in such a manner -- to treat its African origins and separate it from the shallow, pop-culture treatment of cool. Further, I was actually encouraged to do so by other editors, and I held off doing so until the second RfD process was completed to avoid confusion (or, was it the first; I can't recall). Again, interestingly, the article on cool has developed to include the African/African-American origins of the term -- as I predicted it would. :p Deeceevoice 17:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

word of advice to DCV

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)

For a bit I was-- which is why most of the policy violations are now mild-- the only major one is the title itself. By the way, you probably write the best prose of anyone on this website that I've met thus far.--Urthogie 10:51, 14 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)

"Cultural appropriation" is another way of saying acculturation. It's what happens when people get together from different cultures. So it should be expected.--Urthogie 13:16, 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)

Notice how its not called Cool (America), but rather Cool (aesthetic). It allows for a mixing of different views-- not overriding one view with another. So your comparison isn't applicable.--Urthogie 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)