Talk:Cool (aesthetic)/Archive 1

Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude
It seems to me like there's an over-reliance on this book. It's cited ever other paragraph, and it also is the basis for the main image for this article. Surely there are other authoritative sources on cool? Or, for that matter, no authoritative source on cool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.241.32 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool defined
Change this to Attempts to Define Cool or something similar. Some of the quotes hit on parts of the concept without defining the whole and should not be called definitions. This one's the worst: "Cool is an age-specific phenomenon, defined as the central behavioural trait of teenagerhood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.150.70 (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

cool
I came to the page after editing a page on Joe Zawinul -- but I was disappointed. This deserves more than a "disambiguation" page. "Cool" is a complex aesthetic with its roots in Africa, one that has transformed American popular culture. I've got no time right now. Anyone else like to try their hand at a decent piece? Please! -- deeceevoice
 * I like this definition, although I think you should say African-american culture.CSTAR 15:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that you took the time, why did you bother? I feel your contribution trivializes "cool" by treating it as a one-dimensional term --and then you direct the reader to a discredited work. What's up with that? I thought to delete your last statement, but thought better of it, having no time to write anything more thoughtful myself. Further, "cool" is definitely African in origin -- like blue notes in jazz, like much of African-American culure. I still don't have time, but I'll come back to this. Hopefully, there will be other, more substantive contributions in the interim. Peace. deeceevoice 07:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, and take your point about the questionable FRATBOY, although that reference is not necessarilly GOOD just that it can't be taken as a scholarly refernce. But I do still think refering to it as African-American is correct, and there is a lot of SHIPS on  -American culture which could be relied on here. Although I am quite not sure I see how cool is a one dimensional concept in this way.  But perhaps I should remove the last sentence -- my intention though was this - cool was a specific irreproducible phenonenom of African-American  society against racism and economic oppression. Take that away and the essence of cool is gone. CSTAR 13:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the quote from MacAdams. I deleted the last sentence. I didn't delete the reference, because I thought it is preferable to have a reference section even though the only current reference may not be a scholarly one. CSTAR 14:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If "cool" existed in Africa (and exists still) as an aesthetic before European incursions as an intrinsic part of certain cultures, how can it be narrowly defined as something reactionary?  The essence of "cool" has nothing to do with white folks!  But I guess we're operating from different knowledge bases -- or we're just talking past one another.  At any rate, I'll return to this in a week or two, when I have time. I've changed the text back to the Africa reference.  It is, indeed, accurate.  Thanks for your contributions.


 * And, yes, I agree that the reference should remain, but the quote should have been disappeared. Without qualification, it treats "cool" as simply a label related to fads, which is, indeed, trivializing it.  Peace. [User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 01:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you.CSTAR 02:21, 1 July 2004 (UTC)

uncool
So far, you've been talking about who owns cool. That's not very informative and not very cool.


 * Nope. No one has discussed "ownership."  "Origin," "ownership."  There's a difference. deeceevoice 18:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The verb "kul" means "to go home" in the West African language of the Dagaaba and is not related to "cool" and its usuage.

Sorry, but you're mistaken, but it's somewhat understandable. Your comments/edits point to the fact that we're speaking of two separate things. Further, I never said "cool" had a cognate-word/homonym counterpart in any West African language, and I certainly didn't specify, among the many hundreds -- and, possibly, thousands -- of possible tongues/dialects, Dagaaba. (Further, even if there were an African-language cognate counterpart, how would you know -- unless you're familiar with all conceivable languages/dialects? It seems somewhat presumptuous.)  I wrote that there is a parallel concept-word linkage. Another Wiki user indicated to me in another discussion that this article should be separated --and now I think he is correct. There is a cool aesthetic that is a distinct part of West African culture, and then there are certain limited concepts that parallel English-language usage of the word "cool." I'll make the division/separation when I have more time. deeceevoice 17:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going ahead and creating an article on Cool (aesthetic). I'll be transferring the relevant portions of this piece to that one -- and you can do what you will with this one. (I think this should be a disambiguation page, but I'm not quite certain how to do that. deeceevoice 17:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is now a disambiguation page. I've created a separate page devoted exclusively to cool as an aesthetic with roots in West African culture. I have copied the discussion herein to that article's discussion page. deeceevoice 18:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool! :-) (another unattributed comment)

I've deleted -- again -- the following from this article because it is directly related to the distinctly African/African-American sense of the word and part of the cool aesthetic:

"The word itself in English slang usage has a range of related adjectival meanings: 'cool' can describe a state of wellness, calm or general well-being; an absence of conflict, something 'hip', meaning current and desirable, aesthetically appealing or any intellectual, literary or musical expression of sublime or understated elegance, such as cool jazz."

"In pop culture, 'cool' sometimes is associated with a element of arrogant self-awareness. In youth culture, 'cool' often is used to describe someone or something conforming to a set of social values which are seen as countercultural, i.e., which challenge norms or traditional mores of the dominant, or adult, culture."

This information has absolutely nothing to do with "calmness." Further, it makes no sense to present exactly the same information twice -- and, again, certainly not in this context. That's what the disamb page is for -- to refer people to the appropriate context of a word. deeceevoice 10:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Facts:


 * The term "Cool" itself has its roots in Middle English


 * Its modified modern English slang usage has a range of related adjectival meanings, as listed in the article, including "calmness"

I warmly recommend that you stop vandalizing this page. Rather

or
 * add informations of value to this page
 * use your separate page devoted exclusively to cool as an aesthetic for your elaborations [another anonymous edit]]


 * The English origin of "cool" (after all, it is an English word) to describe calmness is not in dispute. Further, my edits are not "vandalism."  This is a disambiguation page.  Any discussion of the use of "cool" to describe something hip or current is related to "cool" in the context of AAVE slang expression and is, therefore, related to cool as an aesthetic.  Therefore, that information has been deleted from this article and will continue to be deleted from this article.  Quite the contrary.  Your anonymous edits are vandalism.  deeceevoice 18:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. My edits are not anonymous, on the contrary, my ID is very easy to trace through my IP

2. To remove large chunks of text, to move text highhandedly or to start an edit war by violating the three revert rule is not an appropriate way to resolve disagreements

To resolve this dispute I suggest that


 * we compromise on how to improve this article

or, as I already recommended,


 * you focus on your newly-created page and decide at a later date if it's reasonable to merge the 2 pages

or


 * we request mediation [another anonymous contribution]

First, I'm not going to bother to trace your IP address. If you don't sign your contributions, then they are anonymous. I've labeled them as such for clarity's sake, so that they will not be confused with the following contributions by another reader.

Perhaps we aren't communicating. This is the disambiguation page. Note the listing of the various uses of "cool" at the bottom of the page. As such, it is not meant to be an article; merely a switching station of sorts. Please refer to my comments about including any pop/youth culture references to "cool" as being related to cool as an aesthetic and, therefore, not meant to be on the Cool disambiguation page. The notion of cool as a strictly English word referring to tranquility has nothing to do with cool as an aesthetic -- just as it has nothing to do with any of the other uses of "cool" listed at the bottom of the page.

I don't understand your opposition. This page on "cool" originally was a disambiguation page. I was new to Wikipedia when I first began editing this page and didn't really understand what a disambiguation page was. I think I was the one who turned it into a stub and commented on how "cool" (as an aesthetic) deserved more than just a stub. I encouraged other contributions, and it developed from there. The problem is there are now two, separate discussions of "cool" going on in the same article. I took the initiative and restored the page to a disambiguation page (as it properly should be) and started a new page (as was suggested to me by someone in another forum) for Cool (aesthetic) -- precisely to avoid conflict and misunderstanding -- a move which you termed "vandalism."

Now, what's the problem? deeceevoice 20:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article had 3 links to cool African Philosophy (one was labelled cool aesthetic but linked to an identical page as cool african philosophy). I removed two of them. If this cool aesthetic/african philosophy material is an important part of the subject of "cool", the way to express this is not to fill the page with identical links to it. --Xyzzyplugh 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm only just now returning to this article (it was a disamb page), so I'm not certain which links you're writing about. I originated the article on cool (African philosophy) and predicted that any discussion of "cool" as a cultural phenomenon/aesthetic would simply return to the source, African Americans and Africa -- as it most certainly has.  The way the article has been rewritten, addressing the cultural connection, perhaps, has addressed your complaint.  deeceevoice 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?
"...roots in Middle English "cole", from Old English "col" ... part of English slang since World War II ... first been recorded in written English in the early 1930s.

This etymology needs source citation. See Verifiability. Tearlach 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TRUE Origins
In fact, there is only one true definition for the term "cool" in it's proper use. When first used by His Holiness The Fonz the term was immediately recognized as one that infers a sense of ease with one's self and one's surroundings. It implies that the person is calm and under control.


 * Ridiculous. deeceevoice 10:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not ridiculous... It's a legitimate definition of "cool" in the European tradition: See sprezzatura, the Italian Renaissance word for "cool". Emyth 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is ridiculous. The character the Fonz has little or no connection with Italy.  Fonz is a send-up of biker culture, which comes from troubled, rebellious characters in ure like the one(s) played by Marlon Brando in movies like "On the Waterfront" and by James Dean.  That biker cool, with the sunglasses and leather, comes directly from African-American culture -- through the jazz, "beat" bohemian scene, the counterculture scene.  deeceevoice (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deck?

 * Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the false synonyms.--Urthogie 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

theories of cool
are these actual theories?--Urthogie 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ya, all in The Rebel Sell pg 190. The names are played around with abit, "cool fictionalism" was called "cool fascismo" because thats an adbusters term, but I thought it was unfair description of the theory. The last one wasn't given a name, so i gave it a boring one. Spencerk 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the theories a categorization of opinions, or are they what the people with opinions define their theories as? Or did the Rebel Sell make them all up?--Urthogie 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * catagorization of opinions. rebel sell created the last one. Spencerk 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest renaming the headings so they dona fide theories(by the way I really like how you've expanded the page if I havent said so already), so that Cool fictionalism is 'Cool as a nonexistent concept,' and make the others reflect categorization rather than the idea that these are accepted as theories like liberalism or conservatism, etc. Also, what would you think of merging Cool (African philosophy), so we can finally get rid of that POV mess, and add a world perspective to this article?  Peace, --Urthogie 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna take back my suggestion of merging, because both articles are looking increasingly good by themselves.--Urthogie 10:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

images
I understand the Miles davis image, but what about the others? They seem both confusing and POV? Can the person who put them in please explain their inclusion? Thanks, --Urthogie 10:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've returned this article to "Cool (aesthetic)"
Because that's what this piece specifically deals with. "Cool" now redirects here, which is the way it should be. To have the specific article name "Cool (aesthetic) direct to a more general article name was back asswards.  Further, the talk page for "Cool (aesthetic)" redirected to "Cool (African philosophy)," which is certainly incorrect.  That has been fixed.  deeceevoice 12:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DCV, I completely oppose your move. Disambiguation pages are for when two meanings are equally intended.  When people search for "Cool", they mean Cool(aesthetic).


 * Well, duh. And that's the way I've set it up (I think).  The talk page for "Cool" should be deleted, as it simply duplicates the talk page for "cool (aesthetic)."  Before I made the change, "talk: cool" redirected to "talk: cool (African philosophy).  deeceevoice 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From Disambiguation: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page."

DCV, do you really think the majority of users are looking for african philosophy when they enter cool into the bar and press go? No, of course not. Please follow policy and don't make unreasonable moves like this, especially without concensus. --Urthogie 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. And that's not the way it's been set up. Someone entering "cool" will come to "cool (aesthetic)". At the top of the page the reader is directed to the disambig page for additional meanings (including "cool (African philosophy)". That makes sense to me.  Frankly, the accompanying talk page for "cool" should simply be deleted.  It is now duplicative (of "talk: cool (aesthetic)").  The specific article (cool (aesthetic)), it seems to me is the logical desired destination of someone entering the word "cool".  It doesn't appear that the person who made the change in February consulted anyone when they made the, IMO, ill-advised change. deeceevoice 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. If cool is just a redirect, why not go with the simpler option?  That's how it's done from what I've seen elsewhere.--Urthogie 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
I think this article needs an explicitly seperate section on the etymology of cool as used in this way. According to the article, this use originates within African-American culture, if so that needs to be sourced. Also noteworthy is how/when cool has entered into other languages, and the subtle differences in meaning. Dsol 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the 1930's date (now removed) came from a contributor who may have found the date in the OED. I don't have access to one, so I don't know if the date accompanied any info re the origin of its vernacular usage. I haven't gotten around to doing any reading on cool, specifically (not a focus of mine right now), but the likeliest place one would find such a connection would be writings on jazz and jazz culture.  There is also a contention that "cool" has a true word cognate in at least one West African language, keule or kuele (something like that).  I don't recall where I came across it -- probably Thompson, given the nature of the claim (Thompson also claims "funk" as originally used by African-American musicians has African linguistic origins) -- but I figure it'll pop up sooner or later.  Although I don't think the sentence about "cool" having infiltrated other languages needs citation (it's a pretty general statement that is fairly obvious), variouis nuances the word has taken on in other languages/cultures over time might be an interesting addition.  "Cool" probably entered the French lexicon in the '40s, when expatriate, black jazzmen created a thriving jazz scene in Paris (where bohemian culture originated.) deeceevoice 14:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DCV, since you posted those statements of fact, can I expect you to have a couple sources by 2 weeks from now?--Urthogie 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. deeceevoice 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to source stuff you say on talk pages :) But yes it would be cool if you could find a source and put it in.  16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Its just that theres a lot of stuff in the page related to what she talked about marked with Fact--Urthogie 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is deeceevoice still editing??  I thought he had departed.  Oh well.   I think the necessity of citations was made clear in the RfAr.   If deecee isn't willing to give citations for her contributions and a cursory google search finds nothing just remove them.   Justforasecond 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1930s date does not seem to have come from the OED. "Applied to jazz music: restrained or relaxed in style; also applied to the performer; opp. HOT a. orig. U.S." The first entry is "1947 (record by Charlie Parker Quartet, Dial 1015) Cool Blues." Another is "1948 New Yorker 3 July 28 The bebop people have a language of their own... Their expressions of approval include ‘cool’! "Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Song of the Thin Man (1947) may have an occurrence of "cool". Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Removals
A couple of things were removed for being "unverified" or not from a "scholarly source":. I don't see anything obviously wrong, and sources were provided. Unless someone objects, I'll probably put this stuff back. Friday (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There've been more removals, some of which have been put back and then removed again. Please, use the talk page for discussion instead of just edit warring.  Friday (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * agree, user: Deeceevoice deleted mass amounts of writing on 17 April 2006, mostly in response to policies applied in the afd for "cool (african philosphy). this page may have problems with source reliability, which means alot of {fact} tags. I msged deeceevoice that if a definition for cool is different than what appears on the page, there are better ways to approach this instead of deleting 90% of the article.Spencerk 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

About those deletions (edit conflict)

 * The dictionary references I've removed are not supported by the links which accompany them, or, in one case, there is no source cited at all. They're gone.
 * The Max Weber article does not even mention "cool." Original research.  Deleted.
 * The outside link at the bottom of the page was complete garbage, obscene and inappropriate -- likely vandalism. Deleted.
 * Someone else deleted the photos. :p
 * The information about the beatnik scene, etc., was deleted. To paraphrase a question posed on the talk page of the AfD for Cool (African philosophy), how long should uncited, unsourced information be tolerated?  The "citation" notations have been up for quite some time now.  The information is unverified.  It goes.  Deleted.
 * I'll reinsert the Thompson stuff for now,, but I likely will use it elsewhere; I wrote it, and I will use it where I see fit. If you don't want duplicated material later on, then I suggest someone come up with something original and substantive of their own.  (Now ''there's a thought!)  Deeceevoice 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The information on African cool is deleted. This is not pop-cuture cool, which is the clearly and explicitly stated subject of this article.  It falls outside the scope of this article and is best presented in an article dealing with the African cultural aesthetic.  I wrote it.  I've removed it -- and it is already in use elsewhere, in a more appropriate location.  It should not be reproduced here.  You'll either have to do an extensive rewrite of it (the way folks do thinly veiled rewrites of source material to skirt plagiarism laws), utilizing other sources/excerpts/quotes, or -- here's a novel idea -- find your own information, then write your own text!  Deeceevoice 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This does seem to be a prima facie WP:POINT instance, but the information in this article should be cited (just like the "African philosophy" version of "Cool" should have been cited).  Still, it would be common courtesy to request the citations with citation neeeded or on the talk page before ripping them out.   Removing the African cool information is bizarre considering that deeceevoice fought to get it in here in the first place.  Justforasecond 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, gee. I see.  Kinda like discussing African aesthetic before it was obliterated wholesale for absolutely no reason?  Gotcha. :p  Deeceevoice 19:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anyone feels this page is making progress in being a comprehensive article on an important social idea. AFAIK, Deeceevoice's deletions are a clear WP:POINT, and the user should appeal cool (african philosophy) instead. There is alot of notable literature on the concept of cool, im holding a book right now that talks about african ideas of cool being (explicitly)incorporated into beatnik culture (i have a karowak quote on it!). Lets make one comprehensive page where the several ideas of cool can co-exist, let it bulk if necessary. Also, does anyone know what pictures would be fair use? a screenshot from 'happy days'? a cc beatnick pic?. i vote to unprotect and restore all writing that has been made for this page in the past month. add fact tags. Spencerk 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. I've perfectly valid reasons for my edits.  I see the majority of the text I deleted has not been restored by other edits -- in particular, the Max Weber stuff.  As far as I can see, it's irrelevant.  deeceevoice 11:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article for now, due to edit warring. Let's work things out on the talk page instead of editing by brute force. Friday (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Brute force"? Kinda like the way Cool (African philosophy) was obliterated? Gee, I'm trying really hard to see your point. Deeceevoice 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda expressed a concern over me reverting and protecting, so I've undone my revert. I've left it protected for now, which I think is appropriate.  However if anyone disagrees and unprotects I won't war over it.  Friday (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Only partially accurate. You selectively reverted the text, failing to restore my edit which removed the following: "However, the vernacular, or slang, use of cool has been traced to African-American Vernacular English [citation needed] in which, among other things, it can mean calm, stoic, impressive, intriguing, or superlative. Cool also can be used to describe a general state of well-being, or to indicate agreement or assent." Again, how long should unsourced information in an article be tolerated? :p Deeceevoice 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected page
I'd like to move the wiktionary tag down to its usual position at the bottom of the page purely for aesthetics. Any objections to me doing so? - brenneman  {L}  00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections, I guess, but I'd always thought the standard placement was at the top... It does raise an interesting question, though.  The article as currently written stikes me as a mere dictionary definition.  Spot-checking the history, I see no versions that have included anything other than definition, origins and discussion of usage - appropriate for an unabridged dictionary but insufficient for an encyclopedia article.  This is about a word.  I think the whole content should be transwikid and integrated with the Wiktionary article.  Rossami (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That reply made me go "ook?" But once I looked at "what links here" from the wiktionary template, it became clear that (as usual) Rossami is correct.  The template appears at the top in about 75% of instances, and it's only the inordinate amount of time I spend looking at "external links" sections (at the bottom) that had given me a false impression.  I sit corrected.  brenneman  {L}  04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days, hopefully things have died down. I've unprotected. Friday (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Sondheim
it seems Stephen Sondheim claims creating the term cool in like the 1940s. i can't find a good enough source for this, anyone else have any luck? Spencerk 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This piece is a mess
The language is entirely too colloquial/sloppy, and virtually all of the information it presents is uncited. A few days back, I skimmed through it and deleted some of the most blatantly speculative stuff, but this falls far short of any kind of a decent article for any sort of respectable source. If the language isn't cleaned up and the (in some cases) dubious information it presents cited, the text should be deleted -- and quick. deeceevoice 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where most of the article is too colloquial, the introduction at the top is just pretentious. I can't help feeling there must be a clearer and more straightforward way to express the following:


 * Cool in popular culture is an aesthetic of comportment, demeanor, motion, physical appearance and style. It is also a term of social distinction. Because of cool's varied and changing connotations, as well as its subjective nature, cool is difficult to define singly. Unlike "hip", cool can be an attribute of objects as well as people. [1] A great deal of literature has been committed to understanding this force of "cool" in society.[2]
 * garik 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the first three sentences. I see nothing "pretentious" about it; it is literate and precise/concise. But, hey, it's part of the article. (If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to take a stab at improving it.) Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for much of the section treating its uses. Not only is much of the remainder of the article colloquial, it is uncited/inaccurate. If no citation is forthcoming (it's been that way for some time now), the unsubstantiated and poorly written contentions simply will be removed. deeceevoice 22:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe "just pretentious" was a bit much - sorry if I offended you - but I have made a few changes, I hope in the service of clarity. Apart from anything else, I can't help feeling the introduction gave up too easily.  It noted, reasonably enough, that it's hard to give a simple definition of "cool"; the problem is that the job of an encyclopaedia article is to make a stab at doing just that, and the job of an introduction is to prefigure what's coming later.    My attempt can certainly be improved upon, but it's a start.  However hard it is to define, it's possible to give a general idea of the associations involved in the use of the word.  After all, "game" is a notoriously hard thing to define, but the article makes a fair job of it all the same.  Incidentally, I also feel quite strongly that "hip" can, like "cool", refer to objects as well as people. garik 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't offend me, but the language I contributed was far from "pretentious." And read it again. Nor did it state the word was difficult or impossible to define; it merely stated it had no singular definition. Further, the word was defined -- until someone blew up the article and added the ridiculous, plagiarized language under "use." I've pared down your rather awkward, excessive verbiage somewhat. YOu may disagree, but I think it's an improvement on your improvement.deeceevoice 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite true; it didn't say 'difficult' (and nor indeed did I! Though I do confess I implied it.)  There's still something I quite dislike about the phrase 'define singly', however.  Will you accept 'straightforwardly'?  I think that has the added advantage of encompassing the problem of both plurality and slipperiness of meaning.  Whatever word we choose, I feel my main point (about giving a definition) is valid in any case.  To me, the introduction as it was seemed to circle around the concept of cool somewhat abstractly; I think it benefits from coming down to earth a bit and providing a working definition of "cool".  I know that the article goes into that later (if, as you've said yourself, not terribly well), but then introductions should prefigure what follows. garik 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely in agreement with your most recent edit - I was being a bit wordy. And 'concept' is  much better than 'force'.  In the same vein, I think 'one meaning' does the job of 'singular meaning' more simply and elegantly. garik 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, does 'cool' really have any particular connection with 'understated elegance'? Such things can indeed be called cool, but then plenty of things are described as cool that are neither elegant nor understated. Isn't it just a matter of approval or admiration, dependent on what the speaker approves of or admires? garik 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

recent evolution of "cool"
Came across this article- not yet sure how it could be worked into the article (or whether it even should be- it's only one study) but it's possibly useful so I'm putting it here on the talk page for now. Friday (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem
A provocative question: How can we, the editors of this page define cool, since we are doing something uncool in editing it. Editing 'Cool (aesthetic)' is not cool.
 * Well editing 'Terrorism' doesn't make you want to blow people up, I hope, but I like to think non-terrorists can contribute usefully to the article. garik 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy?
Tried to clean up the "uses" section and realized that most of it is a copy of the "World Wide Words" article. How are we supposed to handle this? CoYep 09:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Quinion's informal, muddled musings on the word are vague and full of speculation and supposition. Even if this portion of the article weren't plagiarized, it's still not the caliber of information that passes muster for an encyclopedia. It's incredibly poorly written and does not rise to the level of scholarly, or even coherent, explication. Without authoritative sources and some serious clean-up, it's simply not serviceable. I've gone back and deleted it -- ostensibly because of the blatant plagiarism, but I could just as easily have done so because of other issues already addressed. The only thing of real substance that remains is a paraphrasing of language that existed before the plagiarizer made his "contribution" -- that you, CoYep inserted. (We can at least be thankful for that.) deeceevoice 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

good job everyone
This is not an easy page to write, we are doing valuable, good work.Spencerk 17:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A college kid with a facebook account
Some college kid named Bret Farniak has a lot of references citing him as the "inventor of cool', and his birth being a "totally awesome event", and whatnot. This seems foolish and childish, so I'm removing these sections. NeoChrono Ryu 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. You don't need to justify removing good old-fashioned vandalism on a talk page. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Frau?
Erm... why is there the word 'frau' in brackets in the first sentence? I'd assume it was German-sponsored vandalism, except it seems to have been there for a good long while. Can anyone justify it? garik 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it that's a no... I've removed it.  Please reinstate it if there's some reason for it that I'm not aware of! garik 12:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"the west" does not include japan, india, turkey
little geography lesson: "the west" does not include japan, india, turkey, etc. most learned people know this but one editor continues to get this basic fact wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Alpha order
I want to say that I think it is important that we use a fair way of ordering these topics. "Black" is a race, it's not the title of ethnic group "Afro- (insert country here)" are the titles of these groups in this context (we're talking about culture here) So the title of the section should not be changed to "black". African Diaspora is the term used by the sources, in any case. futurebird 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. there is no such thing is a single Black culture, as this would suggest the indigenous Australians would have the same African culture as Africans, but they're not being discussed here.--Urthogie 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, black's not even a race, it's a skin colour. garik 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, fb -- no more than the European sections should read "white". And as a specifically indigenous African aesthetic, the title of the section is perfectly appropriate. Further, the ordering of the sections is not only in alpha order, it's done in a way that reflects the origins of cool in pop culture -- which is via Africa and the diaspora (most notably, through African-American culture). And it's the section -- not surprisingly, given the origins of pop-culture cool -- with the most information. Frankly, I doubt the other sections will ever be fleshed out sufficiently to merit separate sections. The source of the information elsewhere appears to be only one set of authors. deeceevoice 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no surprise whatsoever that the article is shaping up just the way I predicted it would. I said long ago that any thoughtful examination of this subject would lead back to Africa and African-Americans. And people screamed "racism" and POV pushing and all kinds of crap -- some of the same people who questioned "get down." The truth will out and ignorance falls away.... deeceevoice 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically everyone agreed with you on the African-American part, and only one or two disagreed that Africans had an influence on the development of cool. Much of what you describe as "African" is simply the result of opression, something purely African-American in its development.  Or to quote Frantz Fanon: "What is often called the black soul is white man's artifact."  The "feminine" element of the African-American cool seems to largely result from the negative feeling of beeing stared at and hated by a white populous-- not some ancient earth mystic's tradition, as you would suggest.  It's a known fact that people can do cooler dance moves, and look more stylish, if they know how "cool" they look to the Other while doing it.  Therefore, after having researched this subject, as you suggested I had to before claiming to know something about it-- my conclusion is that African-American cool is not a morphed form of African cool-- but rather a relatively unique creation-- a gestalt, so to speak, created by mixing the energy and rhythm of Africa with the freedom and struggles in the American South by a people experiencing full blown freedom with an outburst of creativity and life.


 * As a sidenote, my research (especially in gathering those links for Jewish cool) also made be recognize that you were right about criticizing "pop culture" cool, which seems to undermine the individuality of it all.--Urthogie 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And you think your (erroneous) conclusions trump those of scholars like Thompson. lol Don't worry. You're in good company. There are lots of people who like to think we came here with nothing -- no historical or cultural legacy -- that who we are kind of sprang up from outta nowhere and just "grew like Topsy."

Went out of town to an exhibition of quilts from Gee's Bend recently and found it disappointing -- so much so that I phoned the curator from the information desk and left a long, angry message on her voice mail. The text sucked big-time. It barely mentioned slavery and mentioned Africa only once -- in the context of the origin of one of the earliest Gee's Bend quilters and nothing more. But there I was looking at clear examples of an African aesthetic that fairly shouted at me: syncopation/swing/jazz, vibrant colors of equal value/intensity, asymmetry, improvisation. Hell, some of the patterns looked like kente cloth. The exhibition catalog/book was no better. Abysmal ignorance everywhere!

I gave the recording device an earful.

Weeks later, she called my out-of-town number, got my home number, then called me here in DeeCee to tell me she agreed wholeheartedly w/my criticism of the exhibition.

Reading your comments is like reading some history hack claim that, but for white oppression, an African-American ethnic identity would not exist, or like reading some numbskull sportswriter claim that, had it not been for the selective breeding of African slaves, African-American athletic prowess would not be. Oh, yeah. Ultimately, we are who we are because of white folks. ULtimately, we owe it all to ol' massuh. Just precious. :p deeceevoice 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is upsetting

 * I do hate conflict, and deecee isn't mincing words here or playing nice but there is a good point here and one that I think a great number of people have a hard time understanding.


 * Much of what you describe as "African" is simply the result of opression, something purely African-American in its development. Or to quote Frantz Fanon: "What is often called the black soul is white man's artifact."


 * I understand this to be a flat-out denial of the contributions of all African cultures to the technology, art, science, music, philosophy religion and let's not forget "cool" of the world. It's just a step away from that infamous quote that "Africa has no history." I found it insulting and hurtful, as if African-American culture came out of nowhere, or... is somehow just the result of racism. I just don't understand how that could be possible. I can't even make sense of it. It's like saying Jewish culture is just the result of the holocaust, or that Irish culture is the result of British oppression and potato famines.


 * I urge you not to get angry because you're being criticized for what you said, but rather to really think about what this implies. Part of me hopes that I just misunderstood what you meant by this.


 * I also worry that you'll just get angry, or think that you're being called "racist" and stop listening. Please don't do that. Just, seriously think about what you're saying...


 * futurebird 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also need to ask what is the difference between "African-American cool is not a morphed form of African cool--" and  "a gestalt, so to speak, created by mixing the energy and rhythm of Africa with the freedom and struggles in the American South" ?


 * And what is "the energy and rhythm of Africa" ? futurebird 07:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes African-American culture so intriguing to whites is the fact that its source, the indigenous cultures of Mother Africa, are so different from those of the West. We (African-Americans) are the antithesis to the thesis of white-bread America.  World popular culture is the result.  Whites (and others) have drunk so deeply of the wellspring of Africa, they don't even recognize the tell-tale signs when they see them.  But too late!  That which they admire -- and fear and despise -- already it has become an organic part of who they are.  :p  Subversion.  You gotta love it.  deeceevoice 07:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First off Futurebird, I won't get mad even if you called me racist-- which you're clearly not doing-- so don't worry about offending me. I want to first off point out that it's strange you would think what I said, in quoting Fanon is "a flat-out denial of the contributions of all African cultures to the technology, art, science, music, philosophy religion and let's not forget "cool" of the world."  Fanon was an African, a black nationalist, and a profound writer on black experience in assimilated society.  I'm obviously not talking about all contributions by all Africans, I'm talking only about "cool" and I'm talking only about parts of Western Africa and Central Africa where slaves came from.  Clearly, this is not a discussion of all African contributions-- only one of them, from a certain part of Africa.


 * When I talk about the energy and rhythms of Africa I'm referring obviously to the tonally complex and polyrhythmic beats of African drummers, and the energy is the obvious enthusiasm and fun attitude with which they approach life and music.


 * In regards to DCV: I've been raised in an originally middle-eastern Jewish culture assimilated into a European culture over the course of several centuries. I recognize the enormous effect this assimilation has on the development of my culture-- enough to call myself a European, even if it feels/sounds weird to use that term for myself.  Iranian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Italian-Americans etc: after a couple generations, they are more similar to Americans than to their original homelands.  The reason there is still such a large cultural difference between African-Americans and non-African Americans is because of the history of immense oppression against blacks in this country-- not because of some unique trait of Africa.  Where would Jewish identity be without anti-Semites?  Hmm..it'd look a lot different.  A lot less nervous, a lot less intelligent, and a lot less paranoid.  This is probably why you see more difference between Jewish-Europeans and Gentile europeans than Jewish-Americans and gentile Americans.  Not because of some unique trait of my people, as your logic would suggest, but rather because anti-Semitism is much more rampant in Europe than in America.  To adapt the Fanon quote: what some call Jewish is merely the European's artifact-- a result of the breakdown of one culture, more than its adaption. African-American culture would lose many of its rare and unique traits if it weren't for racists.   So before you push this off as a history hack speaking, notice that I don't apply this logic just to African-Americans.  I'm unbiased enough to apply it to the culture of my own people and other cultures as well.  Pushing this off as an analysis based on race only shows that you're ignoring the force of my point.--Urthogie 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a discussion of all African contributions-- only one of them, from a certain part of Africa.

Okay. I probably overreacted.

''notice that I don't apply this logic just to African-Americans. I'm unbiased enough to apply it to the culture of my own people and other cultures as well.''

But it's just not the same with african diaspora culture. It's not like there is much documentation of these things. The bulk of African cultural contributions to the US will likely go unrecognized. (As will the contributions of Indian culture)

In the case of Africa there is a long and painful history of denying all influence. When you try to downplay the the role of African cultural innovation you're tapping in to this.

Most of the language was obliterated. (Some survives trough aave) Much of the religion was obliterated.

I mean, the destruction was immense and it went on for 100s of years. It's not exactly "assimilation" when there is a concerted effort to rub out every element of African cultures in the US.

But some things did survive, not because of magic, but because people just kept passing them down. Of course they changed, and many of these ideas are barely recognizable-- but some of the best and most influential ideas were seized by the majority culture repackaged and sold to the entire world. The final step in completing this task is to sever the ties these traditions have with Africa. Say they evolved out of racism, or for any reason but that one. I'm not saying that you're trying to do this here. I'm saying it's happened. It's like the Banjo--- People try to denny that it's the direct decedent of an African instrument. There's all this "mystery" about "who domesticated the yams," people keep over-lloking the obvious answer. People wonder why American's don't sound like the British and assume it's "natural drift" No. It's the influence of AAVE and Indian languages on English. I mean, I could go on ... futurebird 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that it's difficult not to see me as part of a larger narrative (which surely exists) of whites downplaying african contributions. [I would have also listed the domestication of major world food sources such as Sorghum, as well as other developments from the civilizations of Mali and Sahel as well.] Everything you listed there I agree completely with, and recognize how it came from Africa.  I just think that largely as a reaction to this white oppression, afrocentrists like DCV overplay the influence of Africa on African-Americans.


 * The influence of African-Americans on America is nearly impossible to overestimate. Would the US have been a superpower without African-Americans, or even won its major wars without their fighting?  Definitely not.  Would the US have developed any type of good music or culture and become popular throughout the world without African-Americans?  Definitely not.  Would women have ever gotten the vote when they did without african-americans getting it?  Definitely not.  Every element of this capitalist and democratic society owes itself in some way to African-Americans to some great degree.


 * But the question here isn't the (obviously immense) influence of African-Americans on America, but rather the influence of Africa on African-Americans. As you pointed out, its mainly visible in traces, and it's not easy to make huge generalizations and fell swoops as DCV does.


 * I can't help but ask how modern Jewish(-American) culture has anything to do with the original Israelites. What do Lox and Bagels and Jewish theatre and albert einstein and freud and marx have to with the original place of my people? The answer lies in finding small traces-- perhaps our taste or approach to food has a small link to the past... perhaps our way of thinking can be linked to the Talmud, and our way of exaggerated hyperboly and grandious stage performances can be linked to a way of life experienced by the tribes of Israel... perhaps freud and marx represent a tradition of challenging false norms, like moses challenging the polytheists who falsely worshipped idols..perhaps.


 * All I can say is perhaps, all I can do is find traces. That's a beautiful thing, and I also admire the way that African-Americans find connections to their past.  I'm just saying it's kind of, or maybe very, overdone at times.


 * I just want to make clear that I would in no way say that the Jewish struggle has been similar to the black struggle. [For example, you pointed out that the situation of cultural change was different for Africans in America because it was largely forced. This is an important point to make clear, definitely.]  Each has been unique, and worse in different ways.  But one thing the cultures and their histories have in common is that their diaspora forms contain only traces of the past, not easily identifiable generalizations, as Afrocentrists would vehemently suggest. --Urthogie 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say this. Jew aren't the only ones who can be paranoid. I'll also say that some paranoid people... have good reasons, you know? Do some diaspora scholars take it too far and just become silly. Yes. In fact, that used to turn me of to diaspora studies. I was all like "We're American now, forget Africa." But, as I studied more I found that many of these ideas have a solid base. It's real and it is astonishing. Just as I find it astonishing the I teach Euclid's original geometry to my 9th graders I'm moved to see them practice step dance at lunch-- a tradition of dance with strong african roots. It's amazing how good and beautiful ideas can survive over time. We see examples of the European diaspora validated everywhere (to the extent that nobody recognizes it a Diaspora it just called "culture" in some circles *shudder*) --but other parts of the story are missing-- the traditions are alive but they often go unnamed and unnoticed.

Bad and ugly ideas also die hard. Like racism. I'm rambling, but I found this whole conversation very helpful. futurebird 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also notice how clearly African step dance is, I see it everyday in the hallways of my school and its one of those things that definitely got brought here from Africa, which is honestly amazing considering the history of how the slaveholders tried to completely dehumanize them.


 * In regards to this conversation.. me too-- I found it helpful to hear another person's perspective always, especially when I disagree with them. In regards to issues related to race, especially, it's important that people actually talk openly like this.  Otherwise, the status quo (white people thinking they're somehow superior to black people, and black people blaming too much on white people) is maintained.


 * Both you and Deeceevoice are my elders, and both clearly more educated than me-- I'm a senior in high school taking a couple college classes, about to go to college. So I have to honestly thank you for even giving me a chance to talk to you, as most people that are more educated or older often don't communicate about ideas except among their intellectual peers/equals.


 * And I just want to say once again you don't know how helpful you are to the project, so if you get stressed out by anyone/thing here, just talk to me or DCV, depending on what the situation is. Peace, and much respect, --Urthogie 03:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * you want to "thank" deeceevoice for edit-warring with you?  twisted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Edit warring is to be avoided, but hearing other points of view is generally a plus in my book.--Urthogie 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

robert farris thompson
this article has too much robert thompson. i removed a little but how many paragraphs do we need from one book?

i also removed a couple of unnoteworthy citations. one of the links was to some colombian professors homepages, but that doesnt make it noteable. "self published" material not permitted here.

to clarify what part of africa we are talking about i renamed the section sub-saharan africa. thompson wasn't talking about the egyptians or moroccans being cool.

71.112.7.212 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That being the case, then we should delete all but one of the stubs as well -- since they're from the same source. Actually, Thompson is cited, because he's the foremost authority on the subject.  The information is valid and important and not redundant.  It deserves to stand.  I note that your edit deleted an important passage in which Thompson compares African cool to the European notion.  And I also note that you deleted information from other sources entirely, without any attempt at justification.  Furthermore, I'm not entirely certain that Thompson's work confines itself to sub-Saharan Africa.  In fact, I doubt it.  (There are other nations in North Africa than Egypt and the Maghreb states.) So, your changing of the subhead would seem unwarranted -- unless you can document that Thompson was restricting himself to that region of Africa. deeceevoice 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * the info on other cultures is from multiple sources.  thompson is not be the foremost authority on coolness. he's simply an innocent professor with a poorly selling book.   if you want to improve the article some sections are labeled stubs and need more content.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. Google him.  Thompson is the foremost authority on comparitive indigenous African cultures and the diaspora -- and has been for the last 35 years or more. Furthermore, he has several highly respected books -- many in multiple printings -- on various subjects treating African cultures.


 * Furthermore, I choose to write on what interests me. Some guy making a buck selling "JEWCY" t-shirts is not my idea of cool. I mean, good Lord.  Look at that photo! He looks like a really bad parody of Huggy Bear from "Starsky & Hutch." (cringing, shaking head)


 * Furthermore, it just seems another (lame and shameless) rip-off/appropriation of Black culture. (Again, check the photo -- the chai bling, the shades, the pimp hat, a ho' (a term I detest) on each arm, and all.  Same thing with the use of "Jewish fabulosity" -- which is a strictly ghetto term popularized by Afro-Asian Kim Simmons of Baby Phat.  From what I can see here, there's nothing original about it at all. (Even "JEWCY" is a rip-off of another clothing line/company name.)  Totally unimaginative, totally uninspired.


 * I mean speaking as a black person with my understanding of what cool is and what drives pop-culture cool, if I were a Jew and wanted to be cool? Well, first I'd give up being a pale imitation of black cool.  What's fuh-real Jew-cool?  Hey, start with one word:  yohalem, baby -- ice.  Jews run the market.  It's why there was such deafening silence among many Jews in the face of apartheid.  This guy Saft -- the best he can come up with is an oversize gold chai around his neck?  Puh-leeze.  A 3-carat, round-cut pinky ring à la Fats Domino and an impeccably tailored black/navy suit would be a good start.  (I mean damn.)  Saft doesn't even understand true cool beyond kitsch, let alone know how to market it.


 * But, hey, whatever floats your boat.


 * Somewhat sadly, Saft's marketing ploy is simply another shallow manifestation of the underlying, facile assumption of non-black America (and now much of the world) since before Bohemian culture began on the Rive Gauche, before Jack Kerouac wrote of "nigger-lipping a cigarette," before Norman Mailer addressed the black wannabes in The White Negro (yesterday's "wiggers," another term I despise -- and Jews ain't white) -- that, in order to be cool, one must imitate African-American culture. Why?  Because we've defined/set the standard, if you will, of pop-culture cool, and we continue to define, it.  That's not breast-beating.  I'm not even certain it's something to beat one's breast about, frankly, given the sorry state of pop culture in some quarters.  That's just the way it b.  And that's completely understandable -- given that it came from us.  If you make the rules, you own the game.  And Jews as a group historically have been among the most ardent admirers/appropriators (and exploiters) of African-American culture.  That, too, is a fact.


 * And, no, no-name contributor. The information on "cool" in Europe, Asia, Turkey and the article in Hispanic cultures comes from one, single source.


 * Finally, you would do well to heed your own advice on improving the article. Removing adequately sourced, useful information is not an improvement. deeceevoice 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is in the building up stage. It's not like it's too long. I hope the removed information was restored. futurebird 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was. I couldn't see any justification for its removal, so I restored it. deeceevoice 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DCV is right-- "Jewcy/hipster" Jewish cool is not really cool at all-- like she said, it's just someone making a buck off of the word "Jew" and played out East Coast Jewish stereotypes, mixed with kitschy imitations of blaxpoitation films. It's basically a bad impression of a bad impression of cool. (Most Jews agree with me in this assesment..check out these comments on the article in question) However, DCV, you must be completely unaware of the real history of Jewish cool -- Lenny Bruce comes to mind in this category. I have to ask though, also, were black Jazz musicians "culturally appopriating" Gershwin when they sang his songs? Was Cab Calloway "culturally appropriating" jewish culture when he imitated the style of Jewish cantors, which e said largely inspired his sound?

As a sidenote, you said "It's why there was such deafening silence among many Jews in the face of apartheid." WTF? Jews were among the top activts working against apartheid, there was no "deafening silence".. you've got your history wrong. It's first off a fact that most Jews opposed apartheid and a good percentage of them worked against it. Israel had strong economic ties with South Africa from the 70's on, but simply because it needed any help it could get, from anyone, after the Yom Kippur War. In principal, it would have actually opposed apartheid if it had the economic and political stability to do so, as evidence by its behavior in the 50's and 60's:

"On October 11, 1961, Israel voted for the General Assembly censure of Eric Louw's speech defending apartheid.[1][2] In 1963, Israel informed the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid that it had taken steps to comply with the military boycott of apartheid South Africa. [2] According to Chris McGreal, 'Israel was openly critical of apartheid through the 1950s and 60s as it built alliances with post-colonial African governments. But most African states broke ties after the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the government in Jerusalem began to take a more benign view of the isolated regime in Pretoria.'[3] Ethan A. Nadelmann has claimed that the relationship developed due to the fact that many African countries broke diplomatic ties with Israel during the 70's following the Arab-Israeli wars, causing Israel to deepen relations with other isolated countries. [4]"

--Urthogie 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you think Gershwin got his stuff? The man used to sit on the curb outside black joints, writen down sh*t and listen in. And Jewish exploitation of black music artists is the stuff of legend.

I didn't comment one way or the other on Lenny Bruce. And, yes, I'm familiar with him. And I didn't bring up "Jewish fabulosity". You did. I merely commented that it was just another rip-off of black culture and not worthy of inclusion here -- except possibly under the subsection that deals with the commodification of cool, which needs to be expanded, considering the long history exploitation of black cool and just capitalist consumerism in general.

But, oh, please. I was active in the Free South Afrika Movement. Note that I didn't say the Jewish community across the board was silent. But I know what went down. This about sums it up. And this: And where do you think the apartheid regime got nuclear bomb technology from? Answer: Israel. Yeah, there were Jewish protestors and rabblerousers -- but in the circles of power, Jewish diamond merchants, high Israeli government officials and the South African government were as cozy as peas in a pod. And the everyday South African Jew -- classified as "white" under apartheid -- just coasted. In fact, South African Jewry debated for a time whether they should issue an official apology for its support of apartheid. (It never materialized.) deeceevoice 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's not the subject of this talk page -- is it? deeceevoice 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it's not. So can you respond to my other points, which actually relate to cool.--Urthogie 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. Edit conflict. Further, note the power relation aspect inherent in cultural exploitation/appropriation. Cab Calloway? Dang. You had wrack your brain for that one, huh? lol In the balance of things, it's a grain of sand. deeceevoice 15:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have a mentality that one group having more power means that they can't have legimitate culture exchanges with one another, I don't hope to change your mind on that prejudiced belief-- that's the way you'll view everything, and never realize when legimitate cultural exchanges occur. But it's worthy to note how your prejudice affects your explanation of things... for example...


 * Your explanation of Gershwin's appeal to black jazz musicians is a perfect example of this prejudice in play. Gershwin was mainly influenced by classical music.  Black music was surely an influence, but not the primary one.  This is basic music history, that you chose to ignore.--Urthogie 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of me. But ask yourself this question: if Gershwin's music were strictly classical European sh*t and didn't use blue notes, etc., would it have been popular? Would black folks (or even white, majority culture, for that matter) have given it a second glance? Uh-huh. What made it singular was its appropriation of elements of black musical style.deeceevoice 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to those questions is obviously no, they wouldn't give it a second chance. But ask yourself this question: why did black folks give it a second chance? According to the theory of "cultural appropriation", it's just a watered down version of what they already had.  It's like a guy who owns a factory buying his product in a convenient store. Clearly, he offered something new to music, by mixing it in unique ways.  And that's why I don't call it cultural appropriation-- I call it a beneficial cultural exchange.--Urthogie 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Because we saw some of us in it -- and it was fine music, indeed. You wanna call it "assimilation" rather than appropriation? Fine. Whatever makes you happy. Besides, in July and August, when the mercury goes up, the air moves like molasses, the rivulets of heat shimmer up from the asphalt, and the gub'mint issues an alert that says "don't breathe the air," shoot I might bust out in a bluesy chorus of "Summertime" myself. But you raised Gershwin like his mess was all his own, like it didn't come from us. And I'm just here to tell you otherwise. deeceevoice 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Gershwin's stuff would have been what it was without the black musical traditions, and it definitely wouldn't have sold. In regard to assimilation vs appropriation: "different strokes for different folks"  --Urthogie 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Dif'rent strokes 4 dif'rent folks" -- ha. Another instance of the pervasiveness of AA culture. :p  deeceevoice 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

now that that's overwith
 * the colombian professor, not noteworthy.
 * way too much devoted to robert farris thompson.
 * thompsons book, was he talking about the egyptians or sub-saharan blacks?

FB's research Links

 * silly graph...
 * This one is a GOLD MINE!

check it

"As designer Christian Lacroix remarked in Vogue, “It’s terrible to say, very often the most exciting outfits are from the poorest people.”Over the past decade, young black men in American inner cities have been the market most aggressively mined by brandmasters as a source of borrowed “meaning” and identity...The truth is that the “got to be cool” rhetoric of the global brands is, more often than not, an indirect way of saying “got to be black.” Just as the history of cool in America is really (as many have argued) a history of African-American culture... for many of the superbrands, cool hunting simple means black-culture hunting."


 * In an interview, Kimora Lee Simmons (Baby Phat) said the same thing -- that the fashion houses steal from African-American street style all the time -- the leather bags with all the studs and bling, the big earrings, etc. It's a fact of the marketplace that black folks drive the shoe market -- or, we certainly used to back in the day.  Don't know about now, though.  deeceevoice 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

futurebird 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also how preppy sorority girls are borrowing a lot of trends from mexicans, like those rubber shoes, and I'm guessing the aviators are probably inner-city originally too.--Urthogie 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * cool in Japan. Metroethnicity????? wtf? this is awsome. futurebird 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Skimmed it. Interesting.  So, cool in Japan is turning away from xenophobia and insularity.  Too bad there're no photos.  I wanna see. deeceevoice 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish cool
The Hebrew Hammer :)! I love this movie.--Urthogie 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I should laugh or be disturbed. futurebird 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. "Mordecai Jefferson" whatever? Just another rip-off/parody of black culture -- and probably pretty lame (just from a cursory look; no wonder it didn't see broader distribution). And how is it that the section on "Jewish cool" neglects to mention this very salient point? Extremely disingenuous. Here, "American pop culture" means African-American culture. If you're going to include such a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon as Jewcy, then at least be truthful about it. What? I see it as the ongoing hostility to the notion, and a refusal to just give up and flat-out acknowledge, that cool came from, and continues to come from, black folks. I don't have the time or the patience to write it. (It doesn't interest me at the moment.) But someone should do the right thing and just up-front tell it. deeceevoice 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Hebrew Hammer isn't trying to be cool, it's trying to have fun/be funny-- and yes, it makes fun of black people, also white people, and also jewish people.
 * 2) In regards to the Jewish "hipster cool", it's basically a bad impression of a bad impression-- it's imitating imitations of black culture.--Urthogie 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment about the film was just that. My other comments (though it may not have been clear because of where they were placed) dealt with "Jewcy."  And that actually, IMO, belongs under the section treating commodification.  It's not a widespread phenomenon and was conceived as a marketing strategy.  The critic cited is absolutely correct.  It didn't spring spontaneously, organically from Jewish culture. Again, it's just another rip-off/riff on African American culture (I've already said I recognize it as a shallow send-up/parody) to make $. And in that regard, my observation about the failure of the text to mention that very obvious fact is a typical copout, IMO, stemming from the fact that people just don't want to deal with the obvious origins of pop-culture cool:  black folks.  I said it.  Lacroix said it:  "The truth is that the got to be cool' rhetoric of the global brands is, more often than not, an indirect way of saying "got to be black."deeceevoice 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I support moving the Jewcy stuff to the pop-culture/capitalism section.  However, let's keep the Jewish cool section as I do know of some stuff I can add, maybe this weekend.
 * 2) It seems like pop-culture "cool" is a search for anything novel that's part of a culture that the mainstream doesn't see often.  It can be out of sight aristocrats, poor ghetto blacks, mexican gangsta, or white trash.   How would you go about explain the tendency to take from mexican gangstas (in fashion trends among preppy college women) and white trash (from which the influence is quite visible in "high" fashion, and kitschy/tacky mexican cool (popular among some "indie" kids)?  Of course, it's been mainly black in its development, but it's a reasonable view to say that the reason for that is that blacks were kept out of mainstream society for the most part, so what they did developed an aura of cool for people who weren't around them enough, or getting to know them enough.--Urthogie 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said the section ("Jewish cool") should be obliterated -- just that Jewcy doesn't belong there, and that any mention of it should clearly identify it as blatantly derivative of African American culture. It'll be interesting to see what you come up with, though, that isn't derivative of A-A culture.  Even Lenny Bruce was immersed in African-American culture, the so-called "hipster," bohemian scene (along with the drugs), which was all about black cool, black jazzmen and their white hangers-on.
 * I'm not going to address your personal opinions about why African American culture is appealing/intriguing; they're neither important nor relevant to the article -- except to say that you've grasped only the elephant's tail. deeceevoice 09:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

origins in africa
The article seems to mention several cultures that developed a type of cool seperate from africa. This headline, make it so...

--Urthogie 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

there is no evidence for "origins" in any of the citations. its a universal human behavior that some editors are trying to claim as an african invention. even cultures havent had contact with africa for thousands of years have notions of cool. i support removing the origins claim.

i also see that the africa section only refers to sub-saharan african nations. we should change the heading to reflect that thompson isnt talking about egypt, he is talking about yoruba.


 * Yes, it's also worth noting that even Thompson doesn't say cool originated in Africa. He just said it was more important/complex there.--Urthogie 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * since the thompson work isnt online i'm not sure we should include deeceevoice's interpretation of it. deeceevoice is well known for twisting sources and pushing a pov, like this "origins" situatoin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I've checked it. It is valid. futurebird 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * we need an unbiased editor.  urthogie, have you read this book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.29.149 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * there's no such thing as an unbiased editor, but I plan on reading it soon.--Urthogie 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * don't read it just because deeceevoice claims it has info, if you happen across it just skim it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.29.149 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I added a link, you can read the first page for free. The entire paper is on this topic. futurebird 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research in:Aristocratic and artistic cool in Europe
This article is about the aesthetic nature of cool. This isn't the same thing as making a list of every time the word cool has been used to describe things. Cool has clearly been used for a long time to describe "cool tempers" in opposition to hot tempers. The aesthetic of cool is quite different and more expansive than older descriptive uses of the word.

The source on sprezzatura works for this section. Although, I still wonder if this is the right article for this information this source and this source  never even mentions the word "cool" once. Are there any sources that say that sprezzatura is the same thing as as the "aesthetic cool" dealt with in the rest of the article? If not, we need to remove it.

Furthermore, it's not enough to simply show that the word has been used. For the section on "Aristocratic and artistic cool in Europe" we need scholarly sources that speak about cool as an aesthetic. Just showing that the word was a part of the english language and used as a metaphor isn't enough. Rather, doing so is an original synthesis of historical documents and breaks WP:NOR. futurebird 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To put it simply: Futurebird is right. Everything that has been added on sprezzatura has been original research, and will continue to be until it can be attributed to a reliable source that "cool" and "sprezzatura" are at all related.  Aristocratic cool might have some useful stuff, but I don't see why sprezzatura would, as of yet.  Secondly, Futurebird is also correct in pointing out that many of the more recent additions have been based on when the word "cool" is used..anywhere.  This article is about the aesthetic, not the word.--Urthogie 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply: Read Dick Pountain and David Robins. They wrote about "Aristocratic cool", known as sprezzatura, in "Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude", Reaktion Books Ltd., 2000.
 * I will read it. But can you please add the passage where spezzatura is explicitly called Aristocratic cool?--Urthogie 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not type a whole chapter for you. But will add some of it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sprezzatury (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'll take you word for it on sprezzatura, it sounds like a similar but distinct form of the cool aesthetic. I think that the shakespeare stuff needs to go though. I mean, I could start adding every single instance of someone saying "cool" from all kinds of sources. This could get silly quickly. I love the bard, though, but unless we have some source that says he's talking about sprezzatura it's probably OR... we do need the passage, though, where spezzatura is explicitly called "Aristocratic cool" futurebird 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks futurebird for picking up the torch and trying to remove anything other than reference to black cool. an approach some editors to follow
 * when its black: dig for references, maybe you can find a "gold mine".
 * when its not black: claim it is original research.

google readily turns up references for those willing to type the following: "sprezzatura cool"

http://grammar.about.com/b/a/000046.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601621_pf.html


 * The first source is unreliable, as its a grammar websites, but the second source seems legit. Good searching... although it might be better to have more than a single article as the reference.--Urthogie 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * about.com is a reliable source. its one of the best known on the internet.

The timeline shows that Sprezzatura existed in Europe before the Yoruba itutu was known in the Americas thumb|400px


 * Excellent. Which book is it from?--Urthogie 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dick Pountain and David Robins. "Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude", Reaktion Books Ltd., 2000. Copyrighted, make a copy if you want before its deleted.

It also shows that American Cool was influenced by both, African cool (by Slave trade) as well as European Cool (by Migration) and that the European cool evolved independently from African Cool.
 * My advice to your is to recreate the graph from the book using photoshop and/or Microsoft paint. Then reference the book's graph in the caption, as the source of the graph.  That shouldn't cause any copyright problems to occur.  Do it quickly, though... I might do it if it's still here tomorrow and you still haven't done it though.  Once again, excellent searching.--Urthogie 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not doing it tonight. Check out Marcel Danesi "Cool - The signs and meanings of Adolescence" has a lot of info about European cool.


 * Great graphic! I'll see if I can make a new version of it later... what book is it from? futurebird 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)



Just made this... I can't read some of the writing, could some let me know what the missing bits say so that I can add them? futurebird 21:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice. Yeah, I'm wondering what the missing blocks are as well.  There are a couple that I can read like "Aesthetic movement" in the box next to Romanticism.  Also, add "lenny bruce" (he's above and to the right of the beat movement). Presley is to the left of pop art and beatles are above it (and somwhat above Conceptualism). Counter-culture is under 1970.  There's 3 I can't read though: something like "Chundler, Hammer" to the right of Flappers, I think it may say "Hard boiled crime fiction" above hollywood film noir, and I honestly cannot read the box inside hip hop!  To the fellow who copied the pages from the book, can you clarify these? --Urthogie 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work! What's missing is And I would give "Beat movement" and "R&B" a bit of a different shade, otherwise it all looks like one.
 * Empty blue box on the left (between Romanticism and Omerta): "Aesthetic Movement"
 * Between "Hollywood film noir" and "Abstract Expressionalism" is a box missing, Text: "Chandler, Hammett 'Hard boiled' crime fiction school" (This box should overlaps a bit with "Flappers")
 * On top of "Pop Art"and "Conceptualism" is text missing: "+ Beatles"
 * Between "Beat Movement" and "Pop Art" is text missing: "+ Lenny Bruce"
 * The text for the box on the right is "Dance/Techno"
 * Yoruba Itutu should be "Yoruba/Ibo Itutu"
 * The boxes for Soul and Funk are slimmer (about half the size of Hip hop)

Timelines:
 * I would make a white shade on the left side of Yoruba/Ibo itutu box because nobody can say when it actually started but assume that it probably existed long before 1400 (maybe someone can find out)
 * Sprezzatura starts 1500
 * British Aristrocratic Reserve starts between 1500 and 1600
 * Romanticism starts 1700
 * Aesthic Movement starts between 1800 and 1900
 * Surrealism 1920
 * Dada 1914-1918 till 1920

end of the line for african origins
thanks all for the work guys, we can now do away with the ridiculous notion that cool is an african invention. wikipedia, improving everyday.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been away
I've been looking in on other articles and haven't been paying much attention to this one.

Uh, but 'scuse me. This article is about -- by the very definition of the term -- pop-culture cool. And I haven't even read the article in its current state; I came directly to the talk page. And, frankly, I'm not going there until much later in the day (maybe tomorrow, when my deadlines are, hopefully, under control), because I don't want to get drawn into something that will take me away from things I must do. I don't even want to look!

The express subject of the article is pop-culture cool. The subhead speaks of African origins in that context. If that is not clear, then it should be made to be clear. The salient fact is that the origins of pop-culture cool are in African cool brought as a cultural value, an aesthetic, from Africa and then infused into the American mainstream through African-American culture. The various accreted meanings that "cool" has developed over the decades (aside from a largely adjectival, rather than nominative, meaning of calm and collected under duress) come from Africa. That is not to say that limited, parallel concepts have not existed in other cultures. I think Thompson makes that clear.

Furthermore, just from skimming the above comments, it would seem that people here are treating Itutu as the only corollary of cool in African cultures, which is not the case. It is simply a concept Thompson advances as one. It is a cross-cultural phenomenon.

Tin Rhyne, who explored the Cape of Good Hope in the 1670s, wrote about African dance and very vividly described cool. It would seem to me that there are likely other accounts in various languaes (Portuguese, Dutch, particularly) which would predate his observations.

Be that as it may, in your zeal to lay claim to something that clearly is not yours, you must take care not to word your additions to the article so as assume the "tree falling in the forest" proposition -- that no culture existed in Africa until whites discovered it. Underlying cultural aesthetics and values of peoples and of civilizations do not spring from whole cloth upon a single event -- like, say, the first white man setting foot in a village. These traditions are most certainly centuries old, with Yoruba civilization (previously Ile-Ife/Nok) stretching back far before the modern era. I am not an art historian, but I see no reason to believe that studies of African art have not/would not bear out the existence of a cool aesthetic in African art and dance far predating the timeline above that indicates the observation by whites of Itutu among enslaved Africans in the U.S. Such a facile presumption, gleefully expressed by some editors here, is flawed by a fundamental, unthinking (or dismissive) premise:  that Itutu, a clearly African phenomenon, did not exist until its culturebearers arrived in shackles in the New World. Or, is it simply a tacit and cynical, winking understanding among those involved that, "Well, since they can't (yet) prove it existed before sprezzatura, we can pretend it didn't"?

The fact is, in the context of pop-culture cool, a timeline of "cool" corollaries in the narrow, European sense of the term simply isn't at all germane to the central fact that African-American culture is the point at which cool as an aesthetic -- not as a random quality displayed by various people at certain times, but as a cultural and spiritual value -- manifested itself in the U.S., then entered mainstream American society and, subsequent to that, world popular culture.

Yesterday, (I think) I decided to look up Itutu on Wikipedia, since blue wiki links indicate an article. It redirected to an article on Benin. In anticipation of someone further fleshing out the important concept later on, I checked the article's edit history and deleted the redirect (which seems quite a bit off the mark) and restored what is nothing more than a stub. Yet, that stub states: "Itutu is the term for a religious feeling created at the Kingdom of Benin in 15th Century Nigeria." [emphasis added]  Now, that doesn't say much and, frankly, isn't terribly well-written or informative, but it clearly would seem from that bit of information that Itutu is known to predate the sprezzatura timeline presented above. I haven't checked out the link; I don't have time. But perhaps it and other sources/research will shed some light on the earliest recorded observations of Itutu in African cultures, either by indigenous Africans themselves, preserved in their art and artifacts, or by Europeans.

Finally, let me stress again that the nature of this article is pop-culture cool, the origins of which are clearly African-American. Manifestations of other, similar (though still apparently relatively limited) phenomena are interesting and deserve to be included. However, no information has been presented to contest the line of transmission: Africa->U.S.->globally. Let's keep in mind this is not a pissing contest, not a game of oneupmanship; this is about editors collaborating -- not competing -- openly and without animus to produce a factual/accurate, objective and comprehensive article. deeceevoice 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about just pop-culture cool, it's about cool as an aesthetic, in any of its forms. European aristocratic cool seems to count in this regard, according to several writers.  As you pointed out, Thompson is critical of this account, but the whole point of Wikipedia is not to rely just on sources that favor your POV.--Urthogie 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice has been away and the world kept spinning - unbelievable!

Deecee the source says "This might be news to James Dean and Miles Davis, but the Yoruba people of Nigeria invented cool. They call it itutu, and someone who possesses this mystic quality is generous and calm, possessing a sense of certainty." It looks like 'all of the sources, Ferris, the book that's cited 7 times, (see my post below) and this one point in the same direction. Do we have a SINGLE source that says anything to contradict this? futurebird 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Weill
Brecht wasn't the composer, Kurt Weill was. While it's true that Kurt Weill was a jazzer, nobody ever called the music of the Dreigroschenoper "Cool". The music of the Dreigroschenoper was called "metropolitan Gebrauchsmusik". Gebrauchsmusik (utility music) is as cool as any other object of utility, as cool as working clothes compared to cool outfits. Find a source which calls the music of the Dreigroschenoper "cool" or states that Kurt Weill "produced European inter-war cool". 3rr warning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.255.129 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline history chart
The timeline is still faulty, it starts 1600 but should start 1500 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.178.228.61 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

history sorted chronologically
Alphabetical order was good in the beginning, but chronological order will give the best indication of how it developed, historically.--Urthogie 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just hard to do because concepts of cool have been contemporaneous phenomena. They evolved independently in several places. Sorting by continent and for each continent a chronological order (see timeline chart) would be better.


 * K.--Urthogie 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you put Hispanic cultures into the American section? Last time I checked Spain was in Europe ...
 * I was under the impression Hispanic was referring to central and south americans... Let's say Spanish to be specific.--Urthogie 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new headers for the European chapters, take the earlier versions, and move the hispanic stuff to Europe, then it's okay.
 * Ok, what time period was the hispanic stuff though? Need to place it chronologically. Also, what's wrong with the European sub-headers exactly?  Please justify your opposition to em.  Thanks, --Urthogie 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know exactly (yet) but put it before Sprezzatura (I assume that machismo is older than Sprezzatura) we can change that when we have the info. And move the Asians up, 6th century BC, I doubt that we will find any earlier concepts. What I dont like about the subheads is that Polish cool and Hispanic Machismo don't fit. The other more specific concept related heads have been better - and more interesting for the reader.
 * It should be identified by the time period when "macho" took on a meaning beyond its literal one.--

Urthogie

Yeah., but there are too many concepts you can't force into strict year dates, like machismo, cool pose, anatolian smile ... and the concepts of certain times changed from place to place (what happened in Italy was different from lets say Germany or Spain). And what date, for instance, would you give jewish cool? or Omertà? And when exactly evolved Itutu? Unless we have specific dates for all places and all concepts, it's better for now leave the concept related headers, we can always change it sometime later.

Cool Spelling
Cool, cool, cool or Cool? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.178.228.61 (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Undeniable Cool, The K0oks Ooh La! comment was added by Waykoolk0oks 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Too Much Popsicles
The tone of this article is too authoritative, failing to acknowledge the subjective and speculative nature of its sources. It reads too much like the ramblings of one person, a person inclined to half-witted bullshit. No effort is made to separate the linguistic history of the word "cool", and the conceptual history of the "cool" aesthetic; this is criminal. If anyone has access to JSTOR or the like, I strongly recommend that you search for some of Quentin Skinner's articles on the history of ideas, particularly "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" and "Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of Texts". Both explain the dangers of hunting around through history for ideas and concepts that might correspond to, or prefigure, those of the current day -- even when they share the same name.

"Cool" is even harder to historically trace than the ideas that Skinner typically deals with, because its forms are so ephemeral, and its nature so intangible. There is nothing wrong with including it in Wikipedia, but the difficulties it presents require a more evenhanded and NPOV approach that portrays its intangibility to the reader, instead of trying to educate the reader with the pet theories of some crackpot sociologist. Terrencethetractor 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to second the criticism above. The picture of the timeline of cool is especially disconcerting. If it didn't have a source, I would easily have mistaken it for academic parody.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
The actual term "cool" seems unencyclopedic. I may be wrong, it just doesn't really fit. It might be better to call it a slang term.  J- stan  Talk 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually just found this page while looking up rude boy. I thought this entry was a joke - I still do. JeffreyGomez 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its least encyclopedic
One particularly aggressive user has decided to make this article a pet project and use it as a space to grind an ax that was obvious as I read the entry, more obvious as I read this discussion page and essentially transparent when I visited his user page. It’s disappointing to see that years have gone by without anyone making an effort to rectify the overwhelming biases and omissions of this entry.

The attitude that cool as a phenomenon has its roots in Africa is prima facie absurd. Afrocentrism has its own entry and we should confine its conspiracies to that location. Africans have shaped, altered and expanded the perceptions and understandings of cool but they did not by any means “invent” a native aspect of human psychology.

The historical perspective of this article is just laughable. We get a single mention of Aristotle and a passing, slightly bizarre reference to Samurai. Oh, and a quotation from Sun Tzu that includes a literal use of the word. That’s the extent of cool prior to 1500? The Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Celts – these groups and the many I won’t list, all living in massive communities for hundreds of years and we are to think there were no notions of cool, no trends, no social status?

Certainly art history has its intersections with cool and Mr. Farris is doubtless qualified to offer his assessment of its history and meaning, but I find the emphasis placed on his interpretations dubious. It seems clear that he is given such prominence because his perspective comports with those who have edited the article and not because he is, in any sense, a recognized authority on the issue. As to that assertion, I’m not sure I would call someone who hasn’t published a book in more than ten years or a peer-reviewed article in more than twenty-five the world’s “leading expert” on anything. His official Yale biography doesn’t even mention the word cool. I see no basis whatsoever for assigning him the sole, undisputed scholarly voice on the issue.

There are academics in fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology and even economics whose research deals far more directly with the concept of cool and its interactions with society. There is no mention of this or even the slightest indication that an attempt has been made to include academic interpretations beyond those of Mr. Farris. Is this an encyclopedia or a freshman term paper?

I see scant mention of the massive amount of research that business and advertising firms have conducted, particularly in the last decade, attempting to locate cool and understand how it influences the behavior and decisions of individuals.

I mean, honestly, the inadequacies of this entry just go on and on. I don’t have the time or interest to continue describing them. This article has substantial point of view, neutrality, clean up, and source issues and, as it stands today, is a great example of how skewed and incoherent something can become when bullying ideologues take over and impose their opinions as fact. This is Wikipedia at its least encyclopedic.

Nostoi 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah, blah, blah.... deeceevoice 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nostoi is exactly right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.241.32 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the source: Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude
All of these sentences from the article cite a single source:

Dick Pountain and David Robins, Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude, Reaktion Books Ltd., 2000.|Pountain and Robins, 2000 The thesis of the authors is in the words of a New York Times review of book is that "the historical roots of cool, which they locate, correctly I think, in African and Mediterranean culture -- in the ethical canons of the Yoruba and of the Roman forum, in the Renaissance virtue of sprezzatura, or masterly nonchalance." Beyond Dark Glasses
 * 1) While each generation feels that "real" cool is something pure and existential known only to them, that it was founded in their time by them, there is not one single concept because one of the main aspects of cool is its mutability—what is seen as cool will change from time to time, from place to place and from generation to generation.
 * 2) According to Dick Pountain and David Robins, concepts of cool have existed for centuries in several cultures.
 * 3) "Aristocratic cool", known as sprezzatura, has existed in Europe for centuries, particularly when relating to frank amorality and love or illicit pleasures behind closed doors
 * 4) The key themes of modern European cool were forged by avant-garde artists who archieved prominence in the aftermath of the First World War, most notably Dadaists, such as key Dada figures Arthur Cravan and Marcel Duchamp, and the left-wing milieu of the Weimar Republic. The program of such groups was often self-consciously revolutionary, a determination to scandalize the bourgeoisie by mocking their culture, sexuality and political moderation.
 * 5) Berthold Brecht, both a committed Communist and a philandering cynic, stands as the archetype of this inter-war cool. Brecht projected his cool attitude to life onto his most famous character Macheath or "Mackie Messer" (Mack the knife), in The Threepenny Opera. Mackie, the nonchalant, smooth-talking gangster, expert with the switchblade, personifies the bitter-sweet strain of cool; Puritanism and sentimentality are both anathema to the Cool character.
 * 6) Arriving in Poland via France, America and England, Polish cool stimulated the film talents of a generation of artists, including Andrzej Wajda, Roman Polanski, and other graduates of the National Film School in Łódź, as well as the novelist Jerzy Kosinski, in whose clinical prose cool tends towards the sadistic.
 * 7) In Prague, the capital of Bohemia, cool flourished in the faded Art Deco splendor of the Cafe Slavia. Significantly, following the crushing of the Prague Spring by Soviet tanks in 1968, part of the dissident underground called itself the "Jazz Section".

I have a few concerns here:


 * I think we might be using this one source too much?
 * The information used in the article from this source seems to be selectively chosen. I don't have accesses to the book. But could anyone check this out and see if these sentences above are representative of the contact in the book or if they are giving undue weight to European examples? I can see from amazon.com that the chapters of this book are:
 * 1) What is cool?
 * 2) Out of Africa
 * 3) A Whiter Shade of Cool
 * 4) That's cool too..  etc.
 * It's hard to judge a book by it's chapters... but maybe these quotes aren't representative? We use this one source 7 times and mostly for information about European examples when there is clearly more to the book than that. Anyone have a copy of the book? If so I think we should pruce some of these examples and add more information from the other chapetrs... And not just the Out of Africa chapter. futurebird 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Icons
These should maybe be in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)