Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (2nd nomination)

A rationale for retaining the article, renamed to "Cool (African aesthetic)."

 * STRONG KEEP. I've reconsidered my position. I've tried to post this several times, but have been unable to do so.  (Another instance of a collateral damage block; it happens to me constantly.) [I can edit now.  Thanks to User:Guettarda for posting this for me when I could not.] The two subjects are substantially different and both need space to be developed. Cool (aesthetic), renamed, should continue to deal with the pop culture manifestations of "cool" with a nod to its African/African-American roots.  As I mentioned on the talk page of Cool (African philosophy), there are all sorts of possibilities for further development of this that piece -- an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero (the "bad nigger," Stagga Lee, Iceberg Slim, Clint Eastwood's nameless drifter, etc.).  I suggest it be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)."  I suggest the other article be renamed "Cool (African aesthetic)."  In the readings I've done, primarily Thompson and the academicians who quote him refer to it as a "philosophy."  All others seem to refer to the same (or very similar)concepts elucidated by Thompson as an "aesthetic," which, frankly, seems more appropriate.  (I utilized Thompson's terminology in setting up the "philosophy" article as a means of differentiating it from cool in the pop culture context.)  I reiterate that Wikipedia has far too few articles dealing with Africa and African culture.  Cool in the African cultural context is sufficiently complex that it merits an article of its own.  Google "African cool aesthetic" and see what you come up with.  There's ample information on the subject in an African context and in the African diaspora to fill an article without mention of Fonzie and social stratification and many of the, IMO, rather shallow, pop-culture manifestations of the phenomenon.  Deeceevoice 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not fail the Google test if you google "Cool African aesthetic". In reading about African aesthetics and art, the word "cool" surfaces again and again.  Further, the results of a Google search clearly point to much broader scholarship beyond that which is available online.

A google yields such statements as:


 * "Coolness is a metaphor for proper living; it symbolizes moral aesthetic ... 'An Aesthetic of the Cool.'"
 * At Africans-art.com in an article titled "Aesthetic and meaning": "Self-composure:
 * The person who is composed behaves in a measured and rational way; he or she is controlled, proud, dignified, and cool. "
 * From "Looking at African Masks": "texture, pattern, African masks, colour, tone, form, visual elements, purpose, reason, smooth, shiny, healthy, earth tones, categories, healthy, scary, proud, dignified, cool, vigour, ability to work."
 * "Digging the Africanist Presence in American Performance: Dance and Other Contexts - 2, Popular Music and Society, Summer, 1998": "The Black body in rhythmic motion. Contrapuntal configurations and curvical bodily articulations. Hips in undulating motion while the head is ever so still. Cool and hot expressiveness ever so fused. Earl "Snake Hips" Tucker. The cakewalk. The Lindy Hop. [Michael Jackson's moonwalk: motion and stasis (my note).] Deconstructed Linearity. Asymmetricality of movement as an aesthetic choice."
 * "'Cool', though an amorphous quality--more mystique than material--is a pervasive element in urban black male culture. As sociologists Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson evince in Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America (1992), African-American men employ "cool" as "a tool for hammering masculinity out of the bronze of their daily lives" (2). It is a 'strategic style' that 'allows the black male to tip society's imbalanced scales in his favor' (2). Importantly, too, "coolness means poise under pressure and the ability to maintain detachment, even during tense encounters" (2). To further define the indefinable, Majors and Billson produce a pantheon of cool: 'Black athletes, with their stylish dunking of the basketball, spontaneous dancing in the end zone, and high-fives handshakes, are cool.... (Though X is absent here, Imani Perry believes that his style suited 'the cool aesthetic in [African-American] folklore [which] respects composure and asserts the importance of personal control over a situation [179].) Crucially, in Majors and Billson, coolness involves a willingness to engage in violence (33), to risk death (34), to suppress emotion (in interactions with friends, family members, lovers, spouses, and children), to value spontaneity, expressiveness, and stylishness (71), and to prize verbal dexterity (99). These qualities of cool render it an essential survival mechanism in a society in which 'except for people over age eighty-five, black males are dying at a higher rate than any other group at any age' (19). Given this vicious context, any moral code that signals meaning, community, and purposefulness, that is to say, that combats anomie, is potentially irresistible. Coolness is one such code."
 * From the page of a Univ. of Chicago Professor: "My interests in the twentieth century concern the "cool" aesthetics of post-World War II/pre-Civil Rights Movement black fiction, and why this remarkable literary movement and its signature aesthetics - what I call "literary cosmopolitanism" - have been neglected in African American literary studies."
 * From "Now This is Cool: Even Westerners can appreciate The African Art Experience.": "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." Deeceevoice 06:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From "Cool Jazz--History of Jazz": "First of all, 'cool' itself is a term with broad aesthetic implications. As a highly performative art that emphasizes spontaneous excitement and a kind of cumulative, trance-like energy, jazz is often characterized as 'hot.' And yet 'coolness' is a quality that scholars such as Robert Farris Thompson have found at the heart of a generalized African aesthetic: behavior characterized by poise, relaxation, and self-possession even in moments of great tension and effort."
 * From "The Death of the Cool" (primarily an interesting examination of cool in the pop culture context, but somewhat useful here): "'Cool' is perhaps the only appellation to survive for as many generations as it has. Fifty-year-olds and five-year-olds seem to have a common understanding of "cool" and that whatever is cool is good.... Cool is that aloof, independent, self-contained, rebellious, strong, proficient, iconoclastic, vanguard attitude that Miles embodied. He was powerful, controlled, self-directed, and incredibly talented. Cool is still generated among the poor. The regions that 'cool-hunters' prowl are the ghettos and inner-city neighborhoods where young people have no stake in the status quo. Cool has re-manifested itself repeatedly and has become in many ways the core cultural expression of America. Cool is our greatest export. It is assiduously sought by marketers and manufacturers. To find it is to connect with the most powerful commercial force on the planet. For whatever is perceived to be cool will sell at premium prices."
 * From the PBS website "Great Performances: Free To Dance - Behind The Dance - The Revolution Will Be Danced": "As historian Halifu Osumare wrote in the ADF booklet African American Genius in Modern Dance, Fagan's fusion reflected 'a distilling of emotion to its physical, muscular components, rather than the dramatic display of character or the overt display of emotion itself. This abstraction of emotion through the tool of juxtaposition of the cool and the hot is simultaneously an age-old use of an African aesthetic principle, Fagan followed in the footsteps of some of his predecessors, choreographing the Broadway show "The Lion King"; he became the second black choreographer, after George Faison, to win a Tony Award."
 * Afritopic, a website dealing with African art, repeats some of the same seminals elements of an African aesthetic, including "self-compsure," or "cool."
 * Another listing of similar or same characteristics, citing Susan M. Vogel's African Aesthetics, New York: Center for African Art, 1986).
 * An interesting online discussion regarding the "Aesthetics of Cool," which yields interesting sources at Dissensus.
 * From a book review on soulstepping, the step shows of black "Greeks" -- sorority sisters and frat-bwois at HBCUs: "This is particularly noted during the 1960's and 1970's among sorority women whose counter clock [sic - "counterclockwise"] pattern of stepping is associated with the African dance patterns [preserved through the centuries in African-American religious observance (my note)] of the ring shout and the patting jumba.... In contrast to the aforementioned aesthetic characteristics that are considered 'hot' practices, steppers also demonstrate 'cool' aesthetics in their movements by striving for uniform visibility and clarity in their motions. Invoking the names of the founders and organization's history by the steppers as well as the practice of looking smart [also part of the African cool aesthetic (my note)] by entering and exiting the show properly rounds out the expressions of other 'cool' aesthetics presented by Greek members during step shows."
 * Sources from the article slated for delection itself here at "Mystical coolness and the 'mask of the cool'."
 * "From Tutu in Yoruba Aesthetics":"According to Frank Willet's introduction to African art, tutu, serenity, coolness, or composure is a desirable quality in both art and life: 'In sculpture it is shown by the absence of violence in the facial expression or gesture; in the dance by the withdrawn expressionless face of the dancer; the chief should always behave calmly and unemotionally' [213]. Susan Mullin Vogel similarly notes this particular meeting of social, political, and aesthetic values:"


 * "The state of being composed, often noted in the field studies, is an ethical/aesthetic quality nearly al- ways portrayed in figural sculpture. The person who is composed behaves in a measured and rational way; he or she is controlled, proud, dignified, and cool. An essential quality in a ruler, composure is particularly evident in images of kings. [Aesthetics of African Art: The Carlo Monzino Collection, N.Y.: Center for African Art, 1986, 21]"

I have read other references to African cool in the rest of the African diaspora, as well -- not just in African-American culture. I am virtually certain that if one were to read, say, the accounts of dancer-choreographer Katherine Dunham in her travels (her autobiography African Rhythms, or of Zora Neale Hurston in Haiti (Tell My Horse), one would find similar descriptions of expressions of African cool in spirituality, comportment and movement/dance. I'll have to rummage through my personal library -- when I can get around to it. Deeceevoice 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In conducting an online search, I found a telling quote at Global Black News, which I believe speaks directly to the endless campaigning (what is it now -- 3 VfDs/AfDs, 4?) for the obliteration of this piece:

"As mainstream audiences and even the world continues to emulate and participate in the hip-hop environment there are some in the mainstream who are completely drawn to it but who do not identify with or resent the Black/African cultural aesthetic. This resentment or social isolation they feel, but strong attraction, often ends up as attempt to gloss over or ignore the culture in an effort to make it acceptable to themselves and their counterparts. -- from 'The Cultural Jacking of Hip-Hop, by Bakari Akil II Deeceevoice 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * Excellent research Deeceevoice. Unfortunately, this doesn't establish anything about it being a philosophy.  Personally, I agree with the blockquote at the end very much: there are a lot of MCs out there who are trying to take the blackness out of hip hop-- they imitate all the gestures but their music isn't down to earth and has no soul.


 * I would suggest calling the new page Cool in African cultures, as Cool (African aesthetic) would imply the biased view that the opinions of thompson et al are fact, rather than opinion. While many people would agree with these opinions, its irrational to present them as fact, as your suggested title would do.--Urthogie 11:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. My suggestion for the title is succinct. It speaks directly to Cool as an African aesthetic, the way it is characterized in virtually all sources I've listed (as opposed to Thompson -- and those who quote him -- who does, in fact, call it a "philosophy"). And it definitely and precisely fits within the rubric of an aesthetic: "Aesthetics is also the domain of philosophy that ponders art and such qualities as beauty, sublimity, and even ugliness and dissonance. An aesthetic (also spelled esthetic or æsthetic) is the concept of a particular school of philosophy that appraises art, beauty, and associated concepts by certain standards (e.g. the aesthetic of minimalism)." (from Wikipedia) The article seeks to examine the concept as a primary focus -- not emphasize how the aesthetic manifests itself in various permutations across African cultures, which is what your title would suggest.

Further, what on earth causes you to characterize the findings of art historians, cultural anthropologists, etc., across the spectrum as "biased"? You have absolutely no basis for such a judgment. These are, many of them, respected specialists in their fields who have devoted considerable time and effort -- and in Thompson's case, 40 years or more -- in the pursuit of their various disciplines. Because people may be ignorant of the information they present and, as a result, have made prejudgments regarding it, doesn't give them standing to criticize/denigrate it. Now, that is POV. Deeceevoice 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thompson and the other sources have indeed spent years researching this. But no amount of years turns expert opinion on a subjective concept into an objective fact.  For this reason, it is wrong to take the conclusions of those sources as the fact of the matter.--Urthogie 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but their expertion opinion and years of research and familiarity with the subject matter are every reason to accept their findings and conclusions as accurate and valid. Again, Urthogie, social science is what it is. This subject is no different from any other topic dealing with such matters. I'm done discussing this aspect of the piece with you; it goes nowhere. It doesn't matter what those unfamiliar with the subject matter think. It is our responsibility to dispassionately present state-of-the-art, up-to-date scholarship on a subject. Uninformed, often inchoate, opinion or irrational opposition is of no import. In fact, it matters less than little; it's utterly worthless. Deeceevoice 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Expert research on subjective things doesn't allow for objective truths to come out. However, it does allow for us to say "Expert researcher Mr. Thompson sees cool as..."  And no, an encyclopedia isn't meant to display the avante garde, expert research as fact-- its meant to present a)objective truths as fact and b)subjective views as opinion.--Urthogie 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Encyclopedias contain groundbreaking research all the time. I first read about DNA back in the 1960s, when its double-helix structure first was under serious scientific investigation.  Further, Thompson's findings may have been "avant garde" in 1975 when I first read them, but no longer.  They continue to stand the test of time.  The fact that others may be just discovering the information doesn't make it somehow tentative.  Further, the subjective or non-concrete nature of a matter under objective observation and research does not automatically render the results of such study subjective.  Your position doesn't hold water.  Deeceevoice 07:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But wait..
I'm confused. The point that Thompson and maybe others are making is that the current concept of "cool" can trace roots back to African culture, right? This doesn't make "African cool" a seperate topic, this means we might want to include some of this in the history of cool. I still see no indication that there should be seperate articles here, since they're not seperate concepts. If the history and origins of "cool" become an overly large part of Cool (aesthetic) I could see breaking them back out in the future, but only for length reasons, not because they are seperate topics. Even in such a case, the topic would be more like the "history of cool" than "African cool". Friday (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That information is actually already included in Cool (aesthetic. But if you follow the links I've provided, you'll see just how involved an article treating African cool potentially could become.  I developed separate articles not because I wanted to create a "POV fork," as has been charged, but because the African aesthetic is a complex one that needs space for proper elucidation without the confusion and hostility that clearly have been exhibited by those familiar with the concept of cool in only a pop-culture context. "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)" also could be profitably expanded, if handled properly.  It doesn't make sense to merge the two only to separate them out later. It could get messy. IMO, it makes sense to keep "cool" as a traditional, African cultural ethos with spiritual and metaphysical implications separate from its fairly simplistic/shallow pop culture permutations.  Again, given the project's general paucity of articles treating Africa and African cultural expression, I think it important that the African article be one that is discrete and contained and comprehensive in its approach to the subject matter.  Further, people accessing Wikipedia for information, and many seeking to contribute, likely will be looking for cool in the pop-culture context.  They can read what they want and move on -- or delve deeper.  The cool article, renamed "cool (pop culture aesthetic)" will continue to contain a reference to the more complex article for those who wish to read more.  Deeceevoice 15:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's your assumption-- that if its merged it will get too big. My prediction is that it won't, if several editors who follow policy are editing the page.--Urthogie 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That all sounds reasonable, but to me it still looks like undue weight. It's far better to have a "history of cool" article that presents all relevant and credible theories, than to have an "African cool" article that's about the ideas of one particular academic.  If I invent a new theory about whether Jesus was real, and write a book about it, I wouldn't get an article on my specific theory (unless it really took off).  I might get a mention of my theory in Historicity of Jesus if I'm considered a reputable source.  We don't want to emphasize one particular theory over all the others by having a specific article on it, unless that theory is way more accepted by scholars than the others.  Friday (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Read my response again -- along with the lengthy list of sources. There is certainly more than one academic represented there, and certainly more than one academic discipline/fiend of endeavor. Length and managability are not the only considerations. The division is a natural and sensible one. While pop culture cool has African/African American origins, they are separate phenomena entirely -- particularly as pop-culture cool has changed over time and as it has been appropriated/assimilated by other cultures with different sensibilities. Further, Africal cultural cool is not "theory."  A people's cultural ethos is subjective by its very nature; is what it is.  There is no countervailing interpretation out there.  Just as there is no credible, countervailing finding regarding the African/African-American origins of cool in popular culture.Deeceevoice 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The division is natural to you, yes. But, your point of view seems pretty easy to read- you sound like you believe that "real" cool is African, and other forms of cool are inferior, shallow bullshit, so of course the division seems natural to you. I don't believe everyone sees it the same way.  There are many ideas about the origins of cool.  We should not be trying to pick which one is "correct" so we can emphasize it over the others.  Friday (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are "many ideas about the origins of cool," then where are they? None has been presented outside of the African/African-American one.  Further, if there are other notions of the origins of pop-culture cool, then that's all the more reason why the two articles should remain separate.  That's precisely my point.  The article treating cool squarely and solely in the African/African-American/African diasporic context can be left free to develop outside the constant squabbling and bickering of people who want to assert there are other origins to the pop culture notion (but who so far haven't come up with anything credible to support their complaints).  And, no.  I don't think pop culture notions of cool are, to use your rather indelicate term, "bullsh*t."  But pop culture incarations of traditional cultural concepts are commercialized, packaged, mass-produced manifestations and, by their very nature, shallow in comparison to the original idea.  That's the nature of pop culture; it's pretty much kitsch -- a notion embodied/aptly illustrated in the Campbell soup cans of Andy Warhol in the 1960s.  Is it a valid phenomenon?  Of course.  But let's not confuse pop culture with something rooted in the objective, historical experience of the people of the originating culture.  By its very nature it is something qualitatively different.  Deeceevoice 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are theories on cool on Cool (aesthetic). Some people think it doesn't even exist.  Sometimes scholarship is done on things that are subjective.--Urthogie 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, great. Feel free to discuss them there!  That has nothing to do with this AfD. But let's be real. Simply because something is subjective doesn't mean it does not exist. Beauty is an aesthetic, which is subjective and culture-specific. As a concept, it's still valid; it still exists. Deeceevoice 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it is relevant. You said: "If there are "many ideas about the origins of cool," then where are they?"  I'm answering your question by showing that some people think it has no origins.--Urthogie 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, feel free to discuss it in the article. Be my guest. :) Deeceevoice 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mean this suggested article when you say "the article". If so, it's very important we discuss the idea first, especially as it may be involved in the result of this AFD.  Beauty, by the way, is a perfect example.  We can't say, "beauty is X", similar to how you say "cool is african, originally."  We can only say what the poets, philosophers, scientists, and highrollers have said over the years about beauty, their opinions.  Perfect example.--Urthogie 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The article" refers to the article specified in the post to which that comment is a response: Cool (aesthetic).  And what don't you get?  In an article on "Cool (African aesthetic)" cool is African -- because that's the clear and stated subject of the article.  If an article were entitled "Cool (European aesthetic)," the purview of the article would be cool as a European aesthetic.  (Duh.) To discuss any subject in a particular context does not, ipso facto, obviate or preclude discussion of it in any other context.  (Dang.) Deeceevoice 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that if one were to apply wikipedia's policies to that article, and remove the unsourced stuff(so its no longer your private research paper), what would result is about a paragraph on what various professors think about it-- and that would merge very nicely with the original cool article. Peace, --Urthogie 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, FYI, it was never anyone's "private" anything. You know as well as I that's not the way Wikipedia works: "Anyone can edit."  Besides, by your own account on the project page of this AfD, "[You've] been working on both articles for months and plan to continue on them." :p  Again:  If an article were titled "Cool (European aesthetic)," the purview of the article would be cool as a European aesthetic.  (Duh.) To discuss any subject in a particular context does not, ipso facto, obviate or preclude discussion of it in any other context.  (Dang.)   Deeceevoice 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all of this is sidestepping, rather than addressing, the issue of undue weight. I might think that Cool is a Swedish meatball. I might even write a book about it. But we still don't want an article called Cool (Swedish meatball) about this belief. If sources show that the idea of cool as a meatball has widespread currency, that's another story. I think it's far more useful to have an article on cool (or, if needed, the history and origins of cool) that addresses the origins of cool as described by reputable sources. Disputes about the origins of cool should be discussed in the article, and all relevant points of view should be documented. Fragmenting into different articles for the individual beliefs given in different sources is unneccessary and undesirable balkanization. NPOV requires that we don't write different articles on the same topic to express different points of view. Friday (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly valid to debate the pop-culture origins of cool, treated in an article "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)." It is, however, not valid to debate the origins of cool in an article titled "Cool (African philosophy)," or -- preferred -- "Cool (African aesthetic)."  It is clear by the very name of the article that the purpose of the document is to treat "cool" in its African context/meaning/understanding.  AGAIN, I purposely fragmented the two articles to avoid the controversy about pop-culture cool and to deal with the African phenomenon as an underlying, complex, cultural and spiritual aesthetic that underpins much of indigenous African cultural expression.  Further, it would be helpful if examples, e.g., "Cool (Swedish meatball)," utilized in your arguments were at least marginally applicable to the dicussion at hand and not beyond absurd.  Further with regard to "writ[ing] different articles on the same topic to express different points of view," there is no debate about the existence of cool as an indigenous, African cultural aesthetic.  It is a separate topic. Deeceevoice 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the seperate topic that would be OK as an article would be the history and origins of cool, not one particular writer's opinions about the history and origins of cool. Those are two seperate things.  Whatever debate exists or doesn't exist on that topic would be covered in the article.  Presenting the topic as seen through a certain worldview doesn't actually make it a seperate topic, it makes it a POV fork. Friday (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. That's assuming that an article on cool as a legitimate, indigenous cultural ethos that is an underlying value in African society with regard to personal comportment, interpersonal relations, functional art, music, dance, etc., has no inherent value.  And that most certainly is not the case.  Cool in the African context would merit an article had there been no trans-Atlantic slave trade and no consequent infusion into American popular culture.  It is complex, with pervasive implications in indigenous African cultural expression.  There is ample information about cool in African culture that is clearly not POV; it is the result of scholarly inquiry and rigorous research.  Some of those sources have been provided on this page.  The contentious subject is, in fact, pop-culture cool -- which, if it didn't exist -- would not render an examination of cool in traditional African societies or in the African diaspora POV or superfluous.  By the same token, an examination of pop-culture cool in its various permutations and disparate meanings is not critical to an examination of African cool.  Far from it.Deeceevoice 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would we have Cool (Non-existant)? No, because its a theory of cool, just like this page.--Urthogie 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A silly, snide comment that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It shows unwarranted contempt for the article and, possibly, animus -- and, IMO, hurts your case.  Thanks for making that so obvious.  :p  Deeceevoice 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources provided by Deeceevoice - Comments
Source #1 Cites Thompson

Article is about "Yoruba aesthetics", not about a general concept of "African aesthetics/philosphy"

Source #2

States that there are several elements of the African Aesthetic in african art, and that one of the elements is "Self-composure (The person who is composed behaves in a measured and rational way; he or she is controlled, proud, dignified, and cool)" All other elements (such as complexity of composition, balance and symmetry, spirituality and spirits, moral principles, ritual contexts, etc.) are elements of African Aesthetic and not, like Deeceevoice states in her versions of the article   the ontological framework of "African "cool".

Source #3

Dead link, cache document reveals that Deeceevoice's "citation" is only the summery of key words, and that the document was a copy of source #2

Source #4

Article asserts that "cool" is "phallocentric black masculinity" and therefore directly opposes Deeceevoice's core assertion that "Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness and calm, but it represents strength— not weakness. It is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. Heat is masculine energy; it is vigor and movement"

Souce #5

Provides no informations about "cool aesthetics" at all, other than asking the question why ""cool" aesthetics of post-World War II/pre-Civil Rights Movement black fiction .... have been neglected in African American literary studies".

Source #6 Another article about "Yoruba" Art, not about a general concept of "African aesthetics/philosphy"

Source #7 Cites Thompson

Source #8

This article doesn't even mention "african" or "black" (except stating that Miles Davis was "african american" who rejected cultural stereotypes about black men). According to this article, "cool" "began as a subversive, counter-cultural category" "by the poor, disenfranchised, and marginal peoples who gave it birth".

Source #9

Article about African dance, stating that elements of african dance is a "juxtaposition of the cool and the hot is simultaneously an age-old use of an African aesthetic principle" without further details about African aesthetic principles.

Source #10 Copy of source #2 (and source #3)

Source #11 Copy of source #2 (and source #3 and #10)

Source #12 Link to an internet discussion board

Source #13 How step dance was influenced by African dance folklore, doesn't even mention "cool"

Source #14 Deeceevoice citing herself CoYep 18:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to CoYep
Source #1
 * From the article:


 * "Face is central to Yoruba aesthetics, also. In order to understand this, the concept of coolness has to be introduced here:"


 * "Cool philosophy is a strong intellectual attitude, affecting incredibly diverse provinces of artistic happening, yet leavened with humor and a sense of play. It is an all important mediating process, accounting for similarities in art and vision in many tropical African societies. It is a matrix from which stem ideas about being generous, clear, percussively patterned, harmonized with others, balanced, finished, socially perfected, worthy of destiny. In other words, the criterion of coolness seems to unite and animate all the other canons (Thompson 1974:43)."
 * "Coolness is a metaphor for proper living; it symbolizes moral aesthetic accomplishment. It requires an attention to balance and harmony. It shades into behavior as well as art: 'Coolness is the proper way you represent yourself to a human being' (Thomps on 1983:13)."


 * ''And how is that not relevant?" Deeceevoice 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #2


 * Sorry, but wrong again. Nowhere in those passages are those elements of the African aesthetic detailed. An earlier permutation of the article actually shows in what context I introduced that information, here  -- before it was subsequently hacked out of the article altogether.  Deeceevoice 19:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #3

Throughout the ongoing and antagonism/opposition ad seriatim attempts to obliterate this article (this is now attempt three or four, I believe), I have been charged with writing a "book report" -- quoting only some hack by the name of Ferris Thompson, utilizing one source. It was, in fact, the basis upon which the information referred to above was excised from the article by User:Urthogie. I repeatedly have said that this information is widely accepted as the foundations of a bona fide African cultural ethos/aesthetic. The fact that several sources list the same attributes, sometimes with one or another of the items given different names, or not mentioned as discrete elements, but including them among the list of values (e.g., Thompson's list is not the same as some others'), speaks to just how widely this information is accepted across disciplines. Deeceevoice 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #4

Thompson explicitly calls cool "feminine" energy. And Thompson is, of course, writing of cool in the traditional African context. And as I commented in response to this old, old, old charge (which surfaced in the article discussion page months ago) -- and as one admin who bothered to do even a little research commented -- this correlates with values across societies: female is passive, quiet; male is aggresive, vigorous. Further, the article here treats "cool" as part of African-American machismo -- which is cool as it evolved in completely different historical and cultural millieu, of slavery, oppression, racism and survival -- another reason it is useful to treat African cool comprehensively, in its proper context. Deeceevoice 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #5

I clearly stated in introducing the link what it encompasses. It establishes cool as an aesthetic in African-American culture worthy of academic investigation. Insofar as that aesthetic is descendant and derivative of African cool (as Cool (African philosophy) contends, it is supportive of the information presented in this embattled article. Deeceevoice 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #6

The article states at the outset: "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." The article goes on to cite the use of blues and indigos to express itutu and the use of red in Yoruba art to express ashe, or "the power to make things happen." Aside from the obvious, my rationale for presenting the info: Kente cloth (Ghanaian, rather than Nigerian), for example, gives equal value to such colors -- what would be considered "loud" by European sensibilities. But as such, it is a visual representation of what in Oriental philosophy would be considered Yin/Yang; it is the cohabitation and balance of elemental forces: feminine and masculine, cool and hot. This aesthetic sensibility/approach is also evident in the African-American music, the highly Africanized band music played by the earliest Dixieland bands in New Orleans. And it is evidenced by the equal weight given positive and negative space and aggressive and passive elements in much of traditional African art. It is visible in weaving techniques, as well as wood carving. Thompson calls this manifestation a visual representation of jazz and uses two African masks side by side to contrast the aesthetic approaches of each. Once one understands the concept, it's easy for the reader to see which is which. The "jazz" mask is bold; it has vibrancy, movement, even rhythm; the other is dead/flat. But, hey, these are elements that I don't touch upon much, if at all, not having had the time to do so. And others seem more preoccupied with obliterating the piece than with actually improving/contributing to it. And, gee. I guess I won't get to if the deletionists have their way -- not in this article, at least. :p Deeceevoice 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #7

Well, gosh. Yes, it most certainly does -- as Yale professor Robert Farris Thompson is the foremost scholar on the subject in the field. Deeceevoice 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just received an e-mail from the professor cited above (the one doing research into cool in African American literature), Jacqueline Goldsby, Univ. of Chicago. Here is what she wrote, in part:


 * "I skimmed the debate at the Wikipedia website, following the link you provided. Since I'm just embarking on my own research into the concept, I can't offer the kind of definitive sourcing you need. Though I would say this:"


 * "I'm struck that the contributors to the debate are so hostile toward Robert Farris Thompson's discussion of 'coolness' in Flash of the Spirit. That book is recognized by scholars as *the* definitive treatment of African-derived art forms and practices across the diaspora. Thompson's credentials are impeccable, as is his scholarship. It's specious for your opponents to dismiss the idea of 'cool''s Africanist origins simply because only one (English-language) text addresses it. That's often the case in scholarship. After all, seminal ideas have to start somewhere."


 * She has some suggestions about the exploration of pop-culture cool, too, but I won't go into them here. Deeceevoice 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #8

Actually, I think you mean source 9, "Death of the Cool." The writer states, "Cool is that aloof, independent, self-contained, rebellious, strong, proficient, iconoclastic, vanguard attitude that Miles embodied." This piece is actually a excoriation of shallow, pop-culture cool and cool as co-opted by corporate America. A decent source for approaching cool from a pop-culture perspective. Just my way of saying that there not only is a certain lack of three-dimensionality, if you will, in African-American cool, as opposed to its African progenitor, but that the difference between elemental A-A cool and shallow pop-culture cool is also huge. There is ample material available -- and certainly ample justification in terms of true-grit substance -- to justify keeping African cool and pop-culture cool separate. While one is derivative of the other, filtered through the African-American experience, they are vastly different -- one grounded in the spirituality, mores and fundamental weltanschaaung of a people, the other, relatively speaking, a permutation that has taken on a life of it own -- one, as this writer contends, that is a life in the life, whored out to the highest bidder. That's his take. Deeceevoice 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #9

Hey, I hope you're getting an education here. :p Yes. Just as my annotated list of sources quotes. It's just another example manifestation of cool in African-American dance, and traced straight to Mother Africa and, yes, termed an "aesthetic." Supporting evidence of the information presented in both articles. Deeceevoice 20:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #10 Ditto as in my response 3. Deeceevoice 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #11 Ditto as in my response 3. Deeceevoice 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #12

Yes, and it was duly identified as such in the list I provided. And as I stated when I presented the link, the discussion yields some interesting allusions to information sources that promise to be useful to those interested in contributing to both articles. The discussion also alludes to the African-American roots of pop-culture cool and possibly, I don't recall, that phenomenon's African roots -- again, supportive of the information already presented in both articles. Deeceevoice 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #13

Wrong. And "folklore"?!! An excerpt from the article of one mention:

For example the percussive dominance where the stepper throws down a sharply percussive rhythm with the feet while the hands beat out a counter rhythm and the head enunciates another beat is one obvious characteristic present during step shows. This is particularly noticeable when steppers use canes to increase the complexity and audibility of the sound. Such a routine has its origins in northern Zaire, Sudan, Zambia and Mozambique while the familiar "get down" position commonly observed when steppers often begin and [end] a step by bending deeply from the waist can be traced to many Central and West African cultures. In contrast to the aforementioned aesthetic characteristics that are considered "hot" practices, steppers also demonstrate "cool" aesthetics in their movements by striving for uniform visibility and clarity in their motions. Invoking the names of the founders and organization's history by the steppers as well as the practice of looking smart [another characteristic of African cool, "luminosity of motion"/"looking smart" (my note)] by entering and exiting the show properly rounds out the expressions of other "cool" aesthetics presented by Greek members during step shows. Deeceevoice 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Source #14 Yes, and, again, duly identified. People can check out the links for themselves -- some of them actually provided by another editor, admin, Fred Bauder. Deeceevoice 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

'You were asked to provide sources for your claim that not only Thompson, but a "broad scholarship"'' supports your concept of Cool (African philosophy). You then provided sources which either'''

1) cite Thompson (and even Thompson himself applies his concept to only five African civilizations -- Yoruba, Kongo, Ejagham, Mande and Cross River and not to all African cultures)

2) discuss distinctive elements of African Yoruba culture or

3) don't offer any informations about African "philosophy" other than mentioning "cool" and African in one sentence.

Your insufficient sources will not become sufficient or more valid by repeating them.CoYep 13:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

'Nowhere have I contended, nor have I contended that anyone else'' has said, that the aesthetic is a universal one across all indigenous African cultures. That's a place you've arrived at entirely on your own -- a strawman. And your incessant contentions that such an aesthetic does not exist will never have validity -- because they are false on their face. And you haven't produced a single source to validate your assumptions. Not one, single, solitary, mumblin' word. Deeceevoice 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)'''

please keep discussion here
the vote page is getting quite messy, please move the discussion here.

Justforasecond 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just more OR
Hmm, soliciting opinions directly from more academics is completely irrelevant, for purpose of the encyclopedia. All you're doing is making more original research, which is the problem, not the solution. Friday (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * She didn't offer her opinion on the phenomenon; merely restated what is easily verifiable about the esteemed status of Thompson's work in the field. :p Deeceevoice 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on Thompson or his book, go ahead, it would easily be verifiable. Friday (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is ample mention of an African aesthetic in various sources to support an authoritative, comprehensive article. As I've already stated, I have absolutely no interest in doing a "book report."  If you'd like to do one, be my guest.  Deeceevoice 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Who supports mediation for those involved in editing this article?
Who would support mediation for all of those involved in editing this article? As I've said before, the back and forth on this issue reminds me of the items on the list of lamest edit wars ever. I strongly doubt the editors here are, at this point, going to reach consensus on anything without mediation.--Alabamaboy 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) --Alabamaboy 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I wouldn't mind it. It would help policies be enforced.  Then again, DCV didn't care much for RFC, or RFA, why would she care for this?--Urthogie 22:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --FrancisTyers 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) Subtract the editors who oppose nomination on "bad faith" and the creator (who has oddly flip-flopped from merge to STRONG KEEP), and there's very little support for this sticking around. Justforasecond 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"How long?" is the wrong question.

 * Comment: How many months should an article and its contributors be given to add sources? Hyacinth 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: as long as it takes. If there is unverifiable information in the article -- as with any other, then delete that information. Let the article remain in that state -- with a stub or other tag appropriate to its condition -- until someone has the time and interest to improve it. I mean isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? (Duh.) And that's what's happened to the piece so far; whole chunks have been obliterated.

But it hasn't stopped there. This article has been under constant attack. This is the third or fourth attempt to obliterate it, the last effort concluding as late as the end of December. Here, the article has been attacked for lacking information I previously had inserted in the article, but which was hacked out of it! :p And there were subheads delineating the widely accepted components of the aesthetic that were left blank (as is done in lots of articles on this website), inviting input and further development as a means of helping to form a general framework for the piece. They, too, were deleted.

The so-called "weaselwords" of the opening paragraph are a rewrite -- one I did not do. One of the people complaining about the condition of the piece did that. I left it as a concession. And, yeah. I, too, think the wording sux. :p

Returning to the question, the fact is no article on Wikipedia should depend upon the time and attention of a single editor for its development. Nor should it be obliterated simply because no single editor has worked tirelessly on it. People grouse about the page. If they spent a fraction of the time, energy and attention constructively editing the piece (not just hacking away at it) and contributing information that they've so far spent complaining about it or, ad seriatim, trying to get it deleted, hell, it'd be a freaking featured article.

Has anyone thought to put it up for article improvement, as is, I believe, fairly common practice around here when the desire is to improve an article? Has it been suggested for the project concentrating on articles treating Africa? Gosh. What a concept. The answer to both questions is no. Because beyond the criticism (some of it justified; I have not had the time or the inclination to concentrate on it) of the article itself, the hostility of detractors (as is evidenced by those who continue to focus on attack Thompson's unassailed scholarship completely without foundation, while completely ignoring the writings of others) has been directed toward the editor and/or the very subject itself. One of the primary detractors below has had the unmitigated gall to assert, "But many people don't recognize the [A]frican aesthetic as existing." Yet he so far has failed to produce a single, learned individual (biased opinions born of ignorance or animus don't count) who would make such an absurd and possibly racist statement.

There is no doubt that indigenous African peoples, as with all other members of humanity, have aesthetic standards and belief systems. Further, there is ample evidence, and considerable scholarhip that supports, that there is, indeed a collective cool aesthetic commonly held across traditional, indigenous African societies that has far-reaching implications with regard to how individuals comport themselves, how they interact, that governs/mediates both everyday/pedestrian and artistic expression. That aesthetic merits an article -- just as Japanese aesthetics merits one.

This article has not been treated the way other articles on the website generally are treated. The far more interesting and legitimate question that begs a proper answer here is, "Why?" :p  Deeceevoice 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See the No true Scotsman fallacy.  Justforasecond 01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Utterly and abysmally irrelevant. 09:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is what you said:
 * Yet he so far has failed to produce a single, learned individual (biased opinions born of ignorance or animus don't count) who would make such an absurd and possibly racist statement.
 * Since you decide who's learned and who has "biased opinions born of ignorance or animus," then you can simply say that anyone who makes such a statement falls into the latter category (i.e. "he's not a true learned individual") and not the first. Of course, this won't necessarily happen, but it certainly opens the possibility up.


 * Yom 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. If you check their arguments, they haven't produced a single source to support their arguments -- not one. Their comments have been in the form of "I don't think," and vague generalizations -- but not supported by a single source. Their personal opinions and vague, inchoate objections -- seemingly largely grounded in ignorance and suppositions born of experience of cool only in its extremely limited, pop-culture context -- have no weight, no bearing whatsoever here. If anything, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy would seem to apply to their failed and incredibly lame attempts to discount/debunk Yale professor and respected scholar Robert Farris Thompson. I've challenged them to produce a single, solitary source source and then half as many sources to refute the existence of an African cool aesthetic (or even a collective African aesthetic shared across tribal and national boundaries) -- and they haven't produced a single, solitary one. Because they cannot. As I said to User:Urthogie, "I'm still waiting."Deeceevoice 10:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't say that you have made a no true Scotsman fallacy (obviously impossible w/o them providing an example), but that your wording allows for it if/when they do provide a source. Relax a bit. You're getting too worked up over this. These discussions would be so much better if everyone just had a nice cup of tea and a sit down.


 * Yom 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yom, don't mistake my directness for ire. I'm confident that they will be unable to meet the challenge I have posed and produce a source to validate their unsubstantiated and completely unfounded criticisms of either the topic or of Yale scholar Robert Farris Thompson. There is absolutely no knowledgeable person who would deny the existence of an African cool aesthetic or a collective African aesthetic that crosses tribal, ethnic and national boundaries. The naysayers'/detractors' statements so far have consisted of vague generalizations and "I don't think" commentary. And ignorance, supposition and inchoate supsicions -- likely born of exposure to only the limited, attenuated, pop-culture expressions of African cool -- are hardly firm foundations upon which to base intellectual arguments.

And, yes. I am at this very moment enjoying a cup of tea. If you haven't tried Celestial Seasonings' green tea blend Mandarin Orchard, I recommend it. Good stuff. :) Deeceevoice 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So basically, DCV, your argument is that something is true until proven otherwise? Since when is there a policy called WP:TRUTH?--Urthogie 13:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've provided sources. I'm still waiting for yours. :p Deeceevoice 13:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You've provided sources that it's a seminal cultural theory, but no sources so far that prove that its true.--Urthogie 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is unverifiable information in the article -- as with any other, then delete that information (Deeceevoice)

Agreed, that's the reason why the article is listed for deletion.

That aesthetic merits an article -- just as Japanese aesthetics merits one (Deeceevoice)

Japan is a country, Africa is a continent with thousands of different cultures. If one would manufacture an article about Asian (aesthetics) asserting that, lets say,  Turkmenistan, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, India, China and Japan share one and the same "aesthetics" and live by the same cultural and spiritual values, the article would be listed for deletion as well.

Same would happen if someone would change the title of Yin and yang into Cool (Asian aesthetics), and would start to fill it with all kind of unrelated informations, claims and assertions. For instance adding the claim that, because Chinese judges were the first who started to wear sunglasses indoors, back in the 1400s, trying to hide their emotions during court proceedings, anybody wearing sunglasses today to "mask his emotions" is appropriating Cool (Asian aesthetics). Or adding the assertion to the article, that, because of some Indian artists who preferably paint in blue colors, blue colors are an element of Cool (Asian aesthetics) and therefore valid for all Asian countries, and any non-Asian artists painting in blue colors as well are influenced by this concept of Cool (Asian aesthetics), or adding the claim that, because there are some Islamic countries in Asia, Islam is the spiritual element of Cool (Asian aesthetics) and is therefore the spiritual framework not only for the whole continent but for the Asian diaspora as well, etc. ect. The bottom line is that nobody would tolerate such an article, and rightfully so. CoYep 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of scholarly literature when it comes to black studies seems to be devoted to this pan-African stuff. The reason is, simply put: because African-Americans just know that they're African in ancestry.  They don't know (with some exceptions for historical research) which tribe, or kingdom their ancestors belonged to.  Its a shame that the diverse culture of various African tribes and kingdoms is lost in the massive brushstrokes of the academy.--Urthogie 14:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. This is not "pan-African stuff" -- any more than scholarly work treating a generalized "European cultural aesthetic" is "pan-European stuff." The fact is certain African cultures/peoples do share aesthetics in common. There is clearly an African aesthetic: e.g., the way African dancers get low to the ground when they approach ecstasy, or the Divine or simply become caught up in the dance, in the polyrhythmic cadences, which can be mesmerizing. They "get down" -- low, near the earth. It's a common, recurrent theme throughout West African dance, and in other portions of the continent, as well. And in African-American dance. (And throughout the African diaspora -- in Haiti, in Brazil, in Cuba.) "Get down, get down, down.  Get down, get down, down.  Jungle boogie, jungle boogie." Sound familiar? That's Kool and the Gang. Another: "Let's dance. Let's shout. Shake your body down to the ground." That's Michael Jackson (the creator of the moonwalk: classic motion and stasis; hot and cool combined simultaneous motion/non-motion.) It's a hallmark characteristic of African movement that has survived the Middle Passage, slavery and the decades since.

Again, from a source quoted above:

"...it is obvious that certain aesthetics observed during stepping are deeply entrenched within the music and dance of African culture. For example the percussive dominance where the stepper throws down a sharply percussive rhythm with the feet while the hands beat out a counter rhythm and the head enunciates another beat is one obvious characteristic present during step shows. This is particularly noticeable when steppers use canes to increase the complexity and audibility of the sound. Such a routine has its origins in northern Zaire, Sudan, Zambia and Mozambique while the familiar 'get down' position commonly observed when steppers often begin and [end] a step by bending deeply from the waist can be traced to many Central and West African cultures. [emphases added]"

In contrast, white folks want to soar when expressing the same emotions -- as in ballet. They get up on their toes. They think in terms of being soft, ethereal, taking flight. Black folks get fierce and "take it down to the ground." And that's just one well known, well referenced example. You don't know the subject matter, and you have no idea what you're talking about. You're merely making facile assumptions, based on ignorance, that there's some sort of political agenda at work here -- when there's absolutely nothing of the sort. Deeceevoice 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember to be civil -- it isn't ok to call other editors "ignorant" Justforasecond 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * She wasn't calling anyone ignorant. She was stating that an editor was making a "facile assumption, based on ignorance". Please don't make ungrounded accusations. Why not take advantage of Wikipedia by editing a subject you are qualified to write about? - FrancisTyers 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics." Source: Merriam-Webster  *x* Deeceevoice 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. And did I mention? I'm still waiting. Deeceevoice 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, DCV makes good points. It's a known fact that "white folks" in general dance on their toes only. "Dancing in the rain. I'm happy again. I'm singin' and dancin' in the rain. Dancin' and singin' in the rain." Sound familiar? That's Frank Sinatra! Dancing in the rain is a hallmark characteristic of white folks movement that has survived since decades! And the Masai, who are jumping several feet high while they are dancing, are, in reality, "white folks". :-P CoYep 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. As a dance form that many consider to be the highest expression of European dance, ballet is a legitimate example. It is an expression of that aesthetic, just as traditional African dance I've referred to is an expression of an African aesthetic. (And, no. Actually, Singin' in the rain -- that's Gene Kelly.)  Further, to say that an aesthetic is shared does not mean it is universal. Your sarcasm does your cause no good. Perhaps you should help Urthogie hunt up some sources. Make yourself useful. Deeceevoice 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, you are on personal attack probation.  It isn't OK to tell other editors to "make themselves useful", which implies they are currently useless.   Justforasecond 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't, stop twisting other people's words. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is this is the guy who all but charged me with "forgery" yesterday. :p Deeceevoice 04:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool is not an African aesthetic
Might be interesting to see if there are sources that show that Cool is an Asian, South American, European, Central Asian, Australian, Indian, Turkish, Caucasian aesthetic or something? How about an article entitled Origins of the Cool aesthetic that could give an overview of the history of Cool in various cultures. - FrancisTyers 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An article on the history and origins of cool would be entirely appropriate, and I bet it could be done without resorting to original research. Such an article would of course cover multiple people's thoughts on this matter, and it would not pre-suppose one particular correct origin of "cool", excluding the others.  Friday (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are incorrect. But let's get one thing clear, shall we?  To do an article on the African cool aesthetic (which, if you will consult the sources) does, indeed, exist and entails several elements, does not mean that the phenomenon is exclusive to indigenous, traditional African culture/societies.  Nor does it preclude treatment of cool as a pop culture phenomenon in all its various meanings across cultures -- or, even in traditional societies of other nations, if such a phenomenon exists.  All it means is that that particular article will focus on cool in the African context.  The title limits the scope of only that particular article and has no bearing whatsoever on other explorations of cool.  It's no different from writing an article on African art.  No one reasonably would expect that an article so titled implies that there is no other art in existence.  Why is that so hard for some people to understand?  Seriously.  Am I missing something here?  Deeceevoice 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, you got it perfectly :) - FrancisTyers 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Friday said we could have an article on Cool without original research -- sounds correct to me.       It wouldn't contain much from this POV fork though, as this has ony one obscure source. Justforasecond 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have no idea if the source is obscure or not, or are you suddenly professing to be an expert in this area? Besides, obscure subjects are likely to be covered by obscure sources. Take some time and think about that. - FrancisTyers 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While you're thinking, take a look over Skull (symbolism). Seems like just your cup of tea. - FrancisTyers 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'''And, gee. Guess what? I'm still waitin'.... :p Deeceevoice 04:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)'''