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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  But wait.. 

message: the vote page is getting quite messy,  please move the discussion here.
Justforasecond 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please keep discussion here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Just more OR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who supports mediation for those involved in editing this article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Nope, you got it perfectly :) - FrancisTyers 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: While you're thinking, take a look over Skull (symbolism). Seems like just your cup of tea. - FrancisTyers 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool is not an African aesthetic