Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)/Archive 2

message: ok, i hope i can help end conflict here, check it out:
1.some people are mad because they see a universal concept being treated like an invention or commodity.  even if cool was central to african philosophy, that doesnt mean that people weren't cool in europe even though they didnt have a word for it.  just as someone can be a feminist or liberal without knowing the philosophies, the same goes with cool.  and if you dont want a political example, consider that someone can be funky without knowing what the funk is(or without being black)
2.we should NOT deracialize this article.  im white and i know that coolness was set as one of the major themes in our culture after the black slaves were taken to america.  I read an article once which said that the slaves were cool because they made something out of nothing.
3.there are parts of the article that dont agree with each other.  please source everything disagreed on, and dont make general statements needlessly.
4.i dont think it Cool (African philosophy) should have its own article.  We should have one article for cool.  This is really UNCOOL to create your own article so you can have your own african philosophy area.  Wikipedia is supposed to be about people contributing to each other's work, not about splitting up into seperate groups.
Be cool.--Urthogie 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a 3rd party comment on the disagreements involving this article 

message: 1.There is no article on being cool linked to by the disambiguation page.  Why? Because the scope of the subject has been limited by the title of this article.
2.I am not disputing the factuality of this article.  Merely the title, which disallows the many voices of wikipedia to take part and contribute.
3.The decision to make this into a new article was essentially an acceptance of the idea that because we couldn't agree, we should create seperate articles based on our beliefs on this subject.  This isn't the way we should approach things at wikipedia.
4.When someone enters cool into the wikipedia search bar, it should go directly to the article 'Cool'.  The article should deal with the subject of cool, and include this information about cool as an african philosophy.  In italics, there would be descriptions, and links to other related subjects(such as the ones that appear on the current cool disambiguation page).
5.If this proposal is not accepted, I am extremely willing to discuss alternatives, because currently the entire situation is very bad.
6.If deeceevoices is correct, and cool is an african concept, then that can be established in the article, through the use of facts and quotes, and writing, as its supposed to be.  What we've done instead is the very unwikipedian thing where we simply give up on the truth.  We dont have an article called Hitler (Evil Dictator) or Freedom(Greek Philosophy), because both articles would limit the scope of their subject.  If deeceevoices is correct about it being an african philosophy, that can be established, in the same way that its established that Hitler is evil.  However, naming the article Cool(African Philosophy) is essentially giving up on the ability of wikipedia to sort out truth. Urthogie 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding item 1, that's due to recent vandalism. The reference and link have been restored.  deeceevoice 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons/Explanation for Merger

message: The article should remain separate for the reasons expressed above.  The most recent individual to suggest the article should be a catch-all, all-purpose one seems to suggest cool in African and African-American culture doesn't deserve a separate article.  He's clearly wrong:
Cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic (a very quick Goodle for those who care enough to do the tiniest bit of research, rather than push a POV)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
And that's only online sources, and that's just for starters.  There is no doubt that black African aesthetics are fundamentally different from those of Europe, and that an essential -- indeed fundamental -- element of African philosophy, the African aesthetic, is cool.  Given the paucity of articles on this website treating non European -- and specifically black/African subject matter -- it seems clear that separate and in-depth treatment of this subject, which has implications for how and why black African peoples have certain values, comport ourselves, move and adorn our bodies in certain ways, why we create music and functional art and art objects the ways in which we do is sorely needed.  Especially here.  A quick look at the sketchiness of African art should tell anyone that pretty quickly.  A thorough examination and elucidation of cool as an African philosophy/aesthetic would be an important addition to the project -- as a stand-alone piece, but also as a resource for informing other articles treating the indigenous cultural expressions of Africa and of the African diaspora.
This subject was discussed at length before.  The proposed merger tag should be removed.  And ASAP.  deeceevoice 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, you are correct in saying the connection is very well established between cool and african american culture.  However, you are wrong in saying it deserves its own article.  It is obvious that the content of this article is not really an open forum, and has become a way for us to seperate ourselves on wikipedia.--Urthogie 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Support for cool as an essential African philosophy/aesthetic'''

message: This entire thing relies on secondary sources.  If you are going to cite sources, feel free to use Thompson's book as a tool, and to help explaining things.  However, this is written like an essay that relies on secondary sources.  If you want to prove a point about cool, please cite AFRICAN literature or AFRICAN griots.  Using a secondary source is unreliable, for such a long article to rely on.
--Urthogie 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. On what Wikipedia policy do you base that assessment on? Please expand on your rational, in general. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No response. Hopefuly one is fourthcoming. In the meantime, you may wish to review and/or comment on the template talk page. El_C 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for huge deletions 

message: I've read some of his stuff, to guarantee objectivity in this article.  He is simply observing patterns in african art.  Art is subjective.  This article is written objectively.  Please don't revert my attempts to point out the subjectivity.
--Urthogie 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've read some thompson 

message: I have contacted Mr. Thompson himself and I will soon have his reply on the objectivity of this article.--Urthogie 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  contacted the real guy 

message: This source  contains a request, "Draft only: Do not quote or cite without author's permission". She gives an email address, have you contacted her? I wonder about using a source that even the author considers unfinished. 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.  I'll find a new source.--Urthogie 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A marginal source anyway, which trades on a different definition of cool. Fred Bauder 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of a better way of showing how unscholarly established it is: a dictionary.  So I'll look the word up in the meantime.  Thanks for pointing that out by the way Fred(The disclaimer on the source).--Urthogie 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft only: Do not quote or cite without author's permission

message: This page should be moved to Cool (Black culture).  The idea the coolness is a African-American creation is somewhat common in academic studies, but the idea the its related to some pan-African philosophy is held by (at most) 2 or 3 professors.  Can I have a second opinion on this?  Thanks.--Urthogie 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move 

message: http://www.djworksmusic.com/smarter_kids.html supposedly supports "the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented". The page is a blurb for an album by the artist Deborah Johnson written by an unknown author which, citing experimental work by Rauscher and others of the University of California, Irvine which measured performance on a test which measures spatial IQ compared to control groups found improved performance. Supposedly listening to the album Classical Spice will "make your kids smarter", the Mozart Effect, see http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mozarteffect2.shtml for an extended discussion. There is some language in the blurb which somewhat resembles the supported language "Rauscher stressed that all classical music that is highly structured and complex has the same effect.", but there is no further discussion. Fred Bauder 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: http://www.soul-patrol.com/soul/jerry.htm contains material regarding Jerry Butler which more or less supports 'Another example of cool in African American culture is the intensely emotional vocal style of soulful crooner Jerry Butler, delivered with trademark, inscrutable composure, which earned him the moniker "The Ice Man"', but not explicitly, there being no information on his demeanor, "trademark, inscrutable composure".
:Easy enough to verify.  I did it in less than a minute at www.askjeeves.com. :p   deeceevoice 07:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ice man

message: I can't tell from the article very well, and I'm not much of an expert myself.  But is "cool" as an African philsophy taken seriously by mainstream scholarship, or is it just a few Afrocentrists?  I was under the impression that a lot of Afrocentric theories were considered rather "fringe", and I wonder if a whole article on this concept is an example of giving undue weight to a few academics?  Friday (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several white academics who hold such views, so I don't think it can be pigeonholed into afrocentrism(but the article is biased towards the afrocentric view).--Urthogie 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have names of these several white acadmics and/or citations where they describe their views?   Justforasecond 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Farris Thompson, in all of his works supports this idea that DCV puts forward.  I've talked with the guy.  The problem is that his viewpoint is being treated as science, when its really not.--Urthogie 12:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thompson is a learned man who has spent his life studying indigenous African art and culture. He is imminently qualified to write on the subjecs he addresses and is well respected in his field.  To my knowledge, no one has challenged his scholarship except, of course, the "contributors" here -- if that tells you anything (it certainly does me :p).  To complain that Thompson is not a scientist is ridiculous.  That's like arguing that Baldwin's treatise on the creative literary process has no validity because he's not a scientist.  Sheer hogwash.  Oh.  And did I mention (check the link) he's white There's even a sho' nuff photo (since JFAS seems to believe only white academics can have any credibility on this subject) -- and, yes, the guy is white.  Quite.  deeceevoice 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your style, deecee. Regarding Justforasecond's request for the opinion's of white academics, I'll ignore for now the implication the these opinions are somehow more valuable since they come from "white" academis (how very white of you!), and just point out that you can be white and be an afrocentrist, just as you can be male and be a feminist (eg yours truly). Just keep that in mind for a second before you go dismissing all the "black" scholars and welcoming the "white" ones. ThePedanticPrick 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I gave the guy what he asked for.  I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your comments with a response -- except to say that dismissively branding information "afrocentrist" simply as a knee-jerk, reactionary, uninformed response is not a useful addition to the discussion.  deeceevoice 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [disparaging remark removed - FrancisTyers 09:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: DCV, your logic here is flawed.  I never said he has no validity, I just said his methods aren't scientific.  I suggest you read up on the scientific method, which requires that findings are falsifiable.  We can never know if Thompson's findings are scientifically sound, even if they are insightful.--Urthogie 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does it all come down to Thompson or are there others who hold these views? Justforasecond 16:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some others, based on my discussion with him.  Of course, it's a view...the problem is that this article was (and still is, to a certain extent) presenting said view as scientific.--Urthogie 16:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.   Did he give you the names or mention any of their works?   The problem is the article right now mentions that there are more than one that subscribe to this "philosophy" description, but Thompson seems to be the only one mentioned.  Justforasecond 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the email, but he listed several other professors that agree with him.  Want me to ask again?--Urthogie 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you on gmail by now? :)   No deletion necessary.   Seriously though, it would improve the article immensely, especially anyone that actually uses the term "philosophy".   I am not sure that Thompson himself has done so.  Justforasecond 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I found it interesting that Urthogie failed to report very little of the findings of his conversation w/Thompson after announcing publicly that he intended to consult him in an attempt to verify certain assertions made in this article.  He said little.  Only that Thompson said cool was associated with dignity.  Urthogie then stated that whatever Thompson had to say didn't have much value.  Why?  Because he's not a scientist. :p  So, Thompson stated that there were other academics in agreement, huh?  (No surprise there.)  So sorry to disappoint. :p deeceevoice 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DCV, stop putting words into my mouth.  Of course what he says is of value.  Its possible to have a valuable opinion based on your research, and still not be a scientist.  A scientist's findings are falsifiable among other things.  So, thats why I have a problem with his findings being presented as completely authoritative, when theyre more of an expert opinion than the results of science.--Urthogie 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seem to fail to grasp, Urthogie, is that expert opinions are sufficient here.  Thompson is the recognized authority in such matters, and pretty much has been for 30 years or more.  His scholarship is, as far as I'm aware, unchallenged and much respected worldwide.  deeceevoice 12:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even respected opinions must be stated as such: respected opinions; not scientific facts.--Urthogie 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream scholarship or Afrocentrism? 

message: Miles Davis is really cool.  Agreed.  But by your definitions here, DCV, he wasn't-- he lost his cool all the time and got pissed quite easily on several occasions.--Urthogie 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt Miles had his diva moments.  But he could blow sweathotfire and coolblueice behind those dark shades of his and never flinch.  He was a law unto himself.  The kat was cool.  Troof, roof. Deeceevoice 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: "Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)
If there was any question, it is now undeniable this is a POV fork and no one has ever called "Cool" a philosophy.   Whatever content is cited in here, feel free to merge it into the Cool article.   The AFD is almost complete and the article will probably not be around much longer.   Justforasecond 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one"?  Thompson has, which is why the article was titled in such a manner -- to treat its African origins and separate it from the shallow, pop-culture treatment of cool.  Further, I was actually encouraged to do so by other editors, and I held off doing so until the second RfD process was completed to avoid confusion (or, was it the first; I can't recall).  Again, interestingly, the article on cool has developed to include the African/African-American origins of the term -- as I predicted it would.  :p Deeceevoice 17:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Fork

message: This is probably going to get deleted or merged, so DCV, I suggest you save it on a subpage of your userpage, as you have clearly put some serious work into this piece of original research :P--Urthogie 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a bit I was-- which is why most of the policy violations are now mild-- the only major one is the title itself.  By the way, you probably write the best prose of anyone on this website that I've met thus far.--Urthogie 10:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Cultural appropriation" is another way of saying acculturation.  It's what happens when people get together from different cultures.  So it should be expected.--Urthogie 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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