Talk:African aesthetic/Archive 1

message: this looks like original research to me, esp. the first paragraph.  maybe some cited content will appear but after the "cool" "african philosophy" fiasco i'm not so hopeful.
Justforasecond 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Did you not even have time to click on the link. Perhaps you'd like to make specific complaints instead of vague statements. - FrancisTyers 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be civil Mr. Tyers.   The link does not include the information in the paragraph such as "While the African continent is vast and its peoples diverse, certain [weasleword] standards of beauty...are held in common among various indigenous African societies" or the use of "cool".   Justforasecond 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm being entirely civil. Many thanks for the precise criticism. I have provided a source. - FrancisTyers 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: I'd really hate to see this go to Afd.  I really hope folks would think twice before doing that, look how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (2nd nomination) went.  All that time and energy spent for a "no consensus".  Why would we do any better with an Afd on this, which is very nearly the same thing?    Friday (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I can't understand why you want to spend so much time and energy trying to get an article that you don't particularly care about deleted. The mind boggles. Perhaps at the next AfD we'll get balloons. ^____^ - FrancisTyers 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a POV fork.  I explained all that at Afd.  I wasn't the only one who thought so.  Friday (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would an article on African aesthetics be a POV fork too? - FrancisTyers 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me, it's too early to say.  Right now this article is a lot like the other, but it did just start.  I'm wary, though - it reads like a personal essay.  Maybe it can be fixed, I don't know.  Friday (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest thats how most "art history" or "anthropology" reads to me, but then I don't expect it to read like a paper from Computational Linguistics. Have you read any encyclopaedias of Art to compare the style with? Not every article is going to read like VDM-SL. I guess it must be frustrating to not understand a subject, but then I get annoyed with myself when I try to read up on Information theory, or almost anything to do with Mathematics too :) Btw, if you really can't stand this article, you should check out Skull (symbolism) :P - FrancisTyers 02:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You bet you'd "hate to go to AfD."  You'd lose.  Hands down.  Deeceevoice 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion and whatnot 

message: THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND.  The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day.  Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken.  I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move.  One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures, and not just in art.  This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand.  There is an article on Japanese aesthetics.  There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African societies across tribal groupings, across national boundaries, and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples.  
The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is.  This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion and the manner in which it was handled -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be.  The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in traditional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool.  This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a sit-com caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing).  Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is.  And that is all the more reason this article should be restored.  And immediately. This talk page clearly presents list of online sources for possible inclusion in the article.  It doesn't even begin to touch upon the various monographs that can be useful in article development.  The article contains a partial listing of the constituent elements -- a glimpse into the complexity of the aesthetic.   There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable.
If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website.
As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abysmally uninformed bias