Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • African aesthetic Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:African aesthetic

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 11 April 2006, see discussion. no consensus to delete, 28 December 2005, see discussion.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

DCV, you might find the following helpful to adding to this content(I'd like to see it expand if/when its merged):

• Ubuntu (ideology) - Ubuntu is a sub-Saharan African ethic or ideology thats in many ways very similar to cool.

As a side note, the first essay I read(when I was much younger [meaning...11 or 12]) about Cool as an African-American invention: It's called Are Black People Cooler than White People[1]. It's written by Donnell Alexander, a black dude. He puts forward the view(which seems to be shared by Fran Lebowitz[2]) that cool stemmed out of slavery and oppression: "making a dollar out of 15 cents" and making the chitlins taste good even though they were nasty. My question is, why doesn't your article address this? It's all about nonlinearility and opposites existing in the same space and time-- but it doesn't address the view that cool is largely an African-American invention, and that it's about making something out of nothing. If this way of looking at cool existed in this african philosophy/aesthetic, I'd think that'd be very beneficial to the content.--Urthogie 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu (ideology) is a nice article. It looks like a real, verifiable, specific thing, which makes it very different from this article. I think it's easily possible to write about specific, named African ideologies without being full of original research, as that article proves. One of the reservations I have about this article is 1) it seems to be lumping Africa together as one group, which is totally inappropriate, there are many cultures and languages there, and 2) it seems to be confusing African with African-American. These are vastly different things. I can't imagine how any competant scholar could make such obvious mistakes. I'm not sure it's appropriate to try to lump ideas from different cultures together and slap a new label on them- it seems like original research. I'd much rather see individual, verifiable articles like Ubuntu than this mess here. Friday (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really think the afd would get consensus. So let's work on this. I actually do want to add to this. But I disagree with a lot of your assertions DCV. For example, you say that white folks try to get up when they're dancing. What about russian dancers? Also, I think you're forgetting that Africans in America are from West Africa-- where most of their cultural roots can be found. So, I think you're largely confusing West African culture with African culture.

Second off, there's another thing I'd like to hear you explain. Blacks (at least of my generation) in America are fascinated with luxury; lexuses, shit like that-- Western cultural product. Hip hop, which is the strongest voice for the new generation of blacks especially values luxury. How do you explain this?

Peace, --Urthogie 10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Africa as a continent includes the Arab countries — are they known for their cool? Perhaps sub-saharan Africa might be better? - FrancisTyers 11:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a good related article [3]. To try and explain it in the degree that I figure you want would take a lifetime, probably each individual has their own specific motives - but there will be patterns. If you are talking about Russian Cossack dancers, are they really "White folks", not to put words into her mouth but I think DC is talking about Western Europeans and their descendents. Tell me to hop it if I'm becoming a nuisance... - FrancisTyers 11:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FT. :p Exactly. Still, though, ballet was simply an example. The fact is the European aesthetic generally expresses spirituality in terms of moving heavenward, soaring, flying. In the African sensibility, that paradigm is reversed. (And, again, no, I'm not speaking universally.)

And, no. These are not my assertions; I didn't come up with them. And you don't need to remind me where many of my people's ancestors originated. But what's that got to do with the price of rice? Again, the cultural phenomena I've addressed occur across national boundaries. I am from Louisiana -- and the majority of enslaved Africans who were sent there were from the area then known as the Congo -- hence, the name Congo Square in New Orleans, the birthplace of jazz, and the name Angola prison. The slave trade reached much farther into the African interior than most people know. It was not only the African coasts that were systematically depopulated during the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

And about the "blacks of [your] generation": I'm sorry to read that your circle of acquaintances is so tragically limited. Your experience is not mine. Your comments, however, are precisely what Madison Avenue- and record industry-crafted messages would have people believe: conspicuous consumption -- or at least covetousness and materialism, feeding the capitalist, consumerist society. In some foreign nations, they think all young African-Americans are all macho, depraved, gun-toting hoodlums or skanks and hoochie mamas/babymamas/ho's with fake nails and weaves. Same phenomenon. And it's such obvious drivel. Same kind of racist propaganda, different stable of stereotypes. But even the Lie were fact, it would have nothing to do with African cool. (cut-eye) Deeceevoice 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely missed my point about hip hop. The culture, not just the capitalist, mainstream part of it, values luxury. Rappers who aren't signed to labels talk about such things. The first rap songs were about bragging about one's wealth. It's impossible to deny how much Western culture is a part of hip hop-- perhaps you need to stop and realize that Public Enemy, and other political acts such as Dead Prez are just a part of a movement, which has generally "culturally appropriated" (as you would say) the western value of luxury.--Urthogie 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Early rap (at least what is commonly considered rap) was highly political/subversive. I'm talking when poppin' and lockin' and breakdancing were young, and the grafitti/burner craze and the rap and club scene were inextricably linked. Groups like Grand Master Flash, Melle Mel and the Furious Five: "Don't. Push. Me. 'Cuz. I'm. Close. To. The. Edge. I'm. Try-in'. Not. To. Lose. My. Head. It's like a jungle sometimes. It makes me wonduh how I keep from goin' unduh." Commercial interests saw the opportunity to make a mint, and rap was co-opted. Gangsta rap (rap's degenerate, decadent, misogynist, violent, shallow, materialist devolution) was what white record execs made a conscious effort to push, and hungry young "artists" desperate to get ovuh complied. Sold their souls for bling. As young black rappers became producers, they fell in line with the antisocial, destructive, counterrevolutionary elements of "hip-hop culture." What you call "cultural appropriation" is actually cynical, calculated co-optation and corruption.

And with regard to the "[W]estern value of luxury" -- while the actual possessions desired may be Western, greed and materialism, unfortunately, are universal "values" -- or, more accurately, manifestations of a lack of proper values; material wealth/acquisitiveness in the face of moral/spiritual bankruptcy.

Again, the decadence of the current rap scene and pop-culture "cool" and machismo have nothing to do with elemental cool in the African context. Hell, rap is even a bastardization/corruption of its earlier self as it originally sprang from the black creative genius. Perhaps you need to get your facts straight before you presume to school me on "what [I] need to stop and realize." Deeceevoice 12:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be signed to a record label to be mainstream. But anyway this discussion isn't getting us anywhere with the article, should we make a subpage for interesting discussions that are not directly about the article in question? - FrancisTyers 11:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer/suggestion, but I don't really see the need. I don't intend to pursue this, uh ... discussion. It doesn't interest me in the least. Deeceevoice 12:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, np. Btw. I'd like to make the point for U's benefit that this musical phenomenon is not limited to rap or hip-hop. If all you'd heard was Blink 182 Avril Lavigne would you think it started with Crass? - FrancisTyers 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV, this is a subject where you're simply wrong. The furious five were the exception, not the rule. "The Message" was avante garde (a concept album, so to speak) -- most rappers were talking about partying and getting cars and money. DJ Grandmaster Flash and melle mel and all simply had a good idea to make it political. By the way, please note that this landmark political song came out almost a decade after the start of hip hop in 1971 with Kool Herc's hip hop parties. Political from the start? Wrong.

Second off, gangster rap was not invented by cultural robber barons, i.e. white record execs(although they did make a profit off of exploiting those who created it). No, it was invented by KRS-ONE (a highly political rapper) and Schooly D (a highly respected old school rapper). KRS-ONE would later lead the Stop the Violence movement, after his friend, Scott La Rock got shot. KRS-ONE continues to release independent albums, and is repping hip hop culture(breakdancing, graffiti, crews, everything) to the fullest. He's still hot and still respected in the community. Nice way to pretend something was invented by capitalism when it wasnt.--Urthogie 12:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that. I can be wrong -- about the timeline, but not the nature of the phenomenon. :p But though KRS-ONE seems contemporaneous with the some of the earliest forms of "rap"/spoken word art combined with music for airplay, sounds like he was still in somebody's basement behind a makeshift mic when sister Nikki Giovanni came out with "Ego Trippin',"which hit the airwaves nationwide in 1968 'round about the time when the term "rapping" came in vogue in the street and at HBCUs. "Trippin'" had bravada, swagger and political consciousness, and took the black community by storm. It was probably the first poem many black folks memorized (beyond the stilted crap forced upon them in school). The legendary "Last Poets" also hit their stride in 1968-69; their cuts were in constant rotation on stations nationwide then, as well. You cannot speak of groundbreaking spoken-word art/rap without them. And before Giovanni and Guylan Kane, there was Baraka (when he was still LeRoi Jones) riffin' to jazz and drumbeats, and there was poet/playwright Clay Goss performing with the nationalist jazz group Nation here in DeeCee, and there was Ted Joans -- all highly progressive and politically conscious. The African-American oral tradition is deep and wide; it is a river. Like the music flowing and morphing from Africanized bands to ragtime, from gospel and jumping the blues to R&B, it is a continuum; no single person "invented" rap.

"Party" rap and the usual machismo/bravado of the kind associated with cracking, ranking, etc., was simply an extension of the African American oral tradition. And it was something completely different from gangsta rap, which, as a discrete genre, came along later. And, no. I did not say it was invented by white execs. Try reading my post again. There was a conscious decision on the part of industry execs to push the more degenerate, violent, misogynistic, degenerate music: gangsta rap. Why? Because they knew the poison would sell to lots of impressionable youth with disposable income. Do not make the mistake, however, of generalizing such degeneracy and backwardness to all black youth based on media images. Nellie looks like a suntanned cliche from an old James Bond flick, his "Pimp Juice," a failed disgrace; Snoop Dog is a shill for Chrysler with Lee Iacocca; and Tupac, Biggie and a whole string of "gangstas" are rotting in the ground. Back in the day, the Panthers had a slogan for depraved, death-dealing mercenaries, but these days it seems these degenerates are their own worst enemies. They're overexposed and become parodies of themselves, are without real talent, and/or hell-bent on exterminating one another. Perhaps you need to widen your circle of acquaintances a bit, because I don't see what you see. From where I sit, a whole lotta black youth have sworn off swine. Deeceevoice 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that gangster rap was only stressed by record executives because it sells so well(white kids actually are much less likely to listen to it than blacks, if you're wondering). It would have gained popularity on its own, as it is more up to date with the times than the overtly political Public Enemy (who were surely influenced by Gil Scott heron, et. al). People actually do look at these "gangstas" like Jay-Z and they don't admire him for his drug-dealing past, so much as how far he made it by quitting that stuff and creating art out of his experience. It's just as much black music as anything else. The blues talked about prostition, sex, murder. If you're interested, here is a very informative piece that describes hip hop as the living blues, [4] and could elaborate better than me why gangster rappers are indeed part of black culture, and not just negative stereotypes, but real artists speaking from experience.--Urthogie 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! How could I forget about GSH --"Whitey on the Moon" and "Home is Where the Hatred Is"? Sure, gut-bucket blues dealt with that kind of thing, but it didn't glorify it the way gangsta rap deals with killing people's kids over a stupid beef, referring to women routinely in the most despicable terms. Blues was about hard life, hard luck and hard times. Gangsta rap is just about being hard. And stupid. And violent. And depraved. Back in the day, there was an unspoken code: black folks did not kill other black folks. Southern rednecks already did too much of that. That's not to say it didn't happen, but it was an aberration; and it certainly wasn't a badge of honor to waste someone. That's what the dozens in part was about; you cut 'em with words and left the guns and knives at home. The songs of bluesmen and women made it possible to surrender to sorrow and hardship and, in that way, find some kind of solace -- and then keep gettin' up. Gangsta rap is not the same thing -- not by a long shot. It is degenerate at its very core, destructive and antithetical to black survival. Blues is cathartic; gangsta rap is just excrement. It's an expression of despair, rage, self-loathing and death. I have nothing but contempt for those who produce it.

And you're wrong. White kids keep gangsta (c)rap music going; they purchase the majority of rap music -- and a lot of the worst of it -- wannabes tryin' ta be "hip." Deeceevoice 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to take the approach of conservative america and suggest that the music results in the killings, and not the other way around? The blues were an expression of what was going on then, and hip hop is an expression of what's going on now-- and as you said, the whole line of soul music throughout the history of america is connected down to the roots.

White people in america purchase the majority of all genres of music. Why? Because white people are around half the people in the US. About 30 percent of gangsta rap is bought by blacks-- and thats not including bootlegs. If you do the math, then a black dude is twice as likely to buy 50 cent's album than a white dude.--Urthogie 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt the "music", the videos which present/display a pathological culture of ignorance, crime, violence, misogyny, vulgarity and wantonness have contributed to certain destructive, antisocial, pathological behaviors on the part of some members of, particularly, the despairing economic underclass (across ethnicities). And then there is the added dimension of white supremacy (and, internalized among far too many blacks, self-loathing and projected outward as black-on-black violence). Yes, there is a point at which art can become determinative/contributory -- particularly in light of weakened matrices of family and community life; in light of pervasive, even intrusive, electronic mass media bearing these same perverse images; in light of failed schools; nonexistent copying strategies, cynicism and hopelessness on the part of youth; and limited, legitimate employment opportunities. One feeds the other and vice versa. Yep, the music industry is definitely on the hook for a lot of this crap. Deeceevoice 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of the music can't be blaimed on the execs who peddle it to the demanding masses. I agree that gangster rap is representative of a lot of problems in America's culture (both black and white, but specifically the underclass as you mentioned) and society. However, I disagree that it perpetuates that cycle. Most of the kids who I know as fans of 50 Cent (the most popular [gangster] rapper right now) like him either because a) Dr. Dre makes excellent, euphonic beats or b) he symbolizes to them someone who stopped messing around and worked for his dream. Kids who want to become journalists, architects, lawyers, politicians, teachers, they listen to this music and can relate to it and apply it to their life. Sure, it isn't overtly political, but it does capture the struggle that's essential to the music. Personally, I really wish gangster rap wasn't at the forefront of hip hop right now, but I recognize that its a sign of the times more than anything else. Mos Def (who is my biggest influence when it comes to the raps that I write) says it better than me:

We gon' get it together right? I believe that
Listen.. people be askin me all the time,
"Yo Mos, what's gettin ready to happen with Hip-Hop?"
(Where do you think Hip-Hop is goin?)
I tell em, "You know what's gonna happen with Hip-Hop?
Whatever's happening with us"
If we smoked out, Hip-Hop is gonna be smoked out
If we doin alright, Hip-Hop is gonna be doin alright
People talk about Hip-Hop like it's some giant livin in the hillside
comin down to visit the townspeople
We (are) Hip-Hop
Me, you, everybody, we are Hip-Hop
So Hip-Hop is goin where we goin
So the next time you ask yourself where Hip-Hop is goin
ask yourself.. where am I goin? How am I doin?
Til you get a clear idea
So.. if Hip-Hop is about the people
and the.. Hip-Hop won't get better until the people get better
then how do people get better? (Hmmmm...)
Well, from my understanding people get better
when they start to understand that, they are valuable
And they not valuable because they got a whole lot of money
or cause somebody, think they sexy
but they valuable caause they been created by God
And God, makes you valuable
And whether or not you, recognize that value is one thing
You got a lot of socities and governments
tryin to be God, wishin that they were God
They wanna create satellites and cameras everywhere
and make you think they got the all-seein eye
Eh.. I guess The Last Poets wasn't, too far off
when they said that certain people got a God Complex
I believe it's true
I don't get phased out by none of that, none of that
helicopters, the TV screens, the newscasters, the..
satellite dishes.. they just, wishin
They can't really never do that
When they tell me to fear they law
When they tell me to try to
have some fear in my heart behind the things that they do
This is what I think in my mind
And this is what I say to them
And this is what I'm sayin, to you check it

Yeah.--Urthogie 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Execs most definitely can be, and have been, blamed -- for pandering. I haven't read the text above; I hate reading rap lyrics; they're meant to be spoken. Just as there are lots of kids moving with purpose and discipline and vision, there are far too many lost kids out there who listen to that crap and take it to heart. The ubiquitous of "nigger," the constant referring to women as "b*tches" and ho's. The young girls who think showin' everything they've got and putting out are the only ways to get what they want. It's base, pathetic and disgusting. And it's an utter waste. I got no respect for the so-called "artists" who spew that garbage. Kids running around with their minds blown on that b.s. and no sense of dignity or self-respect. Stabbing or shooting someone oover dumb s*** because they've bought into the stupid, brutish machismo the songs and videos portray, some vacuous, ridiculous notion of "honor" and respect. Treating women with disrespect because they think that's what a man does.

This exchange is tedious, and you're saying nothing I haven't heard before.

Fact is I prefer to act rather than talk/write about change. (And this time is better spent elsewhere -- precisely why I haven't engaged you before. No offense intended; I simply have better things to do with my time. (Don't expect it again.) And right now, that means deadlines. I'm out. Have a productive evening. I know I intend to. Deeceevoice 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, good evening. Please note that those aren't rap lyrics, but a little something he says before a rap. Anyways, productivity is good. Later, --Urthogie 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see the Afd was closed as a no consensus, but to me it seems clear that there is consensus for this not being it's own article anymore. Anyone have thoughts on merging? I'd be inclined to just make this into a redirect and let people who want to merge do it whenever they want, but maybe other opinions would be helpful here. Friday (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the redirect was reverted with a summary advising that it be discussed on the talk page. Well, here's the talk page- I support the redirect, and apparently Zoe does too (since she did it). Also, the vast majority of those who commented on the Afd (counting those who said delete or merge) want this to not be a stand-alone article anymore. I'd say it's already been discussed, but the redirect was reverted. So, what's left to decide? Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed no consensus. I moved the article as suggested. If you want the page to be merged, put up a merge template, actually no, I'll do that, and we can discuss it here. - FrancisTyers 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "no consensus" closure doesn't mean that no information can be gleaned from the discussion. But, I guess I'll say it again: This article is a POV fork and needs to be merged back into Cool (aesthetic). Or, having a proper article on the history and origins of cool would be just fine, but not an article that presupposes one and only one correct origin of cool. If we're trying to properly source it instead, this is just foot-dragging. The article has had months and months to be made into something other than a POV fork, and it hasn't happened. I guess I'm not sure what's expected to come out of the discussion here that didn't already come out at Afd. Most people think this is a POV fork. Not having a seperate article for this particular idea of cool is the obvious solution, I think. Friday (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". I suggest that we remove the unsourced assertions (they can be reinserted once they are sourced properly), clean up the broad generalizations and start the merging. CoYep 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is actually interested in sources, a search for "cool african aesthetic" on JSTOR brings up 531 results. - FrancisTyers 19:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar brings up 5,970 results. - FrancisTyers 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I dunno. Are you sure it's not due to some sort of mass hallucination? :p Deeceevoice 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be really annoying that people just flat out refuse to actually read about a subject they clearly know nothing about. - FrancisTyers 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of typing out one example:

In a seminal work on African patterns of dance performance (with special reference to Yoruba style), Robert Farris Thompson provides information which suggests that this development of blues is perhaps not so much a departmure from the African pattern as a specialized development of one unique feature of West African practice. Thompson notes that a number of West African traditions exist in which there are songs and dances of derision that depart significantly from the modal pattern of the "cool" community-focused performances, a departure commonly occasioned by some special social problem calling for a licensed behavior.

...indigenous critics of art may characterize the dignity of ...expressions as "cool." When Tiv (in Northern Nigeria) dance satirically ... the flawless seal [of cool] shatters... But in the aggregate, Western Africans dance with a mixture of vigor and decorum.

Multiple meter essentially uses dancers as further voices in a polymetric choir. The conversation is additive, cool in its expressions of community. The balance struck between the meters and the bodily orchestration seems to communicate a soothing wholeness rather than a "hot" specialization ... Call and response is a means of putting innovation and tradition, invention and imitation, into amicable relationships with one another. In that sense, it, too, is cool... [However] the dance of derision sometimes breaks those rules in order to mime the disorder of those who would break the rules of society. Robert Farris Thompson, "Dance and Culture", African Forum 2 (1966): 98

From: "Traditions of Eloquence in Afro-American Communities", by Roger D. Abrahams in Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 1970

- FrancisTyers 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know already that Thompson wrote about it (Thats why a number of editors recommended to turn this article into a book review).

Your quote states: "a seminal work on African patterns of dance performance (with special reference to Yoruba style), Robert Farris Thompson provides information which suggests that this development of blues is perhaps not so much a departmure from the African pattern as a specialized development of one unique feature of West African practice." The article states that is is a broad and general "African" concept. While Yorubas are West Africans, not all Africans are West Africans or Yorubas. This has to be corrected in the article. Feel free to use your search results to source and correct the other assertions in the article as well.

BTW, a search on Google Scholar brings up: cool american aesthetic 15,800 results cool european aesthetic 10,900 results cool african aesthetic 5,970 results cool asian aesthetic 3,540 results cool "african american" aesthetic 2,880 results CoYep 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you fix the article. You change it to state that it is a Yoruba aesthetic or whatever. You're complaining about lack of sources, not me. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of sources out there if you actually bother to look. Instead of being critical, try being constructively critical. Or hell, try actually working on the article. - FrancisTyers 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being blunt, its just frustrating when there is obviously information out there and the people who are complaining can't seem to be bothered to look. - FrancisTyers 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, no need to apologize. My sentiments exactly! Will return to this piece in a couple of weeks. My schedule is just too crazy at the moment to be of much assistance -- but thanks for your energies and efforts. Deeceevoice 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final result of the AfD was a clear consensus for either merging or deleting, not keeping. A keep of this article is not appropriate. Since the delete did not carry, then the merge has to be carried out. Please don't leave this article in place, as that was not the final result. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Zoe here. The burden of proof is on those that want to do something other than redirecting. Friday (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate. Reverted.

consensus (noun) 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey>; b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>; 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief . Deeceevoice 02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion that it's not appropriate and a dictionary definition are the best you can do to explain your reversion? Geez. The opinion so far is definitely leaning toward this not being its own article. Friday (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Another reversion? With an edit summary of Rev. The decision of the administrator was made. No authority to merge?!? This demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. You don't need authority from an Afd to decide what to merge or not to merge. I'm going to put it back to a redirect until some plausible reason not to do so can be provided. Friday (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate. The rationales were provided.[5] Deeceevoice 03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prior Afd does not bind our hands on what to do with the article. Especially when it's closed as just a "no consensus". See prior talk page discussion. Friday (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're just edit warring. I give up. Friday (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Deeeceevoice and her coterie won't allow the redirect to remain, I have deleted the page. If you put it back, I will redirect and protect. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that stuff was probably worth merging here. This would be easier if it weren't deleted. How about restoring, turning it into a redirect, and protecting it that way? Then the history would be available. Friday (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. I could also just leave it unprotected to allow Deeceevoice to violate 3RR by reverting again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think she'll revert -- she's busy with "deadlines". Justforasecond 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looks like the article is being recreated under another name: African aesthetic. Friday (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]