This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Partially to avoid this page being permanently footered with a huge list of unintegrated research, and partially because I don't understand the indenting above, I've started a new topic on the proposed merge.
WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:
WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:
In addition, and importantly:
There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.
This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably then, references to Howie Carr's use of the term moonbat will be merged into Howie Carr's Wiki page and removed from the 'moonbat' entry? 24.219.173.93 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, there are no authoritative sources outside of blogs that actually discusses and uses the Friedman Unit. Editor & Publisher merely mentioned in passing that some bloggers used the term, while the article itself is devoted to something entirely different. That's not enough. It seems many editors here are now desperately trying find these minor mentions of the neologism, but that in itself is already original research. As stated in WP:NEO, "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." If the Friedman unit is actually a well known term, finding reliable sources should not be this difficult. This article just looks like an attempt to boost usage of the neologism, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. — Kelw ( talk) 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be a shame if we got rid of this article because it defines an important concept: a way politicians and pundits can seem to be fair minded and willing to consider a change of course, when in fact they are merely moving the goalposts. There is simply no other term which signifies what "Frieman Unit" signifies. Shortly after Atrios coined the term, Thomas Friedman actually changed course; I suspect he was embarrassed by all the attention he got for his several previous "six months" proclamations. Several other commentators finally stopped renewing their committment for "another six months" as well. So the term not only describes something real and significant, but it has had an impact and played a role in the ongoing debate. Ankles 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Atrios as well as a WP editor, and I actually saw this discussion first on his page. However, this article is filled with OR and analyses that can really only be sourced to Atrios's blog. It would be better to merge the articles and avoid the large table. If Atrios wants to maintain such a table, it could be linked from there. Croctotheface 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled as to why blogs don't count as references to the term "Friedman Unit". An F.U. is a slang term popular in the liberal blogosphere. That's why the article exists. References to such can be found here, here, here, and here, those sites being from the first page of the Google search for "Friedman Unit". As has been pointed out above, by multiple users: 1) the term does exist, and is in use, 2) the term can be documented, and 3) it is similar to many other slang terms that have Wikipedia articles and which no one is banging down the walls to delete. The reason that "Friedman Unit" has not appeared in "reliable sources"--again, not that the concept of 'reliable sources' has any meaning, when the criteria should be is the term in use, and the answer is definitely "yes"--is because it's insulting to Tom Friedman, and thus TIME or CNN are not likely to use it. Finally, I'd like to say that if this should be merged anywhere, it should be merged into the Tom Friedman article, not Atrios, because this after all is about Tom Friedman and his accuracy (or rather, spectacular lack thereof) in commentary about the Iraq War. Vidor 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge There are hundreds of references to the Friedman Unit in hundreds of blogs. This very article is used as a reference in dozens of places across the web. The article explains a concept in common usage - surely the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. In web time, I'm not sure it can continue to be called a neologism, since the term has been in existence for a couple of years. Arjunasbow 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge I am a long-time, non-political editor at WP. This is a commonly-used term, and while it isn't frequently seen in big media sources, that is precisely because it is a biting criticism of said sources. Usage on the internet and alternative media is a better gauge of the notability of this term, and, as anyone can see, "Friedman Unit" is widely used and understood online. Wikipedia should never adopt a blanket dismissiveness toward non-print media. Bill Oaf 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge This does not fall under either of the criteria in WP: Neologism. It is not the definition of a phrase but the description of a rhetorical position concerning a notable debate. It is a popular way to frame the issue. Furthermore, the origin, meaning, and significance of the article name are not in question, so there is no "original research" issue as described in WP: Neologism. I realize on the surface it looks like a neologism article, but consider an analogy: if Wikipedia had existed when the debate on gerrymandering began, there would have been no dictionary-defined title for the article, as it was a newly-recognized concept. HonoreDB 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is dragging on forever. Why not just nominate the article on AFD and settle its fate? I'm sure the experienced editors over there have dealt with many articles such as this one. I doubt the issue can be settled here one way or the other. I would also suggest removing the reference to the Friedman Unit from the Thomas Friedman article for the time being, since WP:BLP requires removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", which is clearly the case here. — Kelw ( talk) 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Widespread use throughout at least half of the most popular United States political weblogs seems to validate notability enough to leave the article independent with no merge necessary. However, as much as I like the table, without a single source compiling all the data presented, it certainly violates WP:NOR. I oppose the merge, but support deleting, or at the very least, altering, the table. - Tobogganoggin talk 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit to having not read all of this discussion, but I really have trouble seeing this as something that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia in, say, 50 or 100 years. Notability is supposed to be permanent. This concept is worth, at best, a minor note in discussions of the Iraq war. People like it because it's an amusing, snarky shot at a self-important columnist. However, the fact that a handful of bloggers out there like it doesn't mean that it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Having a redirect to Atrios is more than sufficient. It would not somehow erase the concept from history, just reduce its coverage relative to its notability (or lack thereof). Croctotheface 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not much involved in Wikipedia editing, but I want to offer this, as a regular reader of Eschaton. To me, the term "Friedman Unit" occupies comparable meme-space to the term "internets". Their origins are different, of course - one coined deliberately as a slur and the other emerging through a blunder and publicized as a slur - but I would expect the number of people who understand the terms to be comparable (and to roughly overlap). So - without having read all of Wikipedia's guidelines, speaking just from the gut - I would expect that if "internets" has its own entry, then "Friedman Unit" should, as well. I checked, and "internets" is there. For what it's worth, I think "Friedman Unit" should remain. CarlManaster 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge. Here are some reasons why:
The richest irony in this discussion, as already pointed out, is contributors to an online, open-use encyclopedia dismissing blogs as "reliable sources". Vidor 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge: The phrase is a succinct critique of the American's press's failure to exercise critical thinking with respect to the Iraq War. The mainstream media continually "fails to notice" that another six months has passed, and the current Administration is not held accountable. Billbrock 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Give Credit where Credit is Due This article should be kept separate. Merging this article will not change the hard facts presented in the table (complete with reliable external sources) that the phrase "The next six months" (or a close approximation) was used in context of the Iraq war in over 40 separate instances, the most numerous of which belong to Thomas Friedman. The only contribution of Atrios was to name the phrase after Thomas Friedman. To put this in context, should the article on Sandwich be merged with Edward Gibbon or with John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich to whom Gibbon incorrectly attributed its creation? The answer is neither. The Sandwich, like the Friedman unit should stand on its own because both are in common useage (as any google search will show you). Davidhc 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article flagged for a merger? I find it odd that this article is flagged for a merger. The Wikipedia guidelines for merger are as follows:
There are several good reasons to merge a page:
- There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
- There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
- If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
- If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages
This article satisfies all of this criteria to stand on its own without a merger. I would really like to hear the reasons why this article does not meet these criteria. Davidhc 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is now really going in circles. After some 30 kilobytes of discussion, there are still no reliable sources establishing notability and most of the article is still original research. There is nothing left here that can be merged anyway. So again, let's nominate this article on AFD and get it over with. I regret that I didn't nominate when I suggested it almost a month ago. — Kelw ( talk) 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that the article should not be merged - though some say it should be nominated for AFD. So I propose the merge notice be removed. I will be bold and do so. Arjunasbow 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Partially to avoid this page being permanently footered with a huge list of unintegrated research, and partially because I don't understand the indenting above, I've started a new topic on the proposed merge.
WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:
WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:
In addition, and importantly:
There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.
This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably then, references to Howie Carr's use of the term moonbat will be merged into Howie Carr's Wiki page and removed from the 'moonbat' entry? 24.219.173.93 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, there are no authoritative sources outside of blogs that actually discusses and uses the Friedman Unit. Editor & Publisher merely mentioned in passing that some bloggers used the term, while the article itself is devoted to something entirely different. That's not enough. It seems many editors here are now desperately trying find these minor mentions of the neologism, but that in itself is already original research. As stated in WP:NEO, "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." If the Friedman unit is actually a well known term, finding reliable sources should not be this difficult. This article just looks like an attempt to boost usage of the neologism, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. — Kelw ( talk) 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be a shame if we got rid of this article because it defines an important concept: a way politicians and pundits can seem to be fair minded and willing to consider a change of course, when in fact they are merely moving the goalposts. There is simply no other term which signifies what "Frieman Unit" signifies. Shortly after Atrios coined the term, Thomas Friedman actually changed course; I suspect he was embarrassed by all the attention he got for his several previous "six months" proclamations. Several other commentators finally stopped renewing their committment for "another six months" as well. So the term not only describes something real and significant, but it has had an impact and played a role in the ongoing debate. Ankles 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Atrios as well as a WP editor, and I actually saw this discussion first on his page. However, this article is filled with OR and analyses that can really only be sourced to Atrios's blog. It would be better to merge the articles and avoid the large table. If Atrios wants to maintain such a table, it could be linked from there. Croctotheface 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled as to why blogs don't count as references to the term "Friedman Unit". An F.U. is a slang term popular in the liberal blogosphere. That's why the article exists. References to such can be found here, here, here, and here, those sites being from the first page of the Google search for "Friedman Unit". As has been pointed out above, by multiple users: 1) the term does exist, and is in use, 2) the term can be documented, and 3) it is similar to many other slang terms that have Wikipedia articles and which no one is banging down the walls to delete. The reason that "Friedman Unit" has not appeared in "reliable sources"--again, not that the concept of 'reliable sources' has any meaning, when the criteria should be is the term in use, and the answer is definitely "yes"--is because it's insulting to Tom Friedman, and thus TIME or CNN are not likely to use it. Finally, I'd like to say that if this should be merged anywhere, it should be merged into the Tom Friedman article, not Atrios, because this after all is about Tom Friedman and his accuracy (or rather, spectacular lack thereof) in commentary about the Iraq War. Vidor 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge There are hundreds of references to the Friedman Unit in hundreds of blogs. This very article is used as a reference in dozens of places across the web. The article explains a concept in common usage - surely the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. In web time, I'm not sure it can continue to be called a neologism, since the term has been in existence for a couple of years. Arjunasbow 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge I am a long-time, non-political editor at WP. This is a commonly-used term, and while it isn't frequently seen in big media sources, that is precisely because it is a biting criticism of said sources. Usage on the internet and alternative media is a better gauge of the notability of this term, and, as anyone can see, "Friedman Unit" is widely used and understood online. Wikipedia should never adopt a blanket dismissiveness toward non-print media. Bill Oaf 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge This does not fall under either of the criteria in WP: Neologism. It is not the definition of a phrase but the description of a rhetorical position concerning a notable debate. It is a popular way to frame the issue. Furthermore, the origin, meaning, and significance of the article name are not in question, so there is no "original research" issue as described in WP: Neologism. I realize on the surface it looks like a neologism article, but consider an analogy: if Wikipedia had existed when the debate on gerrymandering began, there would have been no dictionary-defined title for the article, as it was a newly-recognized concept. HonoreDB 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is dragging on forever. Why not just nominate the article on AFD and settle its fate? I'm sure the experienced editors over there have dealt with many articles such as this one. I doubt the issue can be settled here one way or the other. I would also suggest removing the reference to the Friedman Unit from the Thomas Friedman article for the time being, since WP:BLP requires removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", which is clearly the case here. — Kelw ( talk) 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Widespread use throughout at least half of the most popular United States political weblogs seems to validate notability enough to leave the article independent with no merge necessary. However, as much as I like the table, without a single source compiling all the data presented, it certainly violates WP:NOR. I oppose the merge, but support deleting, or at the very least, altering, the table. - Tobogganoggin talk 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit to having not read all of this discussion, but I really have trouble seeing this as something that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia in, say, 50 or 100 years. Notability is supposed to be permanent. This concept is worth, at best, a minor note in discussions of the Iraq war. People like it because it's an amusing, snarky shot at a self-important columnist. However, the fact that a handful of bloggers out there like it doesn't mean that it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Having a redirect to Atrios is more than sufficient. It would not somehow erase the concept from history, just reduce its coverage relative to its notability (or lack thereof). Croctotheface 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not much involved in Wikipedia editing, but I want to offer this, as a regular reader of Eschaton. To me, the term "Friedman Unit" occupies comparable meme-space to the term "internets". Their origins are different, of course - one coined deliberately as a slur and the other emerging through a blunder and publicized as a slur - but I would expect the number of people who understand the terms to be comparable (and to roughly overlap). So - without having read all of Wikipedia's guidelines, speaking just from the gut - I would expect that if "internets" has its own entry, then "Friedman Unit" should, as well. I checked, and "internets" is there. For what it's worth, I think "Friedman Unit" should remain. CarlManaster 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge. Here are some reasons why:
The richest irony in this discussion, as already pointed out, is contributors to an online, open-use encyclopedia dismissing blogs as "reliable sources". Vidor 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Merge: The phrase is a succinct critique of the American's press's failure to exercise critical thinking with respect to the Iraq War. The mainstream media continually "fails to notice" that another six months has passed, and the current Administration is not held accountable. Billbrock 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Give Credit where Credit is Due This article should be kept separate. Merging this article will not change the hard facts presented in the table (complete with reliable external sources) that the phrase "The next six months" (or a close approximation) was used in context of the Iraq war in over 40 separate instances, the most numerous of which belong to Thomas Friedman. The only contribution of Atrios was to name the phrase after Thomas Friedman. To put this in context, should the article on Sandwich be merged with Edward Gibbon or with John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich to whom Gibbon incorrectly attributed its creation? The answer is neither. The Sandwich, like the Friedman unit should stand on its own because both are in common useage (as any google search will show you). Davidhc 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article flagged for a merger? I find it odd that this article is flagged for a merger. The Wikipedia guidelines for merger are as follows:
There are several good reasons to merge a page:
- There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
- There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
- If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
- If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages
This article satisfies all of this criteria to stand on its own without a merger. I would really like to hear the reasons why this article does not meet these criteria. Davidhc 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is now really going in circles. After some 30 kilobytes of discussion, there are still no reliable sources establishing notability and most of the article is still original research. There is nothing left here that can be merged anyway. So again, let's nominate this article on AFD and get it over with. I regret that I didn't nominate when I suggested it almost a month ago. — Kelw ( talk) 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that the article should not be merged - though some say it should be nominated for AFD. So I propose the merge notice be removed. I will be bold and do so. Arjunasbow 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)