Talk:Friedman Unit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge discussion

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:

• The Friedman Unit is undoubtedly a neologism. The source is recent and known. Secondary sources almost invariably use the same primary source, Duncan Black's weblog.
• While the page makes note that such things must be referenced, WP:NEO specifically mentions page intended to track the growth and adoption of neologisms as an example of infringing articles. it should be noted that this is the primary purpose of this page.

WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:

• Few if any of the "sources" listed in the main table have ever heard of the term "Friedman Unit", let along used it themselves. Using them as "references" for the Friedman (unit) article directly fails WP:SYN.

In addition, and importantly:

• Practically all of this is taken from sources Black has linked himself. In essence, it's just a distillation of a bunch of Eschaton posts.

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)

Those are good points. It's just that this is such a nice funny little article that it's a bit of a shame to wipe it. In short, ILIKEIT, which I know is no argument :) Haukur 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples of neologisms with articles in Wikipedia: WikiWikiWeb, PmWiki, CRC, Delimiter, InterWiki, Metacharacter, Spyce, Leet, l33t, n00bs, B1FF, -izzle, boxen, warez, SFV, kewl, CDisplay, CDisplayEx, Zipeg, ARJ. It took me 60 seconds to locate these, and there are many thousands of others. (Please take a quick look at the lists of acronyms for further examples. Really, take a look, for example see just the acronyms starting with "M".) If all these are allowed, then why not Friedman unit? Converely, if FU is merged then all these thousands of other neologisms must be as well. Unlike most of these examples, FU does in fact does have an article about it in reliable sources, including E&P. An encyclopedia should not discriminate against neologisms with a social or political usage, while allowing neologisms relating to technology or the Internet.

The general guideline to avoid neologisms is not an absolute ban on them. Indeed, the guideline itself says "It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." [emphasis added] The clear implication is that at least sometimes (and perhaps in the majority of cases) this in fact is the case. As stated in the various threads on the proposed merger, above, there are good reasons for keeping this FU article and not merging it. 208.59.115.183 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What is relevant here is the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms: there should be sources about the neologism, that do not merely use it. Specifically: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." That seems clear enough, and nobody appears to have argued that this word actually meets the specified constraint. Abu Amaal 04:05, 18 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)

I'm a big fan of Atrios, I've worked on this article before, and I think this is an amusing exercise. Neverhteless, it does not belong on Wikipedia, because one of our paramount policies is attribution of citations to reliable sources. I can suggest Demopedia (yes, on the Great Orange Satan ...) as an appropriate place to compile all of the Friedman/whatever predictions and create a calendar to, you know, check back on them. But "Friedman unit" is a term known by no sources but Atrios and other blogs. It is a neologism and articles on neologisms are to be avoided. Yes, we know there are other articles on neologisms comprised within the vast spaces of Wikipedia. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is simply a fact of life on a project of this size. Individually, those articles may pass muster because they are attested by vetted third-party sources, e.g. the New York Times or even just Computer Gaming World. Individually, some of those articles may violate policy just as this one does. As for the term "moonbat", that is attested by sources and may have an article, and within that article, certain usages may be explained. This has merit, but is simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Santorum, which is perhaps a more direct analogue, in that it is also a political neologism invoking the name of a specific individual.

I mean, it's been obvious to me that WP's VfD/AfD process has been horribly mangled, if not outright broken, for quite some time now, as people move beyond the entirely laudable goal of culling vanity cruft and spam to grind all of the sharp points off of articles at the edge of Wikipedia — precisely those articles where Wikipedia is most useful, IMHO, in that one can find plenty of good information sources for "Yugoslavia" or "Aaron Burr", but not so many good information sources on, say, Kazu Kibuishi's Copper. I think that "Friedman Unit" is squarely within the ambit of acceptable articles for Wikipedia. --Ray Radlein 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ray. Santorum (sexual neologism) has been through AFD and survived because it had attributions to reliable sources ranging from Pennsylvania newspapers to the National Review. You wouldn't be trying to prove a WP:POINT, would you? (i.e. bringing that article up just because I edited it) Please make an argument from Wikipedia policy, not WP:ILIKEIT. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 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)

Indeed. I've worked some hard cases in the neologism corners of Wikipedia, believe me, and I don't think I can save this one. In particular, the second paragraph claims that Salon, Alternet, and others have "used this term", and I think that's a dodge because it means they have said "in the next six months", or discussed some writer's use of that phrase, but have not themselves used "one friedman" or "a Friedman Unit". Citations otherwise would make some progress toward salvaging this article. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We could rename to Time frame for success in Iraq, leaving a redirect. That title would give us a broader scope to work with, avoiding the neologism. Haukur 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That would just take us further into the woods of original research and synthesis of ideas. Unless there are a number of solid foundational articles looking at the concept of pundits making irrefutable predictions about Iraq, it would be a poor idea for an article. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 18 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)

Ankles, not all important concepts are encyclopedic. In this case, it's an excellent candidate for a serious research project at a j-school or think tank, or for a magazine article. As an encyclopedic subject, though, it presents grave problems given firm Wikipedia policy.-- Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 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)

The only part that's salvageable is already in Atrios, the article. The table is indiscriminate information and a private research project. At best, it belongs under someone's user space, but even that is questionable. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 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)

Vidor, blogs are not considered reliable sources, which are necessary for consideration of a topic's overall notability. If notability were established by a couple of mainstream media articles, it would be possible to use blogs as sources (but for neologisms, merely noting the term is "used" somewhere is original research). Frankly, because it's insulting to Tom Friedman, and thus TIME or CNN are not likely to use it is not a good justification for why something fails notability guidelines. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I should note that "WP:RS" has recently been subsumed into another policy, loosening up the restrictions on what's allowed in the process, and that the WP:N guideline has just gone into "disputed" status due to widespread dissatisfaction with its contents. IMO arguments that rest on the authority of those links are a bit dubious right now. Bryan Derksen 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"RS" still means reliable sources, Bryan, and the creation of WP:ATT was not intended to "loosen" policy but to clarify it by combining two closely-related policies. As for WP:N, people slap disputed tags on policies all the time, and it's gone now. There are always minor changes being made; it's in the nature of Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't mean that those policies are in any way "dubious". -- Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 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)

Sorry, web-time or no, the definition for a neologism is a term that is in wide use but not defined in dictionaries. If people want to see this article remain, they would do better looking for reliable sources (not necessarily TIME, but outside of personal blogs) and bringing those citations into the article, than arguing the matter (this applies particularly for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies). -- Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 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)

There is a good reason to dismiss non-print media on the Internet. Self-published media like blogs do not meet the requirement of verifiability under Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyone can start a blog and write about anything they want. No one takes blogs as seriously as traditional media, so why should Wikipedia? Besides, sources also have to be from a third party, so citing the blog that coined the term is clearly not allowed. I don't know whether Friedman Unit is "widely used" online; personally I've never seen the term until I read it on Wikipedia, and I considered it to be original research right away. — Kelw (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What a bizzare argument. Wikipedia is non-print media. Anyone can publish a book, but the existance of small-run awful conspiracy-nut novels does not harm the credibility of Encyclopædia Britannica. The argument made by the original poster is valid: the media is selective in publishing criticism of media (Stephen Colbert at the WHCA dinner being the best example). At a time of unprecedented media consolidation I think it's a valid point to bring up. If Friedman Unit isn't a standalone article now, it will be in the future. 86.42.65.150 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 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)

And if this one goes down, there's no way Islamofascism should stay alive. Both are parts of the vocabulary for the debate over the war in Iraq. I think both should stay (though I am undeniably "on the left") - they are accepted terms in the debate, and worthy of articles. One is newer than the other, but to judge "Islamofascism" notable, and "Friedman Unit" non-notable, I'd see that as bias. Bill Oaf 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS regarding your argument. — Kelw (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that that sucker made it through two VfDs, and the arguments that kept it alive there basically apply here. Bill Oaf 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Oaf, I'm not sure what you're saying here -- you're going to disruptively nominate a well-sourced article because a poorly-sourced article was objected to? Good luck with that. This isn't grade school, and we're not playing teams. There are certainly numerous liberal-coined neologisms that are found in Wikipedia (I've worked on a few). They have sources. Or if they don't have sources, they shouldn't be here. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to nominate - I was pointing it out because it went through VfDs back in the day and survived. This article is fairly well-sourced. Bill Oaf 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Billbrock and I have just added another bunch of sources, showing that the term has been adopted and used in reputable, mainstream center-left publications, and even handed an award by the Huffington Post. Bill Oaf 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that there's no level comparison between VFDs and 2007 AFDs. The policy bar has risen considerably just in the last year or so. As for whether this article is well-sourced ... you have to realize that AFD is not going to be happy with a bunch of blogs. Professional blogs hosted by RSes are a bit better, but they're still blogs and in WP:NEO AFDs that often doesn't cut it. If you can improve on that with "real" media sources, that would alleviate much of the burden. The list, however, is still a huge WP:OR problem. On one level, yes, they all fit the class of prediction deadlines. But very few of those are going to be sourced as a "Friedman" or alternate. Most of them are simply sourced to the prediction, and that makes connecting them to the Friedman unit a synthesis of concepts. Mind you, I personally appreciate the effort, but my experience with these articles suggests that it has only the barest chance at AFD. Ultimately I just think that Wikipedia is not the place for it (when there are other places like dKosopedia where it would happily exist). -- Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 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)

Well, _I_ haven't nominated it yet because I want to give it a chance. I will nominate it if it hasn't improved in the next day or so (and I guarantee AFD won't be as forgiving, but there's always a chance somebody will WP:HEY it, it's got five days there). I see that Billbrock (talk · contribs) has been making some changes although I don't see them really addressing the RS problem. As for Friedman's article, it's certainly acceptable to cite the FAIR article there. Even with that the "unit" is iffy. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC

Ah. "The emperor is not as forgiving as I am" :) Haukur 10:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit more Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, really. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 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)

Agreed. Wikipedia's AfD guidelines may be more strict this year, but this is a situation where the very nature of its notability is in conflict with the sources required by the new standard: The blogosphere's nonelectronic competition stands to be the most embarrassed by the observation inherent in the phrase. The required RS have self-interest in silence about "Friedman Unit". The Huffington Post award is therefore very significant, and (while this is not the place to debate Wikipedia's standards) Wikipedia's standards may be flawed in relegating all blogs to second-tier status. --As for the table, I have enjoyed it, and it is a useful resource in illustrating the embarrassing frequency that accountability is postponed, but it is too original a construct to remain in this form. Even setting OR aside, what standards does the table exist under? Hopefully it can be hosted elsewhere, and then the entry can provide a link. --Yamara 09:52, 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)

As an addendum: Dhartung mentioned that there is no relevant content about the term that does not already exist at Atrios. After considering both pages, I'm inclined to agree, and such a situation strikes me as a textbook reason to merge. The table is unquestionable an OR compilation from primary sources and needs to go, regardless of the consensus established regarding a merge. Croctotheface 11:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand people could well be reading through old newspapers in 50 to 100 years and see people referring to "Friedmans", and wonder what the heck those mean. Having an encyclopedia article about it would be useful. Heck, people are likely to wonder what "Friedmans" are now. We're writing this encyclopedia to be useful to its readers, which include people reading it in the current day, so the fact that something might not be useful 50 years from now isn't particularly relevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and such. Let the Future People delete the article if they really see no value in it at that point in time. Bryan Derksen 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Old newspapers? That's the problem. It isn't being written about in new newspapers, so how could people be reading them 50 years from now? -- Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between informing readers with useful knowledege, versus creating articles to generate publicity in the name of "informing" the reader. In the case of neologisms like this, I think the latter case is far more likely. I honestly don't see the usefulness of "informing" readers about some neologism that they will likely never encounter. The situation would be different if the Friedman Unit were a serious scientific unit of measure. But it seems only the blogger who coined this term will benefit from this sort of publicity. — Kelw (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"I really have trouble seeing this as something that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia in, say, 50 or 100 years."--Oh, come now. If THAT is the standard, then 90% of Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Shall I start looking up all the fictional TV characters who have Wikipedia biographies? Do we think people will care about Nina Myers in 100 years? What this boils down to, as far as I can see, is that some people do not consider weblogs to be "reliable sources". This argument is wholly without merit. We are not considering factual questions like "Did the Bush administration lie about Iraq?" or "Was Valerie Plame covert?". The article is about a slang term. All that should be needed is to prove that the term is in wide use and demonstrate its meaning.

Finally, I'd like to add again that if the article must be merged, it should be merged into the Tom Friedman article. Vidor 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs fall under Using questionable or self-published sources. Slang terms fall under Avoid articles about neologisms. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 19 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)

Internets, as a term, first appeared on a nationally broadcast presidential debate, and was immediately covered by newspapers[1], which is rather a head-start compared to a term which first appeared on a blog, even a popular one. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge. Here are some reasons why:

• A term that generates over 15,000 Google hits, including many on the most widely-visited blogs (with millions of readers, outstripping major print-media), is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, Q.E.D.. (A "handful of bloggers out there"? Please, that is insulting; stick to the facts.) The fact that it also appears in print media, including the definitive E&P, is simply frosting. Perhaps there should be Wikipedia guidelines for W:CMON (common sense). Even WP:guidelines on OR are flexible and fluid enough to permit good reasons for keeping this article.
• No-one can predict what will be useful in 50-100 years, and this concept has already been applied to other uses than the Iraq war (Afghanistan, New Orleans cleanup, etc.). And, the term is in fact "being written about" now, in print and digitally.
• One must distinguish political-economy from (natural) science. A Friedman Unit is as "serious a scientific unit of measure" as any other social unit of time -- all of which are constructed. Let's not be pedants or babus (and I mean that descriptively and accurately, not pejoratively -- it is possibly to interpret guidelines too narrowly, or to ignore other conflicting guidelines).
• "Having a redirect to Atrios [...] would [...] reduce its coverage relative to its notability (or lack thereof)." This POV argument may underlie some of the alleged reasons for merging. Using WP:guidelines to advance a POV and to shape popular usage of terms ("reduce its coverage relative to its notability") is inappropriate, no matter how many guidelines are cited[2] to justify it. Trying to squelch a legitimate new term is as much an abuse of "avoid neologisms" policy as is trying to promote a not-yet-accepted term. (Perhaps someone should revise the neologism policy to reflect this. As Bryan points out, above, WP guidelines are in a state of flux, especially on WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.)
• There are reasons to doubt some of the arguments for merging:
  • "creating articles to generate publicity in the name of 'informing' the reader." This attribution of intent is completely unsubstantiated. The quotes around 'informing' are sarcasm and inappropriate POV.
  • "it seems only the blogger who coined this term will benefit from this sort of publicity" -- this seems not only false and POV, but also out of place.
  • "a term known by no sources but Atrios and other blogs" -- again, this is factually incorrect.
  • "some neologism that they will likely never encounter" -- unless they happen to subscribe to E&P, American Prospect, Washington Monthly, etc., live in New Zealand (see below), or to be one of the tens of millions of readers of online blogs?
  • Dhartung suggests that "even just Computer Gaming World" would be a sufficiently WP:reliable source. Surely Huffington Post alone has more credibility as a source (whether or not one agrees with its content) than "Computer Gaming World," let alone E&P etc.
• "no relevant content about the term that does not already exist at Atrios" -- I disagree. The table of examples is a useful encyclopedic reference, as an encyclopedia should be.
• "much as I'm a fan of the term itself" -- Chris, listen to this side of yourself. It's possible to take certain WP:guidelines too severely, at the expense of other guidelines and the project as a whole.
• True, "crap-exists" is not an argument unto itself, but in the context of all the arguments for (and against) this page, consider why is Cheese-eating surrender monkeys an article if FU isn't? And why don't those who favor merging FU also favor merging "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? Go ahead, if this is a question of WP:guidelines for you. That article even begins by stating: "as the war in Iraq grew far longer and bloodier than initially anticipated, the phrase began to fall into disuse." [emphases added] Is the focus on Friedman Units a result of POV, or even self-hatred?
• In case anyone missed it (inserted above), a WP reader from New Zealand wrote (3/17/07): "It's even a standard expression in New Zealand. For some people here that's how they even come to know about the columnist in the first place."
• Abu Amaal wants to focus only on the last paragraph of NEO, but if that were all that mattered the rest of this guideline and all others (including WP:Be Bold!) could be deleted. As stated above, "The general guideline to avoid neologisms is not an absolute ban on them." Twedle 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Google results and editors self-reporting from New Zealand do not constitute reliable sources. Please don't use these arguments, as they have no validity. Please also note that the term has not been shown to have appeared in the American Prospect or Washington Monthly magazines, only in their blogs. If it is being written about in print, providing these citations should be simpler than creating elaborate arguments seeking loopholes in policy. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree with your analysis of the press, the war, and the administration. I do not agree that Wikipedia should ignore its sourcing guidelines in order to present a critique of them. It's just that this term is not notable enough and has not been discussed in enough sources to merit its own article. Wanting to hold the Bush administration accountable does not somehow equate to notability. As I've already alluded to, notability is supposed to be permanent. I doubt that this term will mean anything to anyone in 10 years, let alone 50, 100, or 200. Croctotheface 09:47, 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)

"Give credit where credit is due" is precisely the kind of argument that, per WP:N, does NOT establish notability. Croctotheface 09:51, 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)

So why haven't you?  ;) Croctotheface 00:09, 20 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)

I'm putting this back. AfD is the same thing as merging in this context (in either case the article will become a redir to Atrios. The rush of activity is due to the article having been linked to from Eschaton last week. And most of the arguments for keeping it have either been invalid or really weak. Give it a bit more time. Chris Cunningham 09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob, will do. Anyway, I forgot to add an edit summary when I did it, and maybe someone will finally come up with a compelling reason to merge. Arjunasbow 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger is NOT the same as a AfD I really want to hear evidence why this article fits for a merger. I cited the four main reasons Wikipedia suggests articles be merged above. If there are some other rules that I am not seeing, I ask that someone please post them below this post. If no one can come up with additional rules, or show how these four rules are violated, then the merger note should be removed. Davidhc 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that this article, by itself, fails notability guidelines by lacking reliable sources, and once you remove the list, which is primarily original research, one is left with a page that is "very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much". There is no reason that if the list and ancillary material were hosted somewhere else with more flexible policies that we couldn't link to it from within the Atrios article. But Wikipedia isn't the place for this as it stands. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is not the case. The article does have reliable sources establishing it, the Huffington Post one for example, and a "non-expandable stub" can very well be just another way of saying "a short but complete article". There's nothing wrong with short articles. Bryan Derksen 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a blog, so how can it be a reliable source? If this were actually a notable political subject, there would reports by reputable media like The Washington Post. I agree with those who said Atrios already contains all the information that can be merged; the rest is original research. So I hope there can be a consensus to end this merge discussion and start the deletion process. — Kelw (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)