Talk:Atrios: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:32, 18 March 2007

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Vanity ad?

Nah, this guy's definitely big enough to merit an entry in here if any blogs are gonna have entries at all. I added some info on the blog itself so as to beef this up a little. Wish I could find out how much cash he raised for Kerry somewhere; it was big bucks. Mcsweet

According to this article, Atrios had raised $275,000 by 07-27-2004.--Kristjan Wager 08:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing

'Repurposing' is really jargon-y and corporate-sounding.

Find a more apt way to phrase it, then. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Wing

It may be true that Atrios was portrayed on West Wing, but what about Josh Lyman, who was supposedly based on Rahm Emanuel?

Merge

AfD is always a pain, but merging is fairly easy. Friedman (unit) isn't really notable enough to have its own article, this article is still pretty short, and as a neologism it'll end up getting deleted anyway if it's left. I reckon this should be merged. Chris Cunningham 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. See Talk:Friedman (unit) for discussion of the issue. Chris Cunningham 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Merge

I disagree strongly with Mr. Cunningham's contention.

It is not merely a neologism, it mocks something that conservative (and some liberal) pro-Iraqi War commentators and politicians keep saying, which is they want to keep putting off making a hard decision about whether the US should stay in Iraq or not and that 6 months will somehow make the difference, and yet they do bother to explain what will be different if things don't change in 6 months other than they will add another Friedman Unit to the schedule, as it were.

More importantly, if Wikipedia insists on merging the term Friedman (Unit) then it must also merge Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) with the article Charles Krauthammer. Otherwise, this is not in fact a neutral policy you're carrying out here, and instead an attempt to marginalize a liberal saying that is in fact used on multiple blogs around the Internet, while permitting a conservative saying to remain untouched.

I must also add that I find it odd and unnecessary to merge this subject at all, since it is rich with content and cites multiple examples of evidence of its use, and unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not have space limitations as such. Therefore, why does this need to be merged again?

Reader: Barry In Houston 04:54 PM CDT 2007-03-17.

Do not merge, part two

I think it is absurd to merge this with Atrios, as the previous entry stated, it's an important subject that has numerous examples of Friedman himself and many other pundits and politicians using the "next 6 months are critical" phrase. It is a mainstay in the bloggosphere, used almost as often as MSM (Mainstream Media), LOL (laugh out loud), and IMO (in my opinion). It's an important Internet expression, and it's a phrase that politicans have used ad nauesum (with numerous examples listed on the Friedman Unit page).

Reader: Pondbrillance.