Talk:Atrios

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

Active politician tag re definition: "A person who galvanizes public opinion".

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 09:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge

If I want to look up Friendman units, why do I need to read re Atrios. The FU needs to be as popular as Watergate so that people who messed up Iraq are at least at par with Nixon (in terms of "bad"), if not more.

Please Don't Merge

This is important enough to keep as a separate entry --Jocelynbeale 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

Agreed; don't merge

• Atrios is not the only person that's used the term "Friedman unit." If it should be merged anywhere, it should be merged into the Tom Friedman article. Vidor 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree: don't merge with Atrios. Billbrock 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Friedman Unit Is Like Truthiness

It is in very wide usage, regardless of who coined the term. Should we merge "Truthiness" back into Stephen Colbert? Of course not. The suggestion of merging is non-sensical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msaroff (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).Msaroff 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge

The Friedman Unit is a key observation of the power that punditry has to manipulate, and its fragile transparency. It stopped being a neologism over six months ago. Yamara 09:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge

It perfectly encapsulates a ridiculous and dangerous phenomenon in the media and in political decision-making. The examples on the wiki should be reason enough to keep the entry.

We are not talking about one person's pet redundant neologism (and even if we WERE, it should still be included in an individual wiki!) FU is a freestanding concept, and WIDELY invoked, and widely referred to, and concerns a critical aspect of war-planning, and therefore the health of nations. It is nonsensical to suggest a merge. If something is a free-standing concept, that appears constantly throughout the media, it's just pretentious and arrogant to suggest a merge (or in other cases, deletion.) Merging it provides no benefit to anybody whatsoever.

Why do people insist on CREATING the same LIMITATION of coverage that has and always harm print encyclopedias? 69.95.39.34 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)