Talk:Atrios

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: This is important enough to keep as a separate entry --Jocelynbeale 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Don't Merge 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Vanity ad? 

message: '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)
thread_title:  Repurposing 

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

message: *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)
thread_title: Agreed; don't merge

message: 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)
thread_title: Friedman Unit Is Like Truthiness

message: 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)
thread_title: Do Not Merge

message: 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)
thread_title: Don't Merge

message: Use of the term "Friedman Unit" is a genuine phenomenon with its own history, about which a person may be interested without caring particularly to learn about Atrios. It no longer has much if anything to do with Atrios himself. Accordingly, merging it with the Atrios entry would be both inappropriate and confusing. It's really irrelevant whether one agrees or disagrees with the political sentiments expressed in using it, or whether the world would be a better or worse place for having an entry for this term.
This is not to say that I think the article could not be significantly improved; but my thoughts on that are not germane here. I will say this much: I suspect much of the discomfort with the article has to do not with the legitimacy of the entry itself, but with the way it has been written. In that case, anyone wishing to improve the entry is welcome to edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zinnyard (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not merge 

message: I had understood what Friedman Units were, and where they came from long before I ever found out that it was Atrios that had coined the term.  The only reason to put anything about Friedman Units under Atrios would be to say something like "Also, he invented the Friedman Unit".
Might make sense to have a small line about it under Friedman, also, but Friedman Unit definitely deserves its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.32.154.249 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't matter who invented it - it's been set free and is now living on its own 

message: the friedman-unit page is far too long to be lumped into another page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.209.39 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't merge 

message: If someone is looking for Friedman units and doesn't know where to look, the logical place for them to start would be with the article on Tom Friedman.  But my preference is that because you might come upon the term in a variety of ways, the best way of handling it is to keep it a separate article.  It is way too long to be a mere sidebar to the Atrios article - it has nearly 40 references of its own. This is quite different from a similar piece of political jargon from the right - dittohead, which has also been proposed to be merged - but in that case into a specific article just for Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show.
If you want to create a separate article for ALL blogosphere jargon, then you could merge this article into that.  Until then, keep it separate or merge with the Tom Friedman article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cy Guy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with TOM FRIEDMAN - or don't merge 

message: I just arrived at the "Friedman Unit" page via a link from Crooks and Liars --- it makes no sense for me to go to some entry nested under Atrios, or even Tom Friedman... This is a global unit of measure, never before defined for general usage. It should have its own entry, with related link-to Tom Friedman. Has nothing to do with Atrios, even if he happened to be the first one who coined the term. That's meta data and only intelligible to "insiders" of the blogosohere. This word should be understandable completely outside of any context of "blogging" -- which is still not a tool of mainstream America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quicksite (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge -- it must be accessable to people with no interest in or familiarity with blogging 

message: I've seen this term on dozens of blogs.  It clearly has a meaning separate from both its author and its original subject.  It belongs in its own entry.  Froomkin 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do NOT Merge (term has a life of its own) 

message: The term "Friedman Unit" has obviously come into widespread usage. This debate seems to hinge on some obscure ideological ax-grinding. Why cripple wikipedia by kow-towing to the unhinged? --Sam Thornton 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there any debate about this? 

message: does anyone else feel that the "holden gets a pony" paragraph is poorly written in terms of its references to Holden.  It makes no mention of who he is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.237.106 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Content 

message: Substituted at 08:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment