Talk:Frenemy

message: Colbert Attack in 3 seconds. MrMacMan 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many are we at.  I'm too lazy to look. --CWY2190TC 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a big Colbert fan, and the last time I jumped into a Wikipedia-related edit over the show, I ended up missing the Wørd. I opted to watch the show instead. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cobert

message: === Iran ===
I've removed Iran from the list of "frenemies" of the US. They meet the criteria for enemy (competetive, belligerent, hostile) but not for friend (economic/political relationships, good political ties, similar ideology). --Hojimachongtalk 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frenemies of the US

message: I've removed Iran from the list of "frenemies" of the US. They meet the criteria for enemy (competetive, belligerent, hostile) but not for friend (economic/political relationships, good political ties, similar ideology). --Hojimachongtalk 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: While we tout Israel as our ally, there exist attacks upon American targets such as during the Lavon Affair and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty to indicate their frenemy status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.49.157 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel

message: Although the definition of "Frenemy" to describe diplomatic relationships the US has with a few countries, the 3 countries are mentioned above have a clearly "friend/enemy" relationship with the US government: both free trade agreements and trade deficits, border security and espionage issues, and illegal immigration and human trafficking violations. Iran is more of an enemy, when the government leadership continues to berate US foreign policy  Israel is portrayed to have US government support and condemnation for the treatment of Palestinians living in the Israeli Occupied Territories. Currently, we are building a physical wall-fence on the border with Mexico. Also we competited for petroleum resources with Russia and China, the "oil shock" of the 2000's was by peak demand by the Chinese's rapidly growing economic development. The Russians are importing oil to the whole world and profited greatly while they are self-sufficient to support itself economically by oil. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia, China and Mexico

message: I suggest considering this article for deletion. At most the obscure portmanteau "frenemy" should have an entry in Wiktionary, but certainly not in Wikipedia. Plus most of the article is transparently bullshit made up off the top of someone's head.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.38 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Actually, it violates Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. Recommend replacing article with a rederect to betrayal (betrayer redirects there as well). Ringbang (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I third that!  This article has no basis for being in an encyclopedia (wiktionary being a _much_ more appropriate place) 76.116.5.27 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  The term is used often enough by reputable sources (e.g. see http://www.google.com/search?q=frenemy+site%3Anpr.org, http://www.google.com/search?q=frenemy+site%3Anytimes.com).  As a term, it succinctly describes a fairly routine state that otherwise is difficult to describe.  As a common type of relationship, it merits an article - though this one is not well written at the moment. Bagsc (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to throw in a little more:  'Frenemy' is used in economics/game theory when opportunities for both cooperation and conflict arise (e.g.  http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/marketing/SEMINARS/Papers/datta.pdf(Please don't cite)).  I am sympathetic to the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms argument, as it's not quite as established as the related term realpolitik, for example.  Bagsc (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that this entry should be deleted from Wikipedia and placed in Wiktionary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.196.218 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of original research going on on this article. 58.69.11.24 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I object to the aggressive contamination of Wikipedia by the portmanteau crowd.  You are pushing a marginal term and adding no value to the articles you touch.  neil.steiner (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Deletion is definitely a good idea.  I've always known these so called "frenemies" by the more ubiquitous word, "flake," and I think everyone else over 15 has as well.76.29.225.81 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What the hell is this?

message: The word "Disintermediation" appears here in the definition of "frenemy" and in the context, it appears to mean the same thing as "Cutting Out The Middleman". Strangely, "disintermediation" and "cutting out the middleman" both have 7 syllables. Normally, for a word to be useful, it should be quicker or easier to say than the definition of the word, but in this case the word is not only NOT quicker or easier to say, but it is a word that appears to be made exclusively of prefixes and suffixes with no actual word contained therein. Since the meaning of "Cutting Out The Middleman" is known and obvious, and "Disintermediation" sounds like a joke word from a Monty Python skit, forces the reader to do a look-up, shows up in Wikipedia's editor as misspelled, and appears in the common dictionary only in its banking/reinvestment context, it might be a good idea to not include it in definitions of other words (such as "frenemy") as a replacement for the concept of "cutting out the middleman".
Megalonzerg (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinterfrenemation - the next new word? 

message: That whole section seems superfluous.  Also, a frenemy does not have to be a hypocrite.  The entire section belongs in Wikitionary, not wikipedia, possibly under 'word in other languages.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.250.13 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms that possibly can be used?

message: Most of the examples seem to come from the Family Channel (or it's American equivalent), and from I've seen with my nieces or when really bored, they are not proper. CTody Martin and Bailey Picket for instance, are very similar and are in a relationship. The only competition is from two very similar, smart, friends, not as enemies. Perry the Platypus and Dr. Doofenshmirtz have the relationship of Bond and his villain, if had the same villain every week, enemies. Enemies who know each other well and get along decently, but they only compete against each other directly, not in a fashion that makes either better. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Instead of deleting this page, it should be replaced with information about the movie "Frenemy" that came out in 2009. There is not much information about this movie that is easy to find, not even on IMDB.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.137.79 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frenemy (movie) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Frenemies (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: can frenemies also be lovers Inothando (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can frenemies also be lovers