Talk:Friedman Unit/Archive 1

message: excellent page! thank you for the work on this thus far. the table is very effective.Ekoontz 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent page 

message: Referencing blogs and fringe op-eds is not enough. You need serious references for this article. I understand that the term "Friedman unit" is fairly new and hasn't been picked up by the mainstream press yet, but seriously, the article is not sufficiently documented right now to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the table which has been built on the page (with a bunch of authors and citation) IS original research indeed. You can't use a Wikipedia page to advocate a point. You need to provide a link to a site which has done that kind of research, instead. -- Hugo Dufort 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your comment you wrote, "Primary sources for this expression are BLOGS. Who coined this expression? Was it ever used in newspapers?" Hugo, I am sure you will not be surprised to learn that neologisms can arise on the internet and other alternative media. Their existence, prevalance, and importance is not dependent on being printed in "newspapers." Also, to answer the question about who coined the term you need only read the article. Or can a term only be coined when a newspaper reports that it has been coined? Joeljunk 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't question the fact that this term was coined by a blogger. However, a blog is not a very authoritative source. One would expect that if the neologism gains popularity, it will show up in newspapers, TV news, magazines, political analysis websites, columns, etc. I don't see any of these cited as references. All I see is an attempt to justify the relevance of the term by piling up examples in which it might apply (i.e., original research). Therefore, it is legitimate to wonder: Is this term too marginal to be relevant? Will it fade away in a few months? Or will it gain acceptance outside the rather limited blogging community that seems to be using it right now? -- Hugo Dufort 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494507 for a reference to "friedman unit" in a mainstream publication.  Anonymous 04:45, 13 December 2006 (PST). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.23.169.13 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have replaced the first Atrios link  with the link to MediaInfo. The article is getting better. However, the example section (huge table) is still way too large. A few examples should do. We don't need to provide such a large list; if we have sufficient links to authoritative sources, we have nothing to prove, right? -- Hugo Dufort 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now we need to remove some of the examples. There are too many op-eds in there, and some of them come from the same source (which doesn't bring anything new in terms of encyclopedic content). Also, some of the link require registration. While the articles were probably freely accessible when they were "fresh", now they've been archived (and have become paying content). Thus, these links can be considered unverifiable and unusable. -- Hugo Dufort 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree.  We need more examples from notable officials, not fewer.  In fact, there's something of a contradiction in the argument that (a) we need more authoritative sources, but (b) fewer examples.  Furthermore, (c) there are in fact plenty of uses of this precise phrase (as well as the concept it describes, of an ever-extending "six months").  Just google it and you'll see.  I'll add some now.  Finally, (d) the idea that blogs and similar online media are not yet authoritative is somewhat quaint, appearing on Wikipedia...  DahmRoss 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. Holgate 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Seconded. There's a difference between an in-joke among limited-traffic bloggers and terminology that's widely-read, derived from an external example (the FAIR study of Friedman's columns) and has caught on. Holgate 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thirded.  See above.  DahmRoss 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious references required 

message: Editor and Publisher is the widely-respected trade journal for the journalism industry.  Here is one example of its use of "Friedman Unit" (the full article is subscription-only, but appears in the print edition): 
>>> Friedman Finally Urges Fixed Date for U.S. Pullout
By E&P Staff
Published: December 07, 2006 12:10 AM ET
NEW YORK For many months now, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and author, has been ridiculed by liberal bloggers for his continual suggestions, over the past three years, that things would turn around in Iraq... in another six months. Some created what they called the "FU" or Friedman Unit to represent any six-month period. One year, for example, would be "two FUs."  [emphases added]
Now Friedman, in a Friday column, has declared that it is time to set a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq.
He does this (behind the pay TimesSelect wall) after stating that while the Iraq Study Group proposals are fine, "they will only have a chance of being effective if we go one notch further and set a fixed date — now — for America to leave Iraq. [...]  <<< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DahmRoss (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor & Publisher Usage 

message: The following quotes need to be added.  This is time consuming (unless someone can write an automated script).  Please cut-and-paste from here, deleting from here as we go.  N.B. there is some duplication, so CTRL-F search before adding a quote.  Thanks! DahmRoss 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tantamount to copyvio. Talk pages are not intended to host copyrighted material while it is referenced. Chris Cunningham 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes to be added -- please help!