Talk:Friedman Unit/Archive 3

Arbitrary Section Break
Do not merge. Sometimes various official guidelines conflict, as in this case. a) "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover..."

b) Notice that the emphasis in the official policy on no original research is to avoid individual editors from using Wikipedia as a place to do their own research: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts."  It is however, very much a place for creativity and popular culture.

c) Further, the original-research guidelines state: "citing book, print, or reliable web resources [sic] demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion." So web resources are explicitly allowed, and there is no need to fetishize print media.  Furthermore, the argument above is powerful: the concepts embedded in "Friedman Unit" include a critique of major print media, hence it is not likely to be featured by those it critiques, despite its widespread usage.

d) Huffington Post is a reliable web resource. It is: (i) widely read online, outranking US News & World Report, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Washington Times, over the past year.  (ii) Its feature-story writers include some of the most notable names in American politics.  Well-known journalists among its blog-writers alone include:  Chris Ahearn (President of Reuters!!), Mary Ann Akers (columnist for DC insiders' magazine Roll Call), Charles Alexander (23 years writing for Time Magazine), Roger Alford (law professor at Pepperdine University), Graham Allison (Harvard University professor, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for 12 years, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, author of six books in political science and policy), Jonathan Alter (senior editor and colunist at Newsweek), Eric Alterman (prolific writer and commentator), Tom Andrews (former US Congressman from Maine), George Archibald (over 20 years writing for the Washington Times), etc. -- those are a few examples just from the list of last-names beginning with "A"! Huffington Post is not just some random blog populated by anyone who can type. (iii) The lead author on the Huffington Post article that declared Friedman Unit to be the "best new phrase of 2006," Rachel Sklar, is widely published in: The New York Times, The New York Post, The Village Voice, Glamour, New York Magazine, The Financial Times and numerous other publications, and is a frequent guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country TV show. In short, Huffington Post clearly fits the criteria for a "reliable web resource" which "demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion," as specified in the Wikipedia guideline on no original research. And HuffPost declared "Friedman Unit" to be the best new phrase of 2006.

e) Taking Wikipedia guidelines too narrowly, literally, dogmatically, didactically, or seriously does no service to our readers.

This discussion has been civil, which we all appreciate, and I think we've all gained a deeper understanding of the tradeoffs and goals in Wikipedia. The overwhelming arguments and evidence from the discussion above are to keep this page as is. DahmRoss 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC) .
 * a) The fact that WP is not paper has no bearing on this discussion--the spirit of WP:PAPER is basically to invalidate "because X wouldn't be covered in Encyclopedia Britannica..." kinds of arguments. It is not an excuse for covering something that can't be sourced adequately.
 * b) WP:NOR holds that edits should not "define[] new terms". This is certainly a new term, so the policy could be applied here.  However, this matter hinges on proper sourcing.  Incidentally, the table of quotes in this article is unquestionably original research and should be deleted immediately.
 * c and d) It seems that these two points, or more precisely the argument they make, is all that's really at issue here. Does the Huffington Post piece establish notability?   I submit that it clearly does not.  The article in question deals with the subject for a total of three sentences.  This, in my opinion, does not come close to meeting the criteria outlined in WP:V and WP:N.  If multiple reliable Internet sources, not simply three sentences from a fluff piece, covered this topic in detail, then I think you would have an argument.  Instead, it seems that the argument for this term's notability hinges on a brief mention in a piece on a website that may or may not be a reliable source.
 * I'm in favor of an AfD nomination here. Keep in mind that deleting this article and making it a redirect to Atrios would hardly erase the term, just consign it to a more appropriate place. Croctotheface 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove the merger tag I would also agree that a merger would do nothing to solve the arguments that some editors are making against the contents of this page. Can we agree then to remove the merger tag? I have no problems with this article, but if some people do, then I think they should address those problems directly rather than trying to skirt around them with a merger. Davidhc 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, remove the merger tag and AfD talk. Just leave this FU page as is.  Find something else to work on.  See the Talk page under Atrios for many more reasons -- nearly 100% of comments there are opposed to a merger.208.59.115.183 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, remove the merger tag - it is absurd to merge a term with such wide usage. If someone wants to AfD the article, let them be bold and do so. Arjunasbow 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Skip the merger, go straight to AfD. The article now has two different definitions of a Friedman unit. All of the "examples" must be nuked, not one of them uses the term "Friedman Unit" or refers to Friedman in any way.  They are just arbitrary quotes.  There is no point in merging, the topic is already fully covered in the Atrios article.  It should be no more than a redirect.  Not a single editor has posted a reliable source.  Risker 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Do not delete. Do not merge.''' I can't believe this is even a question, and I strongly suspect that the underlying motivation for those who oppose this article has to do with their attitudes towards the Iraq war (their protestations notwithstanding), not with the contribution this article makes to Wikipedia readers (of all viewpoints). If you don't like the article, don't read it. I spent just 5 minutes googling this, and what do I find: an interview on CNN, by Howard Kurtz no less, in which Tom Friedman himself is asked about his repeated use of the "six month" time-frame. No mention of Atrios. It is such a common notion that Kurtz doesn't even feel the need to name his source. He doesn't use the exact two words "Friedman" and "Unit", but there is no question what he is referring to: "you [Tom Friedman] were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions 'the next six months are crucial in Iraq,' 'the next six months.'"  If I can find this source in 5 minutes, why all the wasted time above about "reliable sources"? Eugene Banks 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You really don't get it. The phrase "the next six months" is not the same as "Friedman Unit."  If they had asked him "Why do you think the next Friedman Unit is crucial in Iraq?" then you would have a reliable source. If the term is never directly mentioned, then your "source" isn't a source.  Risker 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, my friend, I'm afraid you're the one who "really don't get it." Perhaps this is an Aristotelian vs. Platonic difference, but the article is about the concept, which is widely sourced, not merely about the 13 letters (including the space). The latter is more of a dictionary-approach, perhaps a definition.  Do we really need a guideline on WP:NOPEDANTICS?  What else do you think Kurtz was referring to???  Eugene Banks 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's precisely the problem. The "concept" is an arbitrary collation of various people saying that Iraq needs more time. These people may be using a roughly similar dodge, but they're doing so in a discrete fashion and I imagine most of them didn't get the idea from Friedman. Please read WP:SYN and understand why this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia which purports not to be a mouthpiece for particular political opinion. Chris Cunningham 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the merger tag as the debate has shifted to deletion. Please join the AfD discussion if you can. Davidhc 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Do not merge. Do not delete.''' I came to this article after reading things like "then in September Congress will pull another Friedman on us", "so you are proposing 2 more Friedmans and then leave". I wondered what was the origin of the phrase, a quick google and voila. I find exactly what I was looking for in this article. Isn't this why Wikipedia exists? Merging will amount to merging Relativity theory with Einstein. Just the fact that FU generates this much talk here is a proof that it is now part of the culture and deserves to be an article in WP. Pembeci 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes that possibly should be removed
The Friedman unit is generally meant to refer to absurdly vague and probably unfounded speculation on the length of time for event X. Given that context, some of the quotes regarding when, for example, troop withdrawal ought to happen, is probably not relevant to a discussion of the Friedman unit. The difference being speculation and demand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.134.136.3 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thomas Friedman himself usually applies the Friedman Unit as part of a conditional. To paraphrase: "if we don't see x in the next six months, then. . ." or "the next six months are important for x or else. . . " I think this is a legitimate use of the term and the quotes should be kept. Davidhc 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Print media
The subscription-only E&P item seems to be the only evidence for the claim that the Friedman has "increasingly" been "picked up" by print media. Unless we can find more sources to cite, "increasingly" will be marked "citation needed", and we'll have to downgrade it to "occasionally" or "supposedly" or "once". Eostrom 10:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the word "increasingly" needs to be there at all. Either the term is in print media or it isn't. The E&P piece appeared in print and so the term is in print media. Probably best to read "has appeared in both online and print media such as". How much it has appeared has no relevance to the content of the article. Davidhc 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly does have relevance. There is a big, big difference between a single appearance in print and thousands of appearances.  Croctotheface 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * New example: The term appears in the April 27, 2007 print edition of The Nation.  The article that uses the term has already been posted on line. Dissento 63.66.112.5 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-27 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD has been decided? Keep.
I request that the AfD consideration be removed and the article be kept. Until then, it is bad etiquette to remove significant portions of the exiting text, especially without discussion. We can discuss questions of OR and the table of quotes once AfD is removed and the article is kept. Thank you for your patience and courtesy. Eugene Banks 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is pretty standard to improve articles during AfDs, to increase the likelihood of finding sources and ensuring they meet Wikipedia standards. Those deletes were not failures of patience and courtesy; they were efforts to make the article conform to policy. Risker 07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD has not been settled. I'm sure people's patience and courtesy would be more forthcoming if they weren't being repeatedly accused of being sockpuppets or vandals, never mind a random attempt to shortcut a good-faith nomination. Chris Cunningham 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, bbatsell, for removing the AfD tag. I will be on a work-trip the next several days with limited time/access, but will turn to the OR/SYN questions when I return.  Tks. Eugene Banks 05:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Examples" section original research
Hey gang. It is my view that the table listed under the "Examples" heading is entirely composed of original research and synthesis; if this article were entitled "Six-month timeframe" or something not quite so bad, then maybe you could make a case for it. However, this article is about the "Friedman Unit", and connecting all of those examples with the Friedman Unit with no sources to support it is original research and synthesis. This was the subject of an edit war during the AfD and now has a tag on the section that expresses my concern (though I did not add it). Can someone provide a reason that it shouldn't be removed? Thanks. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above it definitely fails WP:SYN for this reason. The problem is social rather than technical. Chris Cunningham 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a compromise could be to remove all examples other than those by Friedman himself. References to other people using Friedman Units should be secondary sources in a form such as the following, "person A accused person B of using a Friedman Unit when he wrote X."  Arjunasbow 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with the list is that, except for the reference from FAIR (which links a bunch of Friedman quotes with different timescales together), none of the sources refer to the quotes in question as Friedman units (or any variation of it). This is one of the main reasons for deleting the whole chart - Friedman never uses the term, and the...ummm...carefully selected examples are not related by the authors of the articles to the Friedman unit. The column "calculating" the FUs is particularly absurd.  As well, there is this whole section about punting that has not a single reference, and is very clearly OR. Any attempts to modify or remove the OR in either of these sections has met with reversion and allegations of vandalism. I notice the absence of the reverting editors in this discussion.  Risker 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think blogs would be sufficient to source something like this. Besides, even if it were, compiling all of it together in a table like this is clearly an original synthesis of information, which fails WP:NOR.  I'd be OK with a couple of examples of Friedman using the "next six months" phrase in prose form to illustrate the concept.  If someone else compiled a table like this, I'd be OK with linking to it, so long as they made reference to the term itself.  Simply copying the information would be plagiarism, if not copyright violation. Croctotheface 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while. If there's no more discussion, I'm going to go ahead and remove the table. Croctotheface 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the defenders of this article have nothing to add to this conversation. While you are at it, please delete the section about punting, which has no references and is purely WP:OR.  Thanks.  Risker 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's some discussion: DON'T REMOVE THE TABLE. You are all quite wrong.  The discussion is the use of Friedman Units.  The origin of the term "Friedman Unit" and the logic behind it is explained.  Examples of people citing "the next six months"--the length of a Friedman Unit--are then given.  Of course none of the quote sources say "Friedman Unit".  Friedman Unit is a derogatory term.  The people who continually spout "the next six months" predictions are hardly likely to use such a term to refer to themselves.  And BTW, there is another print use of the term "Friedman Unit" out there, in the Nation article which I have added as a reference. Vidor 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to read and understand WP:OR, Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research and synthesis. This table is entirely composed of original synthesis.  You've said nothing to contravene that.  I appreciate all sources added, though.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your position is that finding usage of Friedman Units on the Internet is original research? Does that apply to all the other article on Wikipedia that use sources off the Internet--which is probably all of them?  I read that bit on "synthesis".  What is the "position" that you say is being advanced in this article?  The article is about Friedman Units.  The definition of a Friedman Unit is given, the origin of Friedman Unit is given, and examples both of the specific usage of the phrase "Friedman Unit" and usage of the six-month time frame that the Friedman Unit describes are given. This strikes me as mostly a preference for Dead Tree media over Internet media, which is richly ironic, given the nature of Wikipedia as an open-source Internet encyclopedia.  This is not the Brittanica we're editing here. Vidor 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have previously stated that these would be much more defensible if there were, in fact, a particular citation for each one included that somebody, somewhere, has called a particular analyst's six-month punt a "Friedman unit" or variation thereon. But including any and all such predictions is synthesis. It's not our job to say what predictions are or are not Friedmans; it's our job to document secondary sources making that judgement. I'm sorry, but your paragraph above amounts to tautology. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My position is that, in order to consider a quote for this section, the author of the article in which it is quoted must use the term "Friedman unit" (or variation thereof) in describing the quote. Unless the original author identifies it as such, then it is original research to use it as an example. This does not, incidentally, have anything to do with trees or paper or internet sources. It has to do with the author of the article describing the quote with the term "Friedman unit." And that reference must also be included in the table. Risker 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually question whether it's our job to document secondary sources making that judgment. This is an encyclopedia article, so it should be a tertiary source that reflects secondary research about topics. Ignoring the fact that I believe there does not exist any secondary research into this topic, it is certainly not our job to document usage of words. One or two examples to illustrate the point would suffice. Perhaps an external link or two to Atrios if he maintains a table such as this one. Croctotheface 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that the entire list, and an older version of the article, has been adopted at Sourcewatch. There's still no article at dKosopedia (and no reference to Friedmans at all at Demopedia). These sites have more favorable editorial polices e.g. than Wikipedia in such matters. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate use of an examples section would be to reference articles in which Tom Friedman states "next six months." Otherwise, referencing others that state 'next-fixed-and-certain-time-period' does nothing to add to an understanding of the reader of the article. Producing such a list would not be a violation of the original research policy unless it served to advocate the author's position in addition to providing specific examples of Mr. Friedman using the term. --StormRyder 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia, It's Another Dead Tree Media Source
I have commented on a couple of talk pages about the arbitrary and logically unsupportable notion that the Internet is any less of a source than print media, and that blogs such as DKos or the Huffington Post are somehow of lesser quality than Dead Tree media when demonstrating the usage of Friedman Unit. Still believe that...but in any case, there's another Dead Tree source: The Nation magazine. I have added this to the article. Vidor 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are ZERO sources, except for blog posts, ABOUT the Friedman unit. The article you link here is also not about the Friedman unit, it just mentions it.  If there were multiple articles in online journals and news magazines ABOUT the TERM (not the concept) of the FU, then I would be wholly in favor of keeping the article. Croctotheface 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you like? God to give a stone tablet with "Friedman Unit" on it to Moses?  I present you with a genuine dead tree media source citing the Friedman Unit by name and still it isn't good enough.  Which of y'all is Thomas Friedman, anyway, and what is behind the determination to do away with this article? Vidor 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, the AfD ended without a consensus to delete. I don't intend to renominate, at least for a while, since it's unlikely that things will change.  Perhaps in the interim it will become the subject of multiple non-trivial works, in which case I'd be in favor of keeping.  You seem to believe that everything that is mentioned in reliable sources should have a Wikipedia article.  That is not the case. Croctotheface 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, do you really think that it is some great accomplishment to be mentioned by name in a small handful of articles? I'm sure that many local library treasurers and school board members have been mentioned by name in reliable sources.  That doesn't mean that they should all have WP articles. Croctotheface 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't especially think it is "some great accomplishment". Of course, Duncan Black is not being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the Friedman Unit, so that's not a threshold we need to meet.  Certainly this article has more than met the threshold for inclusion. Vidor 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the AfD discussion ended with a no consensus decision. Judging by the comments of the closing admin, it was very close to being a delete.  Encyclopedias are tertiary sources.  That is, they exist to contextualize knowledge that has already been written about extensively in primary and secondary sources.  I have yet to see a single secondary source of which the "Friedman unit" is the SUBJECT.  The standard for a topic having its own WP article is the existence of a single substantial work or multiple non-trivial works ABOUT the topic.  For instance, we'd need something like one book or multiple journal articles of which the Friedman unit is the SUBJECT, meaning if you asked the author what his piece is about, he or she would likely say, "It's about the Friedman unit."  I don't think that's what Alterman would say if you asked him what his Nation article is about.  The sources that exist in this article are quite sufficient to source content about the term in Atrios or Thomas Friedman, but I do not believe that they are sufficient to sustain an article about the term.    However, for now, the article will continue to exist.  Down the line, if there aren't sources of which the FU is the subject, I'd expect another AfD nomination. Croctotheface 07:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I say we give the article a Friedman, and evaluate success at that point. The next six months may well make or break the term. (And I'm teasing, but also serious.) --Dhartung | Talk 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm holding out for "Friedman Unit" chiseled in twenty-foot high letters on the side of a mountain. Anything less doesn't cut it. Vidor 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Civility is valued here, first of all. I'd recommend that you read and understand WP:N and the other relevant policies.  You seem to have a great many misunderstandings about is and is not within the scope of Wikipedia.  It is not supposed to have an article on each and every conceivable topic.  Regarding Dhartung's suggestion, I'm not sure I want to wait a full FU before reevaluating, but I'm certainly in favor of letting this sit for a while to see if it becomes the subject of multiple non-trivial publications. Croctotheface 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a new print source. Davidhc 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity and Role of Admins
My sense as of a few days ago was that after some time reflecting, everyone had agreed the table should be left in place. Evidently, this was not the case.

I had been tempted to comment earlier (at the end of the AfD discussion) on what seemed to me were unwarranted cautions by Admin/User:bbatsell against an editor in the AfD process. Reviewing that discussion, I am still struck by the pleasant and progress-oriented tone of said editor, and I do not see any evidence as to why bbatsell would caution him but not those on the other side of the AfD discussion who to me seemed much more opinionated and intemperate in tone.

Now, seeing bbatsell play an active role on only one side of the OR/SYN debate, perhaps I understand: bbatsell had already formed an opinion that the table is OR/SYN, thus he did not share the view of myself and others that deleting this table is in fact vandalism, and that of course it belongs in the FU article. Until the OR/SYN discussion is resolved (and, I will argue, thereafter), deleting 73% of an article is, prima facie, reasonably construed as blanking-vandalism. It strikes me that given his clearly stated opinion, bbatsell should recuse himself from any Admin role in regard to this article, and that s/he owes said editor an apology on his Talk page, without which a chilling-effect is left on his ability to contribute to this OR/SYN discussion.

I will address the OR/SYN issues next -- but first I have to shuttle kids from baseball practice! BipDeBop 22:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bbatsell has not, to my knowledge, misused his role as an admin to enforce his views on one side or another of the discussion. If you believe so, you had better show some real evidence rather than vague insinuations. All I see is an edit -- a drastic one, but one that was supported by several editors. In fact, the only editor in the discussion above arguing against removal was Vidor. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as dangerously close to a personal attack on Bbatsell. I suggest that you read and undestand WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYN. Croctotheface 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that as a personal attack in the slightest, and I don't see it that way even on re-examination. All the evidence is easy to find in the archives, there's nothing vague nor insinuating about it. I'll be happy to pursue this discussion, but perhaps best on the User:Talk page of Bbatsell or the editor in question. Croctotheface, thank you for the suggestion; I am already quite familiar with the WP policy page you cite. BipDeBop 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I'm going to restate the policy here. WP:SYN says, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."  In this case, A is "John Doe said that the next six months are critical for Iraq", B is "A Friedman is defined as a six month period", and position C is that "John Doe invoked a Friedman unit".  This is exactly the same pattern that the example cited at the policy page follows.  Croctotheface 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me address this in the new section, below (edit conflict). Tks.  BipDeBop 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will admit, I was rather mystified that I was singled out for punishment. I did make a reply on Bbatsell's talk page, but I let it drop after that because I was hoping we could all move on with improving the article now that the AfD was closed. There is the guideline that administrators need to stay neutral if they wish to perform administrator functions on an article, but I don't think the neutrality guideline was violated in the current case. Also don't forget that there are lots of Administrators out there, so it won't always be the same one stepping in to resolve debates.

As for the Table, my original complaint was that the table was deleted without a proper discussion. Now that there has been a proper discussion (above), I don't think that there is anything wrong with it being deleted. Still, if there are new arguments or new evidence, then by all means discuss them below and perhaps some of the info from the table can be restored to the article (which I think would be a good thing). If it does come back, though, I think it will need to be rewritten to take the various concerns raised by editors into consideration. The end goal is for the article to be as accurate and useful to the readers as possible. Davidhc 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Examples" section, WP:Attribution (was OR, SYN)
(Note that the policy guideline on Attribution is currently in the process of replacing the earlier WP:NOR policy, which included the brief section labeled WP:SYN. Inasmuch as the OR and SYN sections are copied nearly word-for-word into WP:ATTribution, I suggest we refer to the latter.)

WP:ATT proscribes the use of original research. In a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources (we've been over this in AfD) without further analysis. And content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

The guideline is quite specific about unpublished synthesis: "A and B can [not] be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Equally clearly, editing is not 'original research' when: "Editors may make [...] logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. "

My understanding is that most if not all the quotes in the table of examples were published elsewhere online, in the context of precisely what the article is about: the use of a never-realized six-month time horizon in the future, especially regarding the Iraq war, that keeps getting extended. I agree that this could be more clearly presented in the article. I will work to do so and I welcome the assistance of you and others in accomplishing this. (Any quotes that are not from secondary sources used in this context could selectively be removed.)

All Wikipedia articles involve some degree of original thinking and all (that rely on more than one source) involve some degree of synthesis, otherwise they would be mere copies of existing work. What the guideline cautions against is advancing a position that is not supported by the secondary sources -- in this case the sources who compiled the lists of quotes (not the original speakers themselves). (An article that relied on a single source, and did not contain any original thinking in the rephrasing of concepts, would be susceptible to scrutiny for copyright violation -- it would simply quote the original source.)

One source of confusion was alluded to earlier: this article is about the use of a shifting time horizon, cast in never-reached six-month units, especially in regard to forecasts for the Iraq war. The phrase applied to this concept (by many reliable sources as discussed in AfD) is "Friedman Unit," hence the title for the article. However, the article is about the concept to which it refers, not only merely the neologism per se. By analogy, similarly, the entry for Batik (software) is not about the word "Batik" and how it came to be used for a software package. The article is about what the software can do, its status, etc. Likewise, the article on Thttpd is not about how this awkward abbreviation came to be used, but about a web-server and its features.

A few quick replies to points made above:
 * if this article were entitled "Six-month timeframe" or something not quite so bad [sic], then maybe you could make a case for it.

My apologies, I don't follow this logic.
 * The column "calculating" the FUs is particularly absurd.

A civil tone would be appreciated, rather than labeling something "particularly absurd." As it turns out, the guideline on synthesis explicitly gives as an example of what is absolutely permitted the use of deductive logic (such as calculating percentages based on vote totals). The calculation of FU's is likewise a simple deductive mathematical operation involving division.
 * This is one of the main reasons for deleting the whole chart - Friedman never uses the term

No-one said he did (although, remarkably, Kurtz did interview him about the concept on CNN). Likewise, by analogy, Edward Murphy never used the term Murphy's Law.
 * compiling all of it together in a table like this is clearly an original synthesis of information, which fails WP:NOR.

No, only if it advances a position not intended in the secondary sources.
 * I say we give the article a Friedman, and evaluate success at that point. The next six months may well make or break the term. (And I'm teasing, but also serious.)

.*laf* I find myself agreeing with Dhartung on this! :-) Thanks for the note of humor, much appreciated.  That's a pretty good suggestion.  We all have lots of other articles to work on -- not to mention our non-Wiki lives to lead!  I'll work on tightening up the citations to secondary sources, but I also need to get on with other things.BipDeBop 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "position not intended in the secondary sources" that you say is not presented here is that the comments incorporate use of a Friedman. The term is full of meaning, beyond the use of "six months" or in a general sense "X units of time".  It is by all indications a pejorative term used to say that someone is less than trustworthy because when they are asked about a topic, they choose to punt to the future rather than answer in a specific and honest way.  By creating a table, we are making an original synthesis of information.  If Wikiepdia has the table, it is making a comment to the effect of A) Commentator John Doe said that Iraq will improve in six months, B) Thomas Friedman has been criticized for this behavior, so C) John Doe should be criticized in the same way.  Croctotheface 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, just so nobody gets the wrong idea, the "logical deductions" language in WP:A is meant to refer to things like displaying percentages of votes when a source only lists the numerical breakdown. The table in question undoubtedly advances a position, as I've said already, but it also violates another item in the "what is not OR" section.  WP:A holds that something does not fall under the "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions" exception "if [the deductions] are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand".  In this case, all the sources (maybe save one or two, I didn't check each and every one) for the table are about something other than the "Friedman unit".  The example given at WP:SYN of "Historian A did X.  However, the Chicago Manual of Style does not define X as plagiarism" example could also be termed a "logical deduction", but that doesn't keep it from being OR. Croctotheface 07:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

External link
I see we've sprouted an interwiki to the DKosopedia. I strongly approve of this move; it's undoubtedly a better place to maintain the table in all its glory. (once again, it really was quite a piece of work; it's just not really appropriate work for a general encyclopedia with WP's policies.) Chris Cunningham 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I've cut off some older discussion. It's in the archives. I also removed an unnecessary reference to Alexa rankings (with a ten-million-character long URL) from another user's comment above. It was forcing the edit box to have a scrollbar. Chris Cunningham 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Units of time category
This category has been removed twice now and I strongly disagree with this. In what way is "a duration of six months" not a unit of time? I can't think of any reasoning to support this view, it seems obvious to me that a unit that measures a duration is inherently a "unit of time". Could someone explain? Bryan Derksen 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't removed it myself, but my guess would be that it is because it isn't an accepted unit of time in the real world, unlike every other entry into that category. Risker 02:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd guess the same thing. Someone who wanted to talk about time wouldn't use this term.  It's for people who want to talk about politics. Croctotheface 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this. There are no other jocular or "political" units of time at Category:Units of time. More important, however, is that there is no official standards body defining this as a unit of time, just Atrios and some bloggers when you get down to it. I don't see that it represents an official unit of time any more than Pottery Barn rule represents a real "rule". --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thing is, though, that Wikipedia has no particular standard defined for what an "official unit of time" is either. And the category has no inclusion criteria restricting it to only particular types of time units, it's simply called "units of time". And as far as my logic goes that definitely includes something like this. If there were subcategories perhaps there'd be one it fit under better, but as things stand where else to put it? Bryan Derksen 06:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And in the absence of standards, we should be conservative and cautious. We shouldn't throw it in a dubious category just so it has more than one. For instance, if they existed, Category:Atrios or Category:Tom Friedman would be appropriate, but not really Category:Political blogs or Category:The New York Times. I wouldn't expect to find this there, just as I wouldn't expect to find this term when looking at the category for Year. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Dhartung's rationale is exactly the reasoning I used. Chris Cunningham 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bryan's logic. The Friedman Unit is defined as "six months", six months is a unit of time, and therefore the Friedman Unit is a unit of time. It should be restored to the Units of Time category. Davidhc 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Six months" isn't a unit of time, it's a span of time. "Month" is a unit of time. Though frankly, I think the only appropriate category for this page is "Articles being considered for deletion"... Korny O&#39;Near 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a unit, but a span? This will shock all the Englishpeople who talk about "fortnights". Vidor 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A fortnight is a unit, "two weeks" is a span. Okay, whatever, the point is, unlike the other units out there, a "Friedman" has never in the history of mankind been used to actually convey an amount of time. Korny O&#39;Near 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the article, and then the references. In all cases it is used to measure timeframes relative to six months (some cases longer and some cases shorter). The old table conveyed this well, so have a look at the external link and take note of the column titled "FUs". Davidhc 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Again, the purpose of this term is not to break time into units, it's to make a point about politics. It is not a unit of time in the way that "minute" or "week" is. Croctotheface 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the point of the Friedman Unit is to break time into units. If you are going to discriminate against the FU because it is used to measure a political event, then you are basically arguing that it should be kept out because "I don't like it". Davidhc 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously think that this term was coined to create a unit of time and not as a commentary on punditry related to Iraq? If this term has nothing to do with politics, should we delete all the political content in the article?  Croctotheface 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about a unit of time used to measure promises and speculations made in six month time frames. It is no secret that these promises and speculations are many times made by politicians and pundits, and it is no secret that these promises and speculations have recently been made in regard to the war in Iraq, so I don't see why you think this is such a big revelation. The point is that simply because it is a unit of time used to measure political phenomena is no reason to exclude it from Units of Time. As was said in the beginning of this discussion "In what way is "a duration of six months" not a unit of time?" Davidhc 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For all the reasons that have already been given. You haven't actually refuted them; you've just said variations on "OF COURSE it's a unit of time."  This article would be of limited usefulness (if any at all) to someone studying time.  It has considerably more usefulness to someone studying politics or the media.  Croctotheface 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Croctotheface, you're being too kind. This article has little to no usefulness to anyone. Korny O&#39;Near 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * --(Waves hand)-- Hello, I am a human being and a Wikipedia user, and I find this article useful. Vidor 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an opinion, and one which is far from universal given that the article has survived AfD and has undergone many constructive edits by people who probably considered it useful. As I see it the fact that this unit of time was created for political reasons has absolutely no bearing on whether it is or is not a unit of time. It's clearly used as such, for example see where Atrios predicts that "Two Friedmans from now there will be 120,000+ US troops in Iraq." There's also no basis for trying to reserve the units of time category for the use of people who are "studying time." The Smoot may not be useful to someone studying distance but it's in Category:units of length nonetheless. Bryan Derksen 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The smoot is ostensibly still actually used for measuring distance, as opposed to measuring stupidity (which is the real judgement call being assessed with the Friedman). Nobody measures time in Friedmans; they measure it in months and express it in Friedmans for the purpose of political impact. Categories should not be dished out to anything which vaguely fits under them. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The distinction you're drawing between measuring a length of time in certain units and expressing it in certain units doesn't appear to be a meaningful one to me. As for what categories "should" be used for, that depends on the scope of the category as defined within Wikipedia. I've already pointed out that the category doesn't have criteria that would exclude a unit of time based on whether it's "politically motivated" or not so I simply don't see the issue here. Indeed, the category's description even includes the vague "and some closely related notions" that leaves it open to non-units such as Before Present and bimonthly. I'd suggest taking it up at the category level if you have ideas for how to subcategorize it or otherwise change the category tree. Bryan Derksen 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before Present and bimonthly should probably not be in the category. I suspect that the categories were added to those articles and nobody noticed or cared.  Croctotheface 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Now that the table is gone, the article sufficiently overlaps with Atrios to justify a merge and redirect. The page is short (between 500 and 600 characters excluding references, spaces, and links) and Wikipedia would not lose anything at all by merging and redirecting. Croctotheface 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Croc, but I believe now that the Washington Post has used the phrase in the way you have long required, it is probably time to expand the article. Since the phrase is now gaining wider usage, it would be absurd to merge it. Arjunasbow 03:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article I was looking for and referring to during the AfD was an article on the term. That is, not an article on the subject of punting serious evaluation of Iraq to the future, but an article on the term.  This is a very long article on punting, but it only has one short paragraph on the term.  But that's for an AfD discussion, not a merge discussion.  For the merge: how do you propose expanding the article?  What more is there for an encyclopedia to say?  Croctotheface 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "how do you propose expanding the article?"--Put the table back. Seems to be a bit of an odd process, for people to gut the article and then propose to merge the article after they gutted it. Vidor 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn. The table is an egrecious example of original research and synthesis. And the argument that just because a neologism gets national attention it warrants its own article is easy to refute; sometimes there just isn't anything more to say on the subject. It's a popular phrase amongst the liberal blogosphere, it means six months, that's basically it. I fully support the merge, which is why I did merge it months ago (before the place got blogswarmed). Chris Cunningham 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having articles that aren't very large and have no immediate potential to grow very large. I think the use of this term has spread sufficiently far from Atrios' blog that a separate article is reasonable, IMO, I don't see a pressing need to merge it. Indeed, considering the relatively short length of Atrios' article currently it would probably result in undue weight being given to this information if it was merged in there. Bryan Derksen 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:MM holds that a short article that is unlikely to be expanded is a good candidate for a merger. I wouldn't mind merging into Thomas Friedman or, I don't know, an article on the Iraq war debate, or just about anything that could be appropriate.  There isn't enough here, either in terms of content or quality of sources, to sustain an independent article.  Croctotheface 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we disagree on that matter. The guideline you cite is hardly cut and dried, it only says it "often makes sense" to merge in such cases. I don't think Atrios or Thomas Friedman are reasonable targets for a merge and I think this article is fine as a standalone. Bryan Derksen 08:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a good argument that Atrios should predominantly be about the positions and neologisms Black has advanced, including the FU, Dirty Fucking Hippies, Very Serious People etc. And as Croctotheface has pointed out, it's a common WP fallacy that if something doesn't have an article all to itself it isn't being assigned due attention. Chris Cunningham 07:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that the Friedman unit wouldn't be recieving due attention if it were merged into Atrios, I was saying that it would recieve too much - at least in the context of an article about Atrios. Atrios is one of the more prominent bloggers out there, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to have several paragraphs discussing this unit in an article that's still only a page or so long. Bryan Derksen 08:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a big fan of encouraging further work by means of making articles temporarily worse, to be honest. If the merge unbalances Atrios then with any luck it will inspire someone to expand the rest of the article. This would be far better for Wikipedia than a huge list of synthesised research (which I see today Froomkin has linked to on DKosopedia rather than here, which is excellent). Chris Cunningham 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure nobody is surprised to hear, I agree with Chris. There isn't much that we can do at this article besides define the term and document its usage, which really the role of a dictionary rather than an enyclopedia.  If a merge would create a section in Atrios that is slgihtly out of proportion with the rest of the article, my hope is the same as Chris's: that it would inspire editors to expand the rest of the article.  There is a lot more to be said about Atrios, but not much more to be said here that is not original research.  Croctotheface 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with a merge to Atrios. Having a standalone page, besides being (in my opinion) overkill, leads to confusion over whether the article is about the phrase itself, or about something akin to "examples of Thomas Friedman and others using pointless time frames when discussing Iraq". Korny O&#39;Near 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecies are an interesting thing. For instance, if you say an article can't be any longer and it must be merged, and someone responds by expanding the article a bit, you can delete what they added, and then say the article can't be any longer and must be merged. Vidor 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That might have been directed at me; the point is, those additions misunderstand the subject of the article: it's about a unit, or a political term; it's not an article about Thomas Friedman. I didn't delete them so that the article could be merged, and in fact I'd support a merge regardless of the length of the article. Korny O&#39;Near 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could flip what you're saying as well. If an article can't be expanded in a valuable way and someone points that out, and then another editor wants to prove that wrong by adding content that does not enhance the article simply to make it longer...you get the idea.  More Friedman quotes make the article longer, but not more informative.  The whole point of the term is that the guy said basically the same thing over and over.  Putting in five basically identical quotes don't inform readers, and they arguably violate WP:NOR. Croctotheface 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was directed at both of you. It's a neat trick indeed to strip an article of all detail and supporting info and then say it should be merged or deleted because it's too short. Also, saying the article is not about Thomas Friedman is completely wrong and indicates a basic failure to understand what the article's topic is. And charges of original research are also obviously false, since the quotes in question were taken from the FAIR survey.  Nor can I fathom the mindset that doesn't believe examples of Tom Friedman using the Friedman Unit shouldn't be in an article about Tom Friedman's Friedman Units. Vidor 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The material I removed was a list of quotes that were essentially identical. They did not enhance the article at all; they just made it longer.  The version you like spent more words to say the same thing.  Croctotheface 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Egads, Croc, you absolutely exhaust me. I believe that you will be satisfied with nothing less than the deletion of this article - all in good faith, to be sure.  I have seen your edits to other articles, and you are geniunely interested in improving Wikipedia.  Here, however, the endlessness of the debate could drive one to despair.  You say the article has no significant sources, one is found.  Then you say there is no mention of what a Friedman Unit is, then an significant source that gives a definition is found.  Then you say the whole article must be about the FU, a paragraph is not enough. I say the next six months will be critical for this article, I will come back then.  I need to work on Ballet articles anyway.  Arjunasbow 01:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that some people are confused about what it means to have a published work ABOUT the Friedman unit. I have consistently asked for an article of which the subject was THE TERM "Friedman unit".  I have seen articles about Iraq and about punting to the future that mention the term, but none about the term itself.  I completely and utterly disagree with the idea that anyone has produced source fitting the criteria I described.  I never disputed the idea that the material had sufficient sources to support its inclusion in the encyclopedia, just to have its own article.  Yes, I do believe that this article should be merged with Atrios.  And, yes, I'm acting in good faith.  I have been accused of being a right wing POV pusher, and considering that you've looked up my edit history, I suspect that you find that idea as laughable as I do.  I actually was brought to this discussion by a post at Eschaton.  However, my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines unequivocally supports merging this article and turning it into a redirect. Croctotheface 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Then you say there is no mention of what a Friedman Unit is, then an significant source that gives a definition is found. Then you say the whole article must be about the FU, a paragraph is not enough.''' Deleting the Friedman quotes is what really kills me. People tell us in "good faith" that we cannot provide examples of Tom Friedman's Friedman Units in an article about Tom Friedman's Friedman Units. Staggering. As far as this goes: The material I removed was a list of quotes that were essentially identical....please excuse me while I slam my head into a brick wall. The whole point of the article is that Friedman used the Friedman Unit over and over again. Hence examples given to show that, you know, he didn't do it just once. Vidor 03:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My standard for sourcing has always been that there should be, per WP:NEO, "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Every citation I have seen is an article or blog post that uses the term.  I don't recall ever saying that it would be enough to have a mention in a reliable source; if I recall, there were one or two such mentions before I even edited the article.  I do recall arguing that most of the citations that some editors claimed were from print sources were from online blogs distributed under the print publication's branding, and that those are not the same.  Regarding the quotes in dispute, we're talking past each other.  I maintain it not illustrative or informative to reproduce four identical quotes because the whole point of the term is, as you say, that he made the same 6 month punt at different times.  Exactly what he said or when is not necessary to illustrate this concept, and if people want to see the quotes, they can read the FAIR piece. Croctotheface 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. The term is useful and well-established. If people who have a strong distaste for neologisms so desire, I could understand redirecting the article to "History of shifting timetables for future success of the US Iraq occupation" because that's basically what this article is about. And that topic is both sufficiently topically interesting and historically useful (that is, encyclopedic), especially as timetables and benchmarks are being debated as political matters, for inclusion in Wikipedia, in my opinion.

And since one of the principles of Wikipedia is that article naming conventions favor conciseness and general understanding -- for example, Ted Stevens instead of Theodore Fulton Stevens, I would then conclude that Friedman (unit) is the best place for that article. Though maybe Iraq occupation timetables and benchmarks or the equivalent would work.

Merging an article about the history of shifting timetables for future success of the US Iraq occupation into the article about Duncan Black's weblog would be a mistake, I believe.

On another note, claiming that this article was blatant original research I think is incorrect; news and other organizations have compiled such quotations, such as the FAIR report and Dana Milbank's 2005 article in the Washington Post. If people are more comfortable, I could certainly understand the desire to drop the "Friedman unit conversion" column in a table of such quotations. But I don't think an article about the statements about benchmarks/deadlines on Iraq would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. --User At Work 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as a good solution. I agree that the idea expressed by the term has been the subject of multiple reliable sources.  If information about the idea of punting to the future were covered in an article about THAT topic, and we merged this article with that one, it would answer a lot of my concerns.  The table that has been deleted, however, was certainly OR.  It's easy enough to link to someone else's table anyway.  If reliable publications maintain such a table, we can just link to them.  We don't need to compile our own.  If we do compile our own, in fact, we are undoubtedly engaging in original synthesis. Croctotheface 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, hold on: this is missing the point. Friedman Unit should still be merged into the Atrios article if this article is repurposed to a general article on punting the deadline. Chris Cunningham 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Friedman Unit should redirect to the general article on punting, with a section in Atrios pointing to the general article. --User At Work 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The assertion that "If we do compile our own, in fact, we are undoubtedly engaging in original synthesis" as reason to exclude content from Wikipedia would exclude such a vast array of Wikipedia content as to be patently absurd. Wikipedia contains tables of counties, countries, animals, peoples, etc. all of which exist in some form somewhere else but not necessarily in that exact form. I respect your goals of maintaining order on Wikipedia, but this argument doesn't seem reasonable. The claim "It exists elsewhere, so it doesn't need to be in Wikipedia; but if it doesn't exist elsewhere, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia" is not a reasonable argument. The ban on original research was established to exclude pseudoscientific claims of time travel, not to exclude reasonable compilation of extant information. --User At Work 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you say Time travel? Ooh looky, referenced and all - and not a single chart of all the articles that may have referred to time travel in it.  Risker 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Compiling a list of countries does not require making a value judgment about what a country is. The table was an original synthesis of published information, which is prohibited by WP:NOR.  Croctotheface 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What value judgment was required here? --User At Work 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already said, the way the term is used, making a table like that is akin to saying "here is a list of people who deserve to be criticized". This is a loaded debate, and categorizing comments as invoking a punt or Friedman or what have you certainly involves value judgments.  The table certainly advances a position.  Again, besides, it's not our job to compile lists of things based on criteria we decide is interesting or relevant.  It's prohibited by WP:NOR.  Again, if others have constructed such tables, I don't think anyone has a problem linking to them.  However, it is not our job as editors of an encyclopedia to engage in the research that produced the table.  Croctotheface 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any value judgment required to make a table of people's quotes about Iraq occupation timetables and benchmarks? What position is being advanced? For example, some people on the table have, once their deadline passed, called for an end to the war. Some have not. I understand your point about the table being included in the context of a term coined by a partisan commentator, but that's an argument against including the table within the context of the "Friedman", not an argument against including the table in Wikipedia. --User At Work 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's original synthesis of published information. It is prohibited by WP:SYN.  I don't understand why you are so dissatisfied with the current situation, where the table is housed at another wiki that has different standards for what they publish and then linked from here.  We don't do OR, we don't synthesize material in this fashion. Croctotheface 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong no to merge, strong yes to expanding the article, but I don't think people should focus on re-introducing the table. People should note that apart from the removal of the table, about two-thirds of this article has been deleted since the close of the AfD discussion (just look through the history to see what was taken out). It is definitely time to edit that material and bring it back in. We should also work on a new definition that tells what the Friedman Unit is rather than where it came from. Davidhc 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff from the end of the AfD to now. Apart from the table, I don't see more than maybe a line or two that has been removed.  Most of the removed text is either citations (and if there is such thing as having too many citations, I think this article is guilty of that) or verbiage that was removed so the same ideas could be expressed more concisely.  My main argument for the merge is that there is little that could be added here that would not violate WP:NOR.  Perhaps an article on the concept of delaying judgment, as another editor proposed, could incorporate more material.  If not, this is an excellent merger candidate. Croctotheface 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My response to this argument is still "so what?" There's really nothing wrong with having a short article, and none of the articles that have been proposed as a merge target would be as suitable as a stand-alone article for purposes of organizing this information. Bryan Derksen 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I should have made it clear that I was dealing with more than one issues: The main point is that the article does not need to be merged as it satisfies the criteria for a stand-alone article. The issue of expanding the article is secondary. Davidhc 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
As a rule for the forseeable future, I'm going to leave this article alone. At this point, it's clear to me that some editors have developed a reflexive need to disagree with me or, in some cases, to attack my motives when I never did anything of the sort to them. My hope is that this page does not decend into original research and so forth (for instance, further attempts to restore the table), but if it does, that will no longer be my fight. My greatest hope is that someone out there DOES write an article of which this term is the unambiguous subject (that is, if you ask the author, he or she would say, "My article is about the Friedman unit") so that I can believe that it is wise and good for this article to exist independently. I came here becuase I read Atrios's blog and I am also a Wikipedian. When he posted something that seemed like a call to action to save this article from a merger, I came here to see what was going on. After I read the appropriate policies, guidelines, and discussion, it was obvious to me that this article did not meet the standards outlined in WP:N and WP:NEO. I would feel better about Wikipedia if either the guidelines are changed such that they make this topic unambiguously notable or sources for the topic emerge that satisfy the current guidelines.

I want to say again that I find the idea of moving this article to something like Iraq war prognostication compelling. Obviously the content would need some reworking, but there is no doubt in my mind that that topic is notable, as it has been the subject of numerous reliable sources.

As a final note, I reverted the edit that changed "The result of the discussion was no consensus" line above to say that the result was keep. The closing administrator evaluated the discussion and closed it as no consensus. AfD discussion is not a vote, so the number of different editors who put "keep" in boldface versus the number of editors who put something else is not relevant. If you have an issue with the way the admin closed the discussion, I would suggest taking it up with him. Croctotheface 10:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have indeed taken this up with him, but the interpretation seems so obvious that I'm surprised it even needs arguing. There were 11 "keeps" and 3 "merges", many of which cited various policies and references, whereas the single "delete" voter simply gave variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("It's a pointless article", "It's not a real unit of time, it's a term of political commentary", etc). This article has obviously become the focus of a lot of argument in recent months, not just from you, so I think it's important to recognize how firmly the consensus swung this time. Bryan Derksen 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, the deck keeps getting stacked against this article. I am amazed that an 11-3 vote got noted down as "no consensus".  Vidor 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that noting that an article about a unit of time is not actually about a unit of time is somewhat more than saying "I don't like it". Korny O&#39;Near 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you go here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7503 and scroll down about 2/3 of the way through the comments, you will find one from a 'zifnab' who notes "What the hell is a Friedman unit? I can’t even find it on wikipedia." This completes the circle: (1) Strip the article of any content. (2) Nominate for deletion as a result of a lack of content. (3) Delete for lack of content. (4) Make reference to lack of Wikipedia article as proof of unimportance of phrase. (5) Reduce Newspeak dictionary by one phrase. (6) Mission Accomplished! Lather, rinse, repeat until Wikipedia and Conservapedia are indistinguishable. Doubleplusgood! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.81.219 (talk • contribs)


 * Man, I'm glad that I keep this article on my watchlist, just so I won't miss an inanity like this one. Your ability to find Orwellian conspiracies in a single (erroneous) blog comment is inspiring. Especially since lack of content wasn't the reason the article was nominated for deletion, the article wasn't deleted, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Korny O&#39;Near 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What I find funny is that all those editors who had so much to say about this topic/article when it was up for deletion have done absolutely no work or participated in any discussion of the article since then. Since the AfD closed almost two months ago, there have been a total of six edits to the article.  Four of those edits were pairs of not constructive/reversion edits, one removed a redlink, and one updated an URL in a footnote.  You would think that considering how passionate this articles proponents were, and how notable they said the subject was, there would be lots and lots of new and interesting  content to add.  Could it be that there just isn't that much to say about this subject that is not OR?  Could it be that this article will never be able to do more than define this term and document its usage, which is the job of a dictionary?  Nah, can't be that.  It must be something to do with conservative POV pushing.  Croctotheface 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In my case it's because I happen to think the article is just fine as it is. I don't see the need for "lots and lots of new and interesting content," the article covers the topic adequately. What would you suggest needs to be added? Bryan Derksen 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, of all the editors who disagree with me on this, you have not tended to make it personal or get aggressive. My feeling about the article is the same as yours, that there is not more interesting and verifiable content that could be added.  That, coupled with the fact that this article really just defines the term and documents its usage, which is the job of a dictionary, are two of the main reasons I supported a merge months ago. Croctotheface 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My opposition to merging comes mainly from the fact that, small though this article is, it would become a disproportionately large portion of any of the articles it might have been merged into and would probably be trimmed down significantly to avoid giving undue weight to the subject. Since I have no problem with there being inherently "short" articles in Wikipedia, I see merging as a net negative for this reason. Perhaps a better compromise position will become apparent in years to come as both the political situation and Wikipedia itself continues to evolve, but until then could we agree to disagree for the time being? Bryan Derksen 22:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'd oppose a merge, too. It is a separate subject deserving an article of its own, and I don't care if the appropriate length turns out to be short. It's useful as it is. agree with Bryan Derksen that this may change over the years. I just don't see the benefit of making this article disappear right now. Rl 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea--I'm not requesting a merge here. I do support one, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.  I'm not opposed to short articles on principle, but this article happens to be short and has sources that go to verifiability but not so much notability.  I recognize that I am in the minority here and don't expect that to change.  My initial comments were intended to point out that, for some reason, people only seem to pay attention to this article when there is some controversy.  Croctotheface 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to go through all this again? Davidhc 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your initial comments went a bit beyond that. My point in responding is that, for me at least, that's because IMO the controversy was the only "problem" the article had. Once the attempts to delete it stopped there weren't any other major issues here that warranted my attention. You suggest above that people should be adding more, but what specifically needs to be added? Bryan Derksen 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The meaning of my initial remarks was indeed to puzzle about why nobody has edited or cared much about this article except for the controversy. Davidhc's reappearance is sort of a case in point, as he makes literally no edits to Wikipedia that do not involve arguing for this article to not be merged or deleted.  My contention is not that each and every editor who opposes merging this article should be editing it constantly or that there are specific problems with the article that I feel need to be addressed.  My point is that I find it highly unlikely that there is no place the article could be improved, and the fact that NOBODY seems to care about it since I took a break from editing it could be telling about how notable the topic is by itself.  Croctotheface 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, an obvious point is that the perception that an article has been targetted for deletion (or the death of a thousand cuts) can be something of a disincentive to work on it. As it stands, I think it fulfils its purpose, and that most potential improvements here (rather than elsewhere) would be considered contentious by those who have a problem with the existence of this entry. Etagloh 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indents) You do realize that Wikipedia policy forbids personal attacks, don't you? I'm sick and tired of having my motives maligned and attacked. I feel that editors who accused me of some sort of secretive agenda to accomplish some sort of POV pushing all owe me an apology. I never maligned their motives as they have done to me. My argument has been and remains:


 * 1) Information on statements that, in the opinion of some number of editors, are consistent with the concept of a "Friedman" are original research and therefore inappropriate.  It was an administrator, not I, who directed that the table of such usages be removed as OR.
 * 2) As such, all this article is left to do, within the confines of WP policy, is define the term and perform other functions more appropriate for a dictionary.
 * 3) This is an article on a neologism.  Per WP:NEO, the guideline relevant to notability of new words and phrases, this term does not have the proper sourcing to justify its own encyclopedia article.  I even asked a question on the talk page over there about whether articles that are about topics other than the term but spend a few sentences defining the term establish notability for WP's purposes.  The answer there was consistent with the statements I've made all along: such sources go for verifiability, but not notability.  As such, the term does not qualify as notable and should not have its own Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think your interpretation of that guideline applies since there's more to this article even in its current short form than simply a definition of the term. There's also discussion of its usage and establishment of its notability using references that look reliable to me. And if you're going to use the fact that the user who removed the example table was an administrator as a sign of "authority" on the matter, then please bear in mind that I'm also an administrator and give my opinion here just as much weight on that basis (I don't personally believe it should be relevant, but if you consider it to be I might as well mention it). Bryan Derksen 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that if you follow the thread here, you'll see that I've been accused, approxomately 3 million times, of deleting content from the article in a malicious attempt to strip it of content and therefore gain support for deleting it. My reply has been that the "smoking gun" that many of these users point to, removal of the giant table, was not even performed by me.  It was removed by .  I mention that he is an adminstrator in this context not because I believe that administrators are always right, but rather because some people here seem to believe that the table belongs in the article.  I have hope that the fact that the user who removed it is an admin might convince these conspiracy theorists to stop accusing me of some pretty damn awful things.  As a coda to this, I notice that you seem to agree with me and Bbatsell that the table is OR and is appropriate for other wikis, but not this one.
 * Regarding WP:NEO, I don't see in the language of the guideline support for what you are asserting: that the guideline should only apply if this is essentially a dictionary article. I still return to this language, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."  The definition that many users have used here for "about the term" is, to me, very convoluted.  The sources here, unless they have changed substantially or I am missing something, are not about the term.  They are about other, related topics and discuss the term, briefly, in context.  I just cannot wrap my mind around the idea that an article on the Iraq War that spends three sentences defining "Friedman" is an article "about the term".  I even raised the question on the WT:NEO, here, and the one reply there agreed with my opinion: that our sources could go for verifiability but not notability.  In other words, we currently have a problem with stretching our sources; however, this content could be merged into some other article, as I've suggested, and we would no longer have a problem with stretching our sources. Croctotheface 07:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its pretty odd that people are now trying to blame bbastel for deleting the article. There were many large deletions both before and after bbastel removed the main table, most notably during the first AfD discussion itself, when Croctotheface and another editor took it upon themselves to remove large sections of the article while those very sections were still under discussion. I know because myself and another editor had to revert their repeated deletions no less than four times to keep the article in tact so that the discussion could continue. As far as I know no specific editors have ever been named in context with the deletions, so I am not sure why Croctotheface says above that he has been the subject of personal attacks, but I think that it is important to review the facts now that Croctotheface himself wants us to think that bbastel was responsible. Anyone who wants to know what really happened should simply read the log. Davidhc 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Davidhc, why are you even here? You haven't edited a Wikipedia article since April, and you haven't edited an article other than this one since June 2006.  Croctotheface 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

External link to compendium of Friedmans?
I'm not going to weigh in on the discussion of whether the chart of Friedman units is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, but I did want to request feedback before adding a link to a similar chart in an article on Friedmans on the SourceWatch wiki. All the statements are fully sourced on SourceWatch and while the article may have a "bias of content," the language is pretty dry and the thorough sourcing makes it a worthy resource for this article to link to, as well as probably being useful to readers who want to know more about F.U.s. I also hoped this might alleviate some of the tension here by providing a place editors can go to add Friedmans in the original spirit of this article ;)--Conor Kenny 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already a link to a similar list at Kosopedia. Both were derived from the same list that started here on Wikipedia so they're probably very similar, if there are examples on one that aren't on the other perhaps it would be simplest to edit those two sources to bring them into line with each other. No need to link to it twice. Bryan Derksen 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)