Talk:Frenemy

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Cobert

Colbert Attack in 3 seconds. MrMacMan 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many are we at. I'm too lazy to look. --CWY2190^T^C 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops a little slow tonight? They took two minutes to get this protected...too bad it took the vandals 2 and 1/2 minutes to go back on the Tivo to figure out how to spell Frenemy.

BTW, I'm justing messing with the Sysops, you guys to a good job of protecting Colberisms. ---CWY2190^T^C 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Semi-Protect doesn't mean its immune from vandals. MrMacMan 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Stephen Colbert Frenemy is a friend that is also your enemy. (i.e. China) They make our toys but take are jobs.

I think the Colbert reference is perfectly legitimate. I realize that there are vandals that put up complete nonsense, but if it is taken maturely, I think it's a reasonable thing to add. I did my best with it. There are also other references to frenemy in other pop culture. I've heard it was said in "Sex and the City," for example. There will need to be more research, but these references can be added to the Pop Culture subheading at any time. wesweaver 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Frenemies of the US

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). --Hojimachong^talk 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

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)[reply]

Russia, China and Mexico

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 in global diplomatic matters, 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)[reply]

What the hell is this?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ::::I agree - how does one formally propose that this article be deleted? This belongs, maybe, in Wiktionary, but this "transparent[] bullshit" is really more at home on urbandictionary.comMarritzN (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of original research going on on this article. 58.69.11.24 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disinterfrenemation - the next new word?

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)[reply]

Terms that possibly can be used?

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.'