Talk:hoocoodanode

Etymology comment
I believe the word may have been coined on the Calculated Risk blog in circa 2007. I have not done the research necessary to confirm this. N2e 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what I found on the etymology of hoocoodanode. It seems to have started in January 2008 when 'Tanta,' one of the bloggers on the Calculated Risk blog, wrote this post: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/01/fed-just-another-quadrupling-of.html  She finished the essay with: "Who coodanode?"


 * Then a reader, 'ed in texas,' responded: "Hoodathunkit?"


 * That became "Hoocoodanode" in the comments of other posts on the same blog sometime later, then both cobloggers at the Calculated Risk blog, 'Tanta' and another with the name 'Calculated Risk,' both started using the term on a fairly regular basis. There seems to be no way to easily search all the comments but the references became frequent soon thereafter.


 * The Calculated Risk blog is a fairly authoritative and widely quoted blog on Finance and Economics, receiving a number of mentions and references in the more mainline commercial media throughout 2008.


 * I have not yet found any occurrence of hoocoodanode earlier than Jan 2008. N2e 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RFV
Okay, per the rfv, I will do a little more research now and see if I can find other/better uses of the word, and will search for the earliest use.N2e 02:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a third citation to the "citations" tab. This one is from the New York Times Opinion pages in the title of an op-ed by Nobel prize-winner (Economics) Paul Krugman.  I think that provides sufficient examples to defend against the rfv.  N2e 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A blog cite such as #1 is not considered durably archived within our WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 08:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added yet another use to the citations page from durably archived media, three examples over a period of more than a year. Two of these citations are from the New York Times. However, someone has deleted the entry. Since I have no idea what the Wiktionary process is for restoring an entry that meets criteria now, but was removed by some other editor who held the opinion it did not, I will just leave this note on the discussion page. It is up to other editors to restore the entry, if appropriate. N2e 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)