Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative

2713:

subjects. The word Cuckservative has caught on fire like no other political term in 2015 and continues burning feverishly bright as a white-hot philippic in the news, political commentary and on TV. Social media is buzzing intensely, especially twitter where more than 10,000 tweets a day are using or discussing the term. Political pundits of the left and Republicans with waffling principles on the right, in open wallace, have announced their scathing hatred of the term because of its capacity to label and brow beat left-regressing republicans. Having looked at the political bias of the people above who say delete the term, you will notice most of them have on the balance left oriented biases in their edits. Every one right of center is talking about this term and it is not the same thing as "RINO", though there is some overlap. If this word is deleted from Knowledge, it is because the left mobilized themselves and succeeded in overwhelming this discussion with votes for delete. Do the right thing and keep the term, it would be a victory against partisan politics of left-right paradigms. If the term is deleted it is a victory for the left that overwhelmingly dominates Knowledge.

544:

whatever and run a story or two on it, only to forget about it a week or two later. That isn't an indication of notability in relation to the timescale at which an encyclopaedia should operate. Knowledge is a long-term project, not a mirror of this week's media buzzwords. We leave that to Twitter. If there is actual subject matter at the bottom of this story, it will come from sources looking at long-term trends, and possibly at the significance of language in what appears to be a rift within the American political right. Words rarely make good subjects for encyclopaedic articles, and when they do it is because they have been discussed in depth over a considerable timescale in sources not concerned solely with filling today's webpage with something different from yesterday's.

2776:. With the likening to Hitler, anyone who calls out Republicans who betray established party positions of the party's millions of voters and undermine their established constituents are now labelled "White Nationalist" (code word Hitler, code word Neo-Nazi, ut oh, here comes another Holocaust), and so we get a big fat juicy red flagged black Swastika emblazoned with a sexy-pot Aryan dominatrix. Yet only a minuscule number of people using the term Cuckservative are self-described "White Nationalists". We learn from the leftist Salon that Cuckservative is not only a disgusting racist term, but equally disgusting misogynist 1474:'Cuckservative' has received significant coverage in a variety of mainstream notable sources across the political spectrum. The Washington Post, Daily Beast, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and New Republic have all written on the term. Right now, 'cuckservative' is substantially more notable and better sourced than many other Knowledge articles, and its quality and notability are very likely to improve given that the page is barely 24 hours old. The article itself is well-written and Knowledge should continue to serve its role as a third party review of reliable sources. 1450:. I'm now less convinced that deletion of this article is the best outcome for our readers. Should any one of the Republican candidates even mention the word 'cuckold' during Thursday's debate, we'll see another round of news articles on the term. While it is undoubtedly a neologism, the sources go into a fair amount of detail on its meaning, usage, and political context. The racial connotations at play here also make it relevant to broader race relations in the US and the Republican Party's ongoing efforts to negotiate its racist fringe. 2632:- at the moment it's simply a mainstream neologism, nothing short of slang on internet boards, but it's politically significant enough that it's recognized in media so it shouldn't be ignored entirely. Merging it to RINO - a term that has a more solid foundation and is completely synonymous to the neologism - is both the ultimate compromise and the most effective solution to the debate until the term proves to be more than just a bandwagon phrase. 2772:', the title says it all and lets the reader know the undercurrent of what the article is really about and defines the opening shots to why we must suppress the portmanteau. And whenever you want to fringe-smear or marginalize someone or something out of the mainstream conversation, connect them with extremism, today's McCarthyism is the shaming word "racism" or any other related fringing pejoratives meant to red-herring uncomfortable topics, like 224: 3143:::::The problem is that cuckservative and RINO are not the same thing, nor subsets of each other. They have completely different definitions, despite the fact there is some overlap. A RINO is basically not a republican at all, but a democrat running under the GOP. A cuckservative is a republican, who runs on party platforms, but is willing to betray his or her constituents on racial grounds. 2780:. Since I am prescient, the overwhelmingly left dominated Knowledge will have its way and the article will be purged down the memory hole, but remember this time and day, I will be vindicated when you see that the word does not go away and becomes a major talking point from now till November 2016 when more than 100 million Americans vote for their next president. 2111:, then we should be consistent and allow this one. I think that instead of having a discussion about the deletion of this single article, we should track down all political neologisms on Knowledge and decide whether they belong on the website at all. Either we delete them all or we keep them all. No half measure. 2768::::It's obvious the intention to remove the term from wikipedia is grounded in the left's well organized groundswell movement to undermine the pejorative's gravitas at shaming mainstream waffle-Republicans with no principals that are regressing to the left. Case in point from the leftist Cato Institute ' 2139:

That's the issue though. This discussion was had for those two other articles and the consensus was "Keep", based on the same reasons given to keep this specific one. We should be aiming for coherence and those two cases set a precedent. If we want to delete this one, then we should first revisit the

1518:

This 'objection' boils down to "I don't think conservative media sources are valid" and "these sources that you never mentioned aren't very good". TNR and the Washington Post are objectively mainstream reliable sources and provide a higher level of notability than many other Knowledge articles enjoy.

3020:

The current article uses clearly biased language I would expect at Metapedia, like "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans" It also has soapboxing sentences like "The rationales given for these public policy positions, may be dismissed as an attempt to appeal to ethnic minority

2712:

It is an indisputable fact that millions of people around the world consider Knowledge to be their first choice and vanguard of human knowledge as it pertains to being the most reliable resource for learning about new words, and information about people, places, things or other important categorical

831:

Few are, but those are events, not neologisms anyway. Neologisms are much more likely to (a) overlap other topics and (b) have a short lifespan in the press. The only time we keep articles about recent events is, more or less, if precedent tells us coverage will continue. There's not really the same

2084:

This is merely opinion. Breitbart has a paid journalistic staff and a substantial Alexa ranking. It clearly meets a dictionary definition of 'publication' and publishes opinions well within the mainstream as well. Moreover, numerous other media organizations have reported on the term, including New

1864:

That's not the justification given here. I won't presume to speak for a saint, but it seems to me that they're pointing to silly season as a time period in which lots of unimportant things are being thrown around in the US media as if they are important. Today's topic: John Kasich does not seem to

1886:

Besides mainstream coverage already alluded to above repeatedly, I also would like to point out that it is term of currency in the dissident Alt-right subcultural context that has a strongly defined meaning and is used to describe certain characters of certain reputations--I think it should stay,

3047:

Having language that indicates what the term means to the people who employ it, is not indicative of an ideological bias. Its perfectly valid to note that people referred to as "cuckservatives," are perceived to have engaged in the "betrayal of the ethnic interests of White European Americans,"

1405:

The term enjoys articles in numerous and multiple reliable sources such as the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, and the Week. All of these are mainstream, reliable, and notable second party sources.

1652:

It's been pointed out already that popular hashtags have received their own entries. I'd build on that by noting that, unlike, for example, YesAllWomen, cuckservative also stands just fine on its own as a noun-usable neologism. In that respect it's much more than just a trending hashtag. Also,

543:

No, what you appear to be doing is making multiple postings saying exactly the same thing. And to expand on my reasoning, I see no evidence that this particular neologism has any long-term significance. It is common enough for multiple media sources to pick up on the same new word, hashtag or

1653:

discussions of whether or not it'll "take off" seem a bit belated, as I initially came to this page looking for an un-slanted etymology after seeing "cuckservative" used in 3 different places over the course of about 2 hours of web browsing (admittedly this is a subjective experience, but

992:. It's a week old, wrapped up in a bunch of other far-right political concepts, and shows no indication of lasting significant coverage of the term. It may be worth noting that the Washington Post connects this to Gamergate, which means we might see more SPAs (already two above). — 3048:

because that it what people who use that term, are on record as saying. That's what the term means to the people who use it. Its not a reflective of a bias, to have articles which represent a perspective that is outside orthodox political discourse. Quite the contrary, in fact.

2964:

Its a little early to definitively assess the value of this article, but I think its worth keeping at this time. I suspect this term will go on to play a significant role in 2016 electoral discourse, and already, it is being discussed (and denounced) in notable sources, such as

563:: I have struck my delete !vote, given the number of new sources now available. I am as yet unconvinced that the term will have any real long-term significance, but given the way that WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored, there seems little point in actively opposing the article. 1994:

Let me rephrase then. "Bear" as a term of gay culture is well attested in academic articles and books and has, over the years, acquired significant meaning in terms of self-identification, for instance. It is proven to be a real, notable term; it is the subject of an

1248:- If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, 1061:

That's twice on this page you've misrepresented someone's argument to try to insinuate that there's some anti-conservative agenda going on here. Nobody has said its relation to conservative political concepts makes it invalid. It's that it's wrapped up with

1979:

Someone says something stupid, I merely taunt. The fact of the matter is, just because the term (which is new) hasn't been in publication in hard-print yet (something increasingly rare in today's digital age) doesn't mean it is a term of no currency.

1266:

Difficulty in defining a term does not make it unworthy of a Knowledge article. In addition, notable and reliable sources such as the TNR article have in fact suggested that 'cuckservative' is emblematic of larger phenomenon in conservative politics.

204:

Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia.

1569:

is a 'reputable' source, so for as long as the base of the floor is disintegrating and all journalistic integrity is being thrown out thew window, Breitbart is an acceptable source if Gawker Media (or any of its subsidiaries) are.

508:

The neologism is cited in notable and reliable sources like the Washington Post and New Republic. Simply saying 'not notable' doesn't counter the fact that the subject is has been written about in multiple clearly notable sources.

3121:

That's certainly a valid suggestion, but this is a rare case when a subject becomes more covered by more facets as time goes on. I'd go for that option of putting it on RINO if there was overwhelming support to delete right now

2869:

to see the sources. Also, while you're free to question me, of course, I see that we both want this article kept. Unless you misunderstood my position or misstated your own, I'm not sure how fruitful this discussion would be.

2924:

The term has been used in articles published by New Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week.

2842:

1798:. American media outlets are going to cover every belch and fart within a hundred feet of everyone associated with a presidential campaign from now till November 2016. We don't need individual articles for every one. 1106:. There was already a section about it there. I copied the lead, more or less, from the current version of the article people have been working on along with a few of the sources, so merge shouldn't be necessary. — 1031:, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Knowledge being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — 860:, another thing on the Internet that 99.99999999999999999% of the Earth's population have never heard of, received media coverage in specialised feminist circles. And that article survives AfD like a Sacred Cow. 173: 2502:- A breathless spurt of "all things Trump" by the drive-by media does not an article make. The sourcing supports a mention in Trump's campaign article, but not a standalone article for a racist buzzword. 2594:- It's darn hard to know what these references are if they're deleted. I got here from looking it up on google. Clearly, it needed to be defined. I don't care where it is, but it needs to be kept. 2277: 2256: 2402: 2380: 2059: 2037: 494:

Not when the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, it isn't. Hectoring contributors who's posts you don't like on the other hand is definitely not good practice at an AfD.

2178:

Some words and memes are harbingers of social strife (e.g., referring to Marie Antoinette as "L'autrichienne" prior to the French Revolution), and "cuckservative" appears to be one of these.

1084:

I was not restating an argument, and in fact it is you who have misrepresented my post. Again, difficulty defining a word or concept is a challenge to be overcome, not a cause for deletion.

1945:. For this to be No True Scotsman, he would have to be responding to an exception to a rule he stated. In other words, if he said "cuckservative is not written about in any books that meet 1047:

An topic's relation to conservative political views does not make it invalid as an article. Such a statement implicitly suggests that far-right concepts are unworthy of Knowledge articles.

1027:

is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the

682:, stating that something is "not notable" with no extra input is a useless tautology, you're stating that this article is not notable because you said it isn't. Grognard Extraordinaire 1721: 2003:. "Cuckservative", on the other hand, is a recent invention written about on a couple of websites an in a newspaper article or two. So Scottish or not, the comparison is worthless. 3004:, but it wasn't. And I'd rather see uniformity of logic being applied at this point. I do highly question the use of Breitbart since I'd hardly consider that publication reliable! 2291:

I rely on Knowledge to give me first definitions for things never seen, usually inserting "wiki" into my google. Why would you make Knowledge less useful by deleting this page?

3179: 3160: 1551:

You can't just claim that a mainstream and well regarded news site with paid journalistic staff is 'crap'. In addition, a variety of other clearly reliable sources also exist.

231: 1146: 789:

The term is clearly notable right now and has received a rate of coverage (several new articles per day, on average) that surpass many other articles that have survived AfD.

2777: 1731: 126: 167: 2085:

Republic, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Daily Banter, the Cato Institute, Red State, Breitbart, the Daily Beast, Mediate, Salon, Hot Air, and The Week.

1166: 1126: 1389:. There simply isn't enough material out there about this neologism to justify an encyclopedia article. There's no evidence that this word has any staying power. 1812:

The term is only tangentially related to the electoral cycle and media coverage has not exclusively focused on its relation to American presidential elections.

1229:

It started being noticed at more specified sites like The Daily Beast, The New Republic (liberal) and Hot Air (conservative), now it is in a mainstream source

877:

It has been getting a lot of attention recently, including many mentions in mainstream press outlets.I would think Knowledge would like to be on top of this.--

2225:

One single article in the Washington Post is "not so much", esp. if that article says, in the title, that it's the "conservative insult of the month". Of the

702:

Doesn't denote a real political phenomenon, concept, or movement, so you're left with the insult, which belongs in a dictionary if anywhere. Unless you think

3021:

voters, whilst ignoring their white counterparts, or as a cowardly or otherwise expedient attempt to avoid moral condemnation and slander by leftists." See

2252:

I see 380,000 google results for this term. It seems that it will have continuing and increasing cultural influence at least until the next election cycle.

1632:, which is why it is notable. If we see cuckservative get mentioned again at the debate, it'll be notable. It's not notable though. Grognard Extraordinaire 1628:, absolutely no coverage for 4 entire days, seems to be a twitter hashtag that was popular for a few days then died off. #YesAllWomen was popular for a few 530:

Could you explain how me "hectoring" you is bad practice at AfD? All I appear to be doing is rebutting your arguments for deletion. Grognard Extraordinaire

395:, you can't just say "little more than a Twitter hashtag", as that doesn't refer to any real reason to delete or keep the article. Grognard Extraordinaire 1711: 1190: 968: 2661:

Please note that a majority of the discussion so far was, when I looked at this, discounted as not being grounded in policy and guidelines. Try harder.

607: 1533:

Please read more carefully. Breitbart is crap not because it's conservative, but because it's crap. It's not acceptable as a reliable source here.

971:

describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new: "'Cuckservative' is a frame that might be bigger than its founders intended".

1599: 1406:

Simply saying "there isn't enough material out there" doesn't counter the fact that there is objectively a bevy of articles on the subject.

1006:

Notability is not temporary, and the newness of a concept is no reason to delete it. We have a section called, "In The News", for starters.

2608: 2595: 2125:

Well, I could cite OTHERSTUFF. If you really disagree with the term having an article, you should vote deleted. The rest, we'll fix later.

1679: 1658: 133: 1306:

That is an argument for deletion, not for keeping. We don't create articles because we think that the topic might become notable later.

2353: 2273: 2260: 1322:

Strange sense of logic, there. I know you are voting for deletion, but if the term does take off, the article will have to be re-made.

2802:

Indeed, there are piss-poor arguments and SPAs here, but I see multiple reliable sources writing specifically about this term. That's

2534: 2398: 2384: 2055: 2041: 1488:

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Breitbart is not a source for anything except for filth; the others, that's chatty election coverage. The

1288:, at least for now... it may be too early to tell whether or not the term will "catch", but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did. 2773: 1602:

now considers it to "the GamerGate of the conservative internet". Also, it is on the "cusp of the mainstream political conversation."

3064:

It should also be noted that most of the sources clearly mocks the term and dismisses it as "the conservative insult of the month".

935: 899: 721: 240: 99: 94: 3232: 3182:

alone is clear evidence of notability. Combined with the other sources already cited in the article, this makes it an easy keep. --

2577:

Another political short-lived term. If it survives and is discussed in reliable sources after some time, then it might be notable.

832:

kind of precedent for neologisms because there's no neologism equivalent of the World Series, significant natural disaster, etc. —

703: 2269: 2739: 2735: 2616: 2406: 2394: 2330: 2281: 2063: 2051: 1683: 1432: 939: 903: 270: 103: 2326: 2307: 2030:

If even mainstream publications like the Washington Post and Breitbart have covered this, it seems that Knowledge should too.

17: 2692:, not the primary ones like publications from the time period (right now) when this term was created and trying to catch on. 2538: 1837: 1458: 1428: 1397: 86: 3255:: significant coverage from reliable and notable independent mainstream secondary sources. I think the page should be kept. 1751: 188: 3166: 3127: 3086: 1368: 1234: 1011: 955: 865: 771:

Even if that dispute would be written about 50 years from now (pretty conjectural), that doesn't mean that therefore this

762: 743: 621: 359: 155: 3197: 1198: 604: 256: 1066:

and is not a clearly defined subject beyond those which we already cover elsewhere. It's a very typical problem with

3112: 3069: 3034: 2650: 1803: 720:

As an English **** who still doesn't want to impose prescriptive grammar on anyone, I'll just make a redirect from

803:

The question isn't whether it's notable right now; it's whether it's notable. That requires sustained coverage. —

229:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3283: 3099:(currently a copy-paste from a old version of the article sits on that page) until it's more established. Again, 2769: 1489: 1361: 40: 3234:

In addition, the articles in the New York Times and the Week were published in their respective print editions.

3162: 3123: 3104: 3082: 2904:::What are some of these many reliable sources, not a rehash of stuff already covered above, but new examples. 2862: 2612: 2599: 2582: 2070:

There is no way Breitbart is a "mainstream publication". Whether it's even a "publication" remains to be seen.

1364: 1230: 1007: 951: 861: 758: 739: 617: 355: 149: 1741: 1675: 1662: 1252:

is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. —

2466:

more sourcing, and what is in the article is just about what there is out there other than blogs and tweets.

1700: 1208: 1194: 757:: Illustrates a civil war between neo- and paleoconservatism that will be taught in schools in 50 years time 3096: 2755: 1761: 1493: 711: 600: 595: 420: 1500:

accept them--"The pejorative du jour on social media these days is “cuckservative.”" We shouldn't be doing

3264: 3243: 3226: 3207: 3196:

Cuckservative is the subject of an article in the United State's newspaper of record, the New York Times:

3191: 3170: 3152: 3131: 3116: 3090: 3073: 3057: 3053: 3038: 3012: 2978: 2974: 2954: 2934: 2913: 2897: 2879: 2852: 2831: 2815: 2789: 2759: 2722: 2701: 2678: 2667: 2641: 2603: 2586: 2569: 2542: 2530: 2511: 2492: 2475: 2446: 2426: 2388: 2364: 2311: 2264: 2238: 2209: 2187: 2170: 2149: 2134: 2120: 2079: 2045: 2012: 1989: 1974: 1936: 1918: 1900: 1874: 1859: 1845: 1821: 1807: 1784: 1775:. Hashtag is now fading according to your own link. I highly doubt the term will have any lasting impact. 1666: 1640: 1616: 1579: 1560: 1546: 1528: 1513: 1483: 1460: 1415: 1399: 1372: 1352: 1331: 1315: 1311: 1297: 1276: 1261: 1238: 1224: 1202: 1178: 1158: 1138: 1115: 1093: 1079: 1056: 1040: 1015: 1001: 980: 959: 922: 886: 869: 841: 826: 812: 798: 784: 766: 747: 733: 715: 690: 669: 648: 625: 611: 572: 568: 553: 549: 538: 518: 503: 499: 489: 468: 464: 445: 424: 403: 376: 363: 349: 302: 214: 145: 68: 2578: 2322: 2303: 1671: 3279: 3108: 3078: 3065: 3030: 3005: 2993: 2989: 2442: 1799: 1348: 1249: 931: 918: 895: 882: 665: 478: 434: 52:. Far too many canvassed/SPA !votes, poor-quality arguments, etc. to derive any sort of consensus from. 36: 2637: 340:, as it is little more than a Twitter hashtag. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not of any importance. 3148: 2950: 2909: 2894: 2827: 2785: 2731: 2718: 2676: 2665: 2376: 2295: 2183: 2145: 2116: 2033: 1757: 1212: 976: 972: 286: 260: 195: 3183: 2354:

https://www.reddit.com/r/new_right/comments/3fmf1t/this_article_is_being_considered_for_deletion_in/

2318: 2299: 1323: 1289: 3235: 3199: 3187: 2966: 2926: 2844: 2565: 2215: 2166: 2086: 1985: 1967: 1932: 1896: 1851: 1813: 1717: 1575: 1552: 1520: 1475: 1420: 1407: 1327: 1293: 1268: 1254: 1171: 1151: 1131: 1108: 1085: 1072: 1048: 1033: 994: 834: 818: 805: 790: 637: 510: 345: 245: 181: 3260: 3239: 3203: 2930: 2848: 2751: 2633: 2488: 2469: 2422: 2360: 2219: 2090: 1888: 1855: 1841: 1817: 1780: 1556: 1524: 1479: 1456: 1424: 1411: 1395: 1272: 1089: 1052: 822: 794: 707: 514: 416: 292: 223: 90: 2822:::Could you please provide some reliable sources that are writing specifically about this term? 640:, you can't point at a policy, you need to show how the policy applies. Grognard Extraordinaire 1865:

care for The Roots. Wanna write an article on Republican candidates and their opinions on rap?

1565:

I'd just like to point out that Knowledge has previously ruled that the horrible gossip column

3049: 2970: 2697: 2526: 1340: 1307: 564: 545: 525: 495: 460: 388: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3278:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2193: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2997: 2945:::::Can you post titles and links to those articles, so that we have definitive proof of it? 2438: 2234: 2205: 2130: 2075: 2008: 1962: 1942: 1924: 1914: 1870: 1747: 1737: 1654: 1542: 1509: 1386: 1344: 1220: 927: 914: 891: 878: 780: 729: 661: 210: 64: 1070:

and this is a pretty typical example of an article that should be deleted on that basis. —

481:, just saying that something isn't notable is bad practice at AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire 161: 3144: 3081:

I created the article, but I can't be held responsible for hit-and-run bias editing on it

2946: 2905: 2858: 2823: 2781: 2727: 2714: 2673: 2662: 2253: 2179: 2141: 2112: 1727: 1707: 1636: 1612: 1024: 947: 686: 644: 534: 485: 441: 399: 372: 56: 2778:

The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur

913:, recently covered in the Washington Post, so not at all confined to minor web sources. 3220: 3022: 2561: 2507: 2373:

Liberal friends, we should be supporting this. Civil war on the right is GOOD for us.

2162: 1981: 1928: 1892: 1887:

based on account that we have terms related to other subcultures and what not (such as

1571: 341: 3256: 3252: 3100: 3026: 3001: 2875: 2866: 2811: 2803: 2522: 2484: 2459: 2418: 2414: 2356: 1832: 1776: 1605: 1451: 1390: 1382: 1067: 1028: 989: 857: 679: 392: 82: 74: 2346:

seems to have enough coverage for a small article, especially the wapo and NR links.

3095:

It's notable to some extent, but I think it would fit better as a small section in

2693: 2108: 2104: 1958: 1950: 1946: 1534: 320: 308: 276: 120: 1996: 255:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

2230: 2201: 2126: 2071: 2004: 1910: 1866: 1693:: The term has already been widely covered in a broad spectrum of media outlets. 1538: 1505: 1216: 776: 725: 206: 60: 3231:

Cuckservative is the subject of an article released today in the The Guardian:

1519:'Cuckservative' is a clearly notable word and should be included in Knowledge. 856:

This has received media coverage in specialised political circles, the same as

3251:- Nearly a 'dozen blue chip' sources, so the article meets all the demands of 3029:

also applies, the term is very new and clearly pushed by biased editors here.

1965:

if you don't actually have an argument. Then it's just still "No Scotsman". —

1633: 1609: 683: 641: 531: 482: 438: 396: 369: 2001:

The Bear Book: Readings in the History and Evolution of a Gay Male Subculture

1492:

blog post doesn't even discuss the term. And if we are to accept a blog like

437:, saying "no notability" is not a good AfD argument. Grognard Extraordinaire 2503: 1949:", to which you responded "here are some books that talk about it and meet 817:

By this definition you created yourself, no recent event could be notable.

368:

Other hashtags, like #YesAllWomen have been kept. Grognard Extraordinaire

3216: 2871: 2807: 2103:

I am personally opposed to it, but if we're going to have articles like

1215:, so one single article makes for encyclopedic notability? That's easy. 2688:

per BGManofID. We only document terms that have already caught on in

2770:

As Racists Return to the Mainstream, Be Sure to Deprive Them of Power

1566: 1193:

describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new.

775:, whose illustrative value remains to be seen, is therefore notable. 2861:, I see you're new here. I'm referring to the sources being used as 2458:

Perhaps a year from now this will be a 'thing' but for now it fails

1362:

One of the world's leading think tanks is now writing about the word

354:

A Twitter hashtag referenced by media including the Washington Post

2774:

Is “Cuckservative” the New, Hip Racial Slur For White Nationalists?

2750:

That is an entirely improper reason to keep or delete an article.

3272:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2629: 2557: 2553: 1103: 2483:

A nonsense word created a week ago by a blogger? Seriously. --

218: 2653:

to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

1953:", then it would be No True Scotsman to say "yeah, well, no 249:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2521:

A few mentions over a few weeks does not a thing make. Per

3219:

plus per the two additional sources above (NYT and SPLC).

1941:

That he added an adjective before books doesn't mean it's

2865:

in the article. Check the bottom of it, or go direct to

1850:'This is silly' is hardly a justification for deletion. 2413:

That's not a valid reason to keep the page. Please see

116: 112: 108: 1102:

Update: I wouldn't be opposed to a Delete/Redirect to

180: 1891:). On account of that alone, I think it should stay. 1023:- I do not think this means what you think it means. 2214:

Is the Washington Post a 'fake' or 'unreal' source?

2672:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2352:definite off-wiki canvassing from including reddit 2161:Other posters have said all that needs to be said. 2140:other two cases and consider deleting them first. 2556:- similar meanings, is newsworthy enough to have 1147:list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions 738:We have a whole category of articles on insults. 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3286:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3159:The word is now subject to a report by the SPLC 1657:, for example, isn't exactly some obscure blog). 1604:"Not notable enough" is a useless argument, see 2462:. For something like this we should require a 722:Conservatives whom other conservatives dislike 55:For formality, this closure is a no consensus/ 1167:list of Language-related deletion discussions 1127:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 704:Conservatives who other conservatives dislike 269:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 239:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 194: 8: 1165:Note: This debate has been included in the 1145:Note: This debate has been included in the 1125:Note: This debate has been included in the 950:source, one that Feminist Hulk never had... 616:The article is not a dictionary definition. 2374: 2031: 1164: 1144: 1124: 243:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 1756:and so do dissident right websites like 263:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 2270:2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 2257:2600:100E:B02A:8E4E:848B:967C:CEBC:4248 2893:- Many reliable sources. Very notable. 2395:2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 2381:2602:306:3067:1890:D99E:4F4A:89A1:42D5 2052:2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 2038:2602:306:3067:1890:5830:6243:57C9:4C14 1245: 1020: 415:not even yet an ounce of notability. 7: 1831:. Silly season is starting again... 1246:describes it as a larger phenomenon 24: 706:is a topic worthy of an article. 222: 2200:source. This one, not so much. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2988:This is about as important as 1: 2996:should have been deleted for 2992:. Now, I firmly believe that 259:on the part of others and to 2437:Knowledge is not a soapbox. 1029:general notability guideline 724:to yours, Colapeninsula. :) 3265:09:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 3244:00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 3227:17:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 3208:16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 3192:03:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 3153:23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC) 3058:18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC) 1905:"Bear" is written about in 1021:Notability is not temporary 573:00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 458:Not notable. Not remotely. 69:14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 3303: 3171:22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3132:22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3117:22:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3091:22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3074:20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3039:20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 3013:17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2979:17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2955:05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2935:03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2914:00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2898:22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2880:14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2853:03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2832:00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2816:17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2790:20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2760:14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2723:14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2702:20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2679:17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2668:17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2642:16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2604:03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2587:18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2570:00:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2543:16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 2512:12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 2493:07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 2476:23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2447:14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 2427:23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2389:19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2365:17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2312:08:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2265:05:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2239:17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 2210:15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2188:03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2171:08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 2150:03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2135:15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2121:07:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 2080:15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2013:15:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 1990:06:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1975:03:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1937:03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1785:16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 1641:04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 1608:. Grognard Extraordinaire 1461:13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 1353:14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 1116:13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1094:21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 842:12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 827:21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 2525:, it's much too early. -- 2046:22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1961:talk about it." It's not 1919:21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1909:books; this term is not. 1901:03:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1875:21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1860:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1846:00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1822:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1808:20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1667:18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1617:03:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1580:03:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1561:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1547:23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1529:17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1514:16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1484:03:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1416:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1400:01:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1373:23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1332:22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1316:22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1298:21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1277:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1262:20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1239:20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1225:19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1203:17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1179:18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1159:18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1139:18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1080:02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1057:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 1041:20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1016:19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1002:18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 981:17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 960:17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 923:17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 887:17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 870:17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 813:02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 799:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 785:16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 767:14:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 748:19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 734:14:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 716:14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 691:03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 670:08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 649:03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 626:19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 612:07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 554:21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 539:20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 519:02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 504:16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 490:03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 469:04:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 446:03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 425:04:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 404:03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 377:03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 364:19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 350:04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 215:04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 3275:Please do not modify it. 2867:Cuckservative#References 2344:!vote changed to delete 32:Please do not modify it. 3097:Republican In Name Only 2969:(and several others). 1762:The Occidental Observer 1712:an entire article to it 301:; accounts blocked for 271:single-purpose accounts 241:policies and guidelines 2192:Yeah, but that one is 660:- Not notable enough. 2994:Binders full of women 2990:Binders full of women 2740:few or no other edits 2617:few or no other edits 2407:few or no other edits 2331:few or no other edits 2282:few or no other edits 2064:few or no other edits 1684:few or no other edits 1433:few or no other edits 1250:Identitarian movement 940:few or no other edits 904:few or no other edits 2742:outside this topic. 2619:outside this topic. 2409:outside this topic. 2333:outside this topic. 2284:outside this topic. 2066:outside this topic. 1758:American Renaissance 1686:outside this topic. 1435:outside this topic. 942:outside this topic. 906:outside this topic. 3105:The Almightey Drill 2967:The Washington Post 1639:Ping when replying 1615:Ping when replying 689:Ping when replying 647:Ping when replying 537:Ping when replying 488:Ping when replying 444:Ping when replying 402:Ping when replying 375:Ping when replying 253:by counting votes. 232:not a majority vote 3103:. Thoughts? (ping 2659:Relisting comment: 1889:Bear (gay culture) 1736:plus center-right 1716:plus conservative 1701:Hashtag is soaring 1209:DemitreusFrontwest 1195:DemitreusFrontwest 1104:RINO#Cuckservative 2743: 2690:secondary sources 2681: 2620: 2410: 2391: 2379:comment added by 2334: 2315: 2298:comment added by 2285: 2067: 2048: 2036:comment added by 1997:edited collection 1927:fallacy, really? 1746:plus libertarian 1687: 1436: 1181: 1161: 1141: 943: 907: 334: 333: 330: 257:assume good faith 3294: 3277: 3109:TussilagoFanfara 3079:TussilagoFanfara 3066:TussilagoFanfara 3031:TussilagoFanfara 3008:MurderByDeadcopy 2725: 2671: 2656: 2654: 2626:Merge / Redirect 2606: 2550:Merge / Redirect 2474: 2472: 2392: 2316: 2314: 2292: 2267: 2049: 1972: 1970: 1963:No True Scotsman 1957:books that meet 1943:No True Scotsman 1925:No True Scotsman 1800:Opabinia regalis 1765: 1764: 1738:The Daily Caller 1669: 1655:The Daily Caller 1454: 1418: 1393: 1259: 1257: 1176: 1174: 1156: 1154: 1136: 1134: 1113: 1111: 1077: 1075: 1038: 1036: 999: 997: 925: 889: 839: 837: 810: 808: 610: 596:WP:NOTDICTIONARY 529: 328: 316: 300: 284: 265: 235:, but instead a 226: 219: 199: 198: 184: 136: 124: 106: 34: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3284:deletion review 3273: 2895:VictoriaGrayson 2682: 2649: 2647: 2558:its own section 2470: 2467: 2293: 2194:easily verified 1968: 1966: 1748:Taki's Magazine 1708:Washington Post 1452: 1391: 1255: 1253: 1191:Washington Post 1172: 1170: 1152: 1150: 1132: 1130: 1109: 1107: 1073: 1071: 1034: 1032: 995: 993: 969:Washington Post 948:Washington Post 946:There is now a 835: 833: 806: 804: 599: 523: 318: 306: 290: 274: 261:sign your posts 141: 132: 97: 81: 78: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3300: 3298: 3289: 3288: 3268: 3267: 3246: 3229: 3210: 3194: 3173: 3141: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3076: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3042: 3041: 3015: 2982: 2981: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2901: 2900: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2855: 2819: 2818: 2795: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2705: 2704: 2670: 2657: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2622: 2621: 2609:99.104.125.199 2596:99.104.125.199 2589: 2579:AliveFreeHappy 2572: 2546: 2545: 2515: 2514: 2496: 2495: 2478: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2368: 2350:note to closer 2335: 2286: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2173: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1969:Rhododendrites 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1767: 1766: 1754: 1744: 1734: 1724: 1714: 1704: 1695: 1694: 1688: 1672:71.174.125.144 1659:71.174.125.144 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1620: 1619: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1375: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1301: 1300: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1256:Rhododendrites 1243: 1242: 1241: 1183: 1182: 1173:Rhododendrites 1162: 1153:Rhododendrites 1142: 1133:Rhododendrites 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1110:Rhododendrites 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1074:Rhododendrites 1064:other concepts 1045: 1044: 1043: 1035:Rhododendrites 996:Rhododendrites 983: 962: 944: 908: 872: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 836:Rhododendrites 807:Rhododendrites 752: 751: 750: 736: 696: 695: 694: 693: 673: 672: 654: 653: 652: 651: 631: 630: 629: 628: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 521: 479:WP:Not notable 472: 471: 451: 450: 449: 448: 435:WP:Not notable 428: 427: 409: 408: 407: 406: 382: 381: 380: 379: 366: 332: 331: 227: 202: 201: 138: 77: 72: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3299: 3287: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3230: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3198: 3195: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3016: 3014: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2888: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2806:, friends. -- 2805: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2752:Capitalismojo 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2669: 2666: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2652: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2624: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2473: 2471:FreeRangeFrog 2465: 2461: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2248: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2092: 2088: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2029: 2026: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1971: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1882: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1836: 1835: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1794: 1793: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1726:plus liberal 1725: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1713: 1709: 1706:conservative 1705: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1470: 1469: 1462: 1459: 1457: 1455: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1396: 1394: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1258: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1168: 1163: 1160: 1155: 1148: 1143: 1140: 1135: 1128: 1123: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1105: 1101: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1076: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 998: 991: 987: 984: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 963: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 924: 920: 916: 912: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 884: 880: 876: 873: 871: 867: 863: 859: 858:Feminist Hulk 855: 843: 838: 830: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 809: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 769: 768: 764: 760: 756: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 718: 717: 713: 709: 708:Colapeninsula 705: 701: 698: 697: 692: 688: 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 674: 671: 667: 663: 659: 656: 655: 650: 646: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 627: 623: 619: 615: 614: 613: 609: 606: 602: 597: 593: 590: 589: 574: 570: 566: 562: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 536: 533: 527: 522: 520: 516: 512: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 492: 491: 487: 484: 480: 476: 475: 474: 473: 470: 466: 462: 459: 457: 453: 452: 447: 443: 440: 436: 432: 431: 430: 429: 426: 422: 418: 417:Capitalismojo 414: 411: 410: 405: 401: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 378: 374: 371: 367: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 336: 335: 326: 322: 314: 310: 304: 298: 294: 288: 282: 278: 272: 268: 264: 262: 258: 252: 248: 247: 242: 238: 234: 233: 228: 225: 221: 220: 217: 216: 212: 208: 197: 193: 190: 187: 183: 179: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 147: 144: 143:Find sources: 139: 135: 131: 128: 122: 118: 114: 110: 105: 101: 96: 92: 88: 84: 83:Cuckservative 80: 79: 76: 75:Cuckservative 73: 71: 70: 66: 62: 58: 53: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3274: 3271: 3248: 3221: 3212: 3175: 3142: 3140: 3050:KevinOKeeffe 3017: 3007: 3006: 2985: 2971:KevinOKeeffe 2961: 2944: 2943: 2903: 2902: 2890: 2821: 2820: 2799: 2794: 2767: 2766: 2709: 2707: 2706: 2689: 2685: 2658: 2648: 2625: 2591: 2574: 2549: 2527:Anthonyhcole 2518: 2499: 2480: 2463: 2455: 2375:— Preceding 2370: 2349: 2345: 2343: 2339: 2337: 2294:— Preceding 2288: 2249: 2226: 2197: 2175: 2158: 2109:manspreading 2105:mansplaining 2100: 2032:— Preceding 2027: 2000: 1954: 1906: 1883: 1833: 1828: 1795: 1772: 1690: 1649: 1629: 1625: 1595: 1594: 1502:mots du jour 1501: 1497: 1471: 1447: 1378: 1377: 1308:AndyTheGrump 1285: 1186: 1063: 985: 964: 910: 874: 772: 754: 699: 657: 638:WP:VAGUEWAVE 591: 565:AndyTheGrump 560: 546:AndyTheGrump 526:AndyTheGrump 496:AndyTheGrump 461:AndyTheGrump 455: 454: 412: 337: 324: 312: 303:sockpuppetry 296: 285:; suspected 280: 266: 254: 250: 244: 236: 230: 203: 191: 185: 177: 170: 164: 158: 152: 142: 129: 54: 49: 47: 31: 28: 3180:This source 2738:) has made 2615:) has made 2439:Cloudchased 2405:) has made 2371:Strong Keep 2329:) has made 2280:) has made 2062:) has made 1884:Strong Keep 1682:) has made 1537:is policy. 1431:) has made 1345:Cloudchased 938:) has made 928:FitzhughIII 915:FitzhughIII 902:) has made 892:Cartamandua 879:Cartamandua 662:Coderzombie 168:free images 3145:AviBoteach 2947:AviBoteach 2906:AviBoteach 2863:references 2859:AviBoteach 2824:AviBoteach 2782:AviBoteach 2728:AviBoteach 2715:AviBoteach 2674:j⚛e decker 2663:j⚛e decker 2254:Wfgiuliano 2180:Wfgiuliano 2142:Akesgeroth 2113:Akesgeroth 1710:dedicated 1341:WP:CRYSTAL 1213:Smetanahue 1068:neologisms 973:Smetanahue 608:(contribs) 389:WP:UNENCYC 237:discussion 50:Trainwreck 3280:talk page 3184:Sammy1339 3163:'''tAD''' 3124:'''tAD''' 3083:'''tAD''' 2998:WP:BELONG 2562:George100 2340:weak keep 2319:Jfredfern 2300:Jfredfern 2163:FauXnetiX 1982:Solntsa90 1929:Solntsa90 1893:Solntsa90 1718:Breitbart 1572:Solntsa90 1387:WP:NOTDIC 1365:'''tAD''' 1324:BGManofID 1290:BGManofID 1231:'''tAD''' 1008:'''tAD''' 952:'''tAD''' 862:'''tAD''' 759:'''tAD''' 740:'''tAD''' 618:'''tAD''' 601:sovereign 356:'''tAD''' 342:Eclipsoid 293:canvassed 287:canvassed 246:consensus 37:talk page 3282:or in a 3257:Meishern 3236:Denarivs 3224:avarrone 3200:Denarivs 2927:Denarivs 2845:Denarivs 2736:contribs 2651:Relisted 2535:contribs 2485:Jlambert 2419:NotJim99 2403:contribs 2377:unsigned 2357:Gaijin42 2348:however 2327:contribs 2308:contribs 2296:unsigned 2278:contribs 2216:Denarivs 2087:Denarivs 2060:contribs 2034:unsigned 1852:Denarivs 1814:Denarivs 1777:NotJim99 1680:contribs 1600:BuzzFeed 1553:Denarivs 1521:Denarivs 1496:, let's 1476:Denarivs 1453:gobonobo 1429:contribs 1421:Denarivs 1408:Denarivs 1392:gobonobo 1269:Denarivs 1086:Denarivs 1049:Denarivs 1025:WP:NTEMP 936:contribs 900:contribs 819:Denarivs 791:Denarivs 605:sentinel 511:Denarivs 325:username 319:{{subst: 313:username 307:{{subst: 297:username 291:{{subst: 281:username 275:{{subst: 127:View log 57:WP:NPASR 39:or in a 3023:WP:NPOV 2694:Nyttend 2338:delete 1923:...The 1752:article 1742:article 1732:article 1722:article 1494:Hot Air 289:users: 174:WP refs 162:scholar 100:protect 95:history 3253:WP:GNG 3101:WP:NEO 3027:WP:NEO 3018:Delete 3002:WP:NEO 2804:WP:GNG 2686:Delete 2634:Akkere 2575:Delete 2523:WP:NEO 2519:Delete 2500:Delete 2481:Delete 2460:WP:NEO 2456:Delete 2415:WP:NOT 2231:Drmies 2202:Drmies 2127:Drmies 2072:Drmies 2005:Drmies 1911:Drmies 1867:Drmies 1838:Anselm 1829:Delete 1796:Delete 1773:Delete 1637:(talk) 1630:months 1626:Delete 1613:(talk) 1606:WP:JNN 1567:Gawker 1539:Drmies 1506:Drmies 1498:really 1383:WP:NEO 1379:Delete 1217:Drmies 1207:Wait, 990:WP:NEO 986:Delete 777:Drmies 726:Drmies 700:Delete 687:(talk) 680:WP:JNN 658:Delete 645:(talk) 592:Delete 535:(talk) 486:(talk) 456:Delete 442:(talk) 413:Delete 400:(talk) 393:WP:JNN 391:, and 373:(talk) 338:Delete 207:Drmies 146:Google 104:delete 61:Stifle 2628:- to 2552:- to 2539:email 2227:month 2196:by a 1959:WP:RS 1951:WP:RS 1947:WP:RS 1728:Salon 1634:Chess 1610:Chess 1535:WP:RS 684:Chess 642:Chess 532:Chess 483:Chess 439:Chess 397:Chess 370:Chess 267:Note: 189:JSTOR 150:books 134:Stats 121:views 113:watch 109:links 16:< 3261:talk 3249:Keep 3240:talk 3215:per 3213:Keep 3204:talk 3188:talk 3176:Keep 3167:talk 3149:talk 3128:talk 3113:talk 3087:talk 3070:talk 3054:talk 3035:talk 3000:and 2986:Keep 2975:talk 2962:Keep 2951:talk 2931:talk 2910:talk 2891:Keep 2876:talk 2849:talk 2828:talk 2812:talk 2800:Keep 2786:talk 2756:talk 2732:talk 2719:talk 2710:Keep 2698:talk 2638:talk 2630:RINO 2613:talk 2600:talk 2592:Keep 2583:talk 2566:talk 2560:. -- 2554:RINO 2531:talk 2508:talk 2504:Tarc 2489:talk 2443:talk 2423:talk 2399:talk 2385:talk 2361:talk 2323:talk 2304:talk 2289:Keep 2274:talk 2261:talk 2250:Keep 2235:talk 2220:talk 2206:talk 2198:real 2184:talk 2176:Keep 2167:talk 2159:Keep 2146:talk 2131:talk 2117:talk 2107:and 2101:Keep 2091:talk 2076:talk 2056:talk 2042:talk 2028:Keep 2009:talk 1986:talk 1955:real 1933:talk 1915:talk 1907:real 1897:talk 1871:talk 1856:talk 1842:talk 1818:talk 1804:talk 1781:talk 1760:(), 1691:Keep 1676:talk 1663:talk 1650:Keep 1596:Keep 1576:talk 1557:talk 1543:talk 1525:talk 1510:talk 1490:Cato 1480:talk 1472:Keep 1448:Keep 1425:talk 1412:talk 1385:and 1381:per 1369:talk 1349:talk 1328:talk 1312:talk 1294:talk 1286:Keep 1273:talk 1235:talk 1221:talk 1211:and 1199:talk 1187:Keep 1169:. — 1149:. — 1129:. — 1090:talk 1053:talk 1012:talk 988:per 977:talk 965:Keep 956:talk 932:talk 919:talk 911:Keep 896:talk 883:talk 875:Keep 866:talk 823:talk 795:talk 781:talk 773:term 763:talk 755:Keep 744:talk 730:talk 712:talk 678:See 666:talk 636:See 622:talk 569:talk 561:Note 550:talk 515:talk 500:talk 477:See 465:talk 433:See 421:talk 387:See 360:talk 346:talk 211:talk 182:FENS 156:news 117:logs 91:talk 87:edit 65:talk 3217:BDD 2872:BDD 2857:Hi 2808:BDD 2541:) 2464:lot 1973:\\ 1598:as 1260:\\ 1177:\\ 1157:\\ 1137:\\ 1114:\\ 1078:\\ 1039:\\ 1000:\\ 840:\\ 811:\\ 321:csp 317:or 309:csm 277:spa 251:not 196:TWL 125:– ( 3263:) 3242:) 3206:) 3190:) 3178:. 3169:) 3151:) 3130:) 3115:) 3107:) 3089:) 3072:) 3056:) 3037:) 3025:. 2977:) 2953:) 2933:) 2912:) 2878:) 2870:-- 2851:) 2830:) 2814:) 2788:) 2758:) 2734:• 2726:— 2721:) 2700:) 2640:) 2607:— 2602:) 2585:) 2568:) 2537:· 2533:· 2510:) 2491:) 2445:) 2425:) 2417:. 2401:• 2393:— 2387:) 2363:) 2325:• 2317:— 2310:) 2306:• 2276:• 2268:— 2263:) 2237:) 2229:. 2222:) 2208:) 2186:) 2169:) 2148:) 2133:) 2119:) 2078:) 2058:• 2050:— 2044:) 2011:) 1999:, 1988:) 1935:) 1917:) 1899:) 1873:) 1858:) 1844:) 1834:St 1820:) 1806:) 1783:) 1750:: 1740:: 1730:: 1720:: 1678:• 1670:— 1665:) 1578:) 1559:) 1545:) 1527:) 1512:) 1504:. 1482:) 1427:• 1419:— 1414:) 1371:) 1351:) 1343:. 1330:) 1314:) 1296:) 1275:) 1237:) 1223:) 1201:) 1189:- 1092:) 1055:) 1014:) 979:) 967:- 958:) 934:• 926:— 921:) 898:• 890:— 885:) 868:) 825:) 797:) 783:) 765:) 746:) 732:) 714:) 668:) 624:) 598:. 594:- 571:) 552:) 517:) 502:) 467:) 423:) 362:) 348:) 327:}} 315:}} 305:: 299:}} 283:}} 273:: 213:) 176:) 119:| 115:| 111:| 107:| 102:| 98:| 93:| 89:| 67:) 59:. 3259:( 3238:( 3222:C 3202:( 3186:( 3165:( 3147:( 3126:( 3111:( 3085:( 3068:( 3052:( 3033:( 2973:( 2949:( 2929:( 2908:( 2874:( 2847:( 2826:( 2810:( 2784:( 2754:( 2730:( 2717:( 2708:* 2696:( 2636:( 2611:( 2598:( 2581:( 2564:( 2529:( 2506:( 2487:( 2468:§ 2441:( 2421:( 2397:( 2383:( 2359:( 2321:( 2302:( 2272:( 2259:( 2233:( 2218:( 2204:( 2182:( 2165:( 2144:( 2129:( 2115:( 2093:) 2089:( 2074:( 2054:( 2040:( 2007:( 1984:( 1931:( 1913:( 1895:( 1869:( 1854:( 1840:( 1816:( 1802:( 1779:( 1703:, 1674:( 1661:( 1574:( 1555:( 1541:( 1523:( 1508:( 1478:( 1423:( 1410:( 1367:( 1347:( 1326:( 1310:( 1292:( 1271:( 1233:( 1219:( 1197:( 1088:( 1051:( 1010:( 975:( 954:( 930:( 917:( 894:( 881:( 864:( 821:( 793:( 779:( 761:( 742:( 728:( 710:( 664:( 620:( 603:° 567:( 548:( 528:: 524:@ 513:( 498:( 463:( 419:( 358:( 344:( 329:. 323:| 311:| 295:| 279:| 209:( 200:) 192:· 186:· 178:· 171:· 165:· 159:· 153:· 148:( 140:( 137:) 130:· 123:) 85:( 63:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative - Knowledge

Index