Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RIGHT)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Talk   Portal   Showcase   Assessment   Collaboration   Incubator   Guide   Newsroom   About Us   Commons  


WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism. You can learn more about us here. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. Guidelines and other useful information can be found here.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Conservatism articles

Conservatism article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics
Index · Statistics · Log · Update

See also




Articles for deletion
Good article nominees
Featured list removal candidates
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Requested moves

Assessment log

October 8, 2015



  • Lionel Sosa (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

October 7, 2015



  • Cory Burnell (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

October 6, 2015



October 5, 2015



October 4, 2015


  • James L. Buckley (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Madame Hillary (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).


October 3, 2015


October 2, 2015




October 1, 2015


September 30, 2015



  • David Koch (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).


  • David H. Koch (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

September 29, 2015



September 28, 2015


September 27, 2015


September 26, 2015


  • Mayday PAC (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).


  • Alexander Downer (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Andrew Peacock (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Billy Snedden (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Brendan Nelson (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Charles Saatchi (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Edward N. Ney (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Freedom Caucus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Harold Holt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Jeremy Sinclair (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).
  • John Gorton (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • John Hewson (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • John Howard (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Malcolm Fraser (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Malcolm Turnbull (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Tony Abbott (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • William McMahon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

September 24, 2015


September 23, 2015


  • Redneck (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).


September 21, 2015


September 19, 2015


  • John Shadegg (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Mike McIntyre (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Sanford Bishop (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Sue Myrick (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

September 16, 2015


September 15, 2015


  • Tim Latham (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

September 14, 2015


  • Tom Monaghan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).


September 13, 2015




September 12, 2015



September 11, 2015




September 9, 2015



September 8, 2015



Requests for Comment

Talk:Hillary Clinton

Should The Hillary Clinton BLP article mention the national polling results that 61% of respondents consider her to be untrustworthy, and that the most commonly used word to describe her was liar. (wording, placement TBD)

Poll Primary Source :

Secondary sources : [1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8] [9] [10][11] [12][13][14][15]


  • strong include reliable polling firm, large sample size (2.5% margin of error) covered by craploads upon craploads of reliable sources. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV clearly mandate inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

This was discussed before here, and that discussion was closed with no consensus due to the differing opinions with clear points to back their arguments. However, it's become a bit of an issue again and I'd like to bring it up a second time so a clear consensus can (hopefully) be reached and we can put this controversy to a rest. I'll repeat the question posed by InedibleHulk, because I can't phrase it any better: "Does calling a killing 'murder' on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are 'murderer(s)', contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME?" Versus001 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Britain

Should the article have a 'Significance' section containg this sentence (or a similar one with the same meaning):

'Had Hitler achieved his objective that, "The English air force must have been beaten down to such an extent morally and in fact that it can no longer muster any power of attack worth mentioning against the German crossing", it would have removed Britain as an effective belligerent from the war'. 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg

Adding a photo of Harper-Mercer to the article was bound to set off two arguments, a) is it fair use and b) is it glorifying the killer by giving him the publicity that he wanted? The Myspace image has been widely used in media coverage, and even if he is dead, he would still own the copyright on the image if he took it himself.[16] The fair use argument is open to debate as people have different views on how strictly this should be interpreted. On the issue of glorifying the killer, I think this is subjective. Most people are agreed that Harper-Mercer wanted to add his name to the history books by doing something disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not censored. Other thoughts welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault

There is a debate on how we should include a widely reported statistic relating to the percentage of victims, who when asked why they didn't report the incident, answered they didn't think it was "serious enough" per the study and news reports.

The section leads with a high level statistic for the rates of all types of sexual assault and misconduct, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct".

The AAU study, Table 6-1, page 110 contains the following:


Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

An editor with a strong POV Some editors tried to pass Owen 'Alik Shahadah as a notable scholar and his websites as reliable. Spamming it across wikipages related with Africa and slavery. He seems to be connected as he stated in the summary of this edit and even acknowledges that is an advocacy page. This has been discussed in the Reliable sources noticeboard here and here. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

Dear all,

there is a disagreement in the helpdesk whether congressional terms end on the 3th or 4th of March [17] [18]. Since it involves alot of articles this could be damaging and needs to be discussed on a central location prior to any further editing. I have asked all parties to continue the discussion on this page and stop editing until concensus is reached.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Cameron

Should the information about piggate be moved from the 'Education' section to the 'Personal life' section, under its own subheading 'Accusations of bestiality'?

These are serious allegations, and, if true, reveal some disturbing facts about the sexual predilections of the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Other editors keep reverting my edit, saying that David Cameron was only posing for a photo (so he was producing porn then?) and that the act doesn't constitute a sexual act, because the pig was dead and wasn't penetrated in the anus or vagina. So, oral sex with a dead body doesn't count? Not when David Cameron is involved? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?

The lede sentence of this biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which of the versions below best incorporates the following three criteria?

  • Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
  • All of her realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another.
  • She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.

1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. ; or

2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom. ; or

3. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates[b]; together, those 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms.

(Footnote a explains why the Queen's Birthday is celebrated on various dates, none of them the actual date.)
(Footnote b lists the 16 realms and explains their ordering by date.) --Pete (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


We have seen endless discussions about the 'Denali' vs 'Mt McKinley' naming dispute. How long must Shall we postpone such discussions? George Ho (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Gaffney

Based on the sources cited in the lede, and subsequently in the body, how can Frank Gaffney be identified?
  1. - Statement of Fact: "Frank Gaffney is an American conspiracy theorist."
  2. - Statement of Allegation: "Frank Gaffney is an American who has been called a conspiracy theorist by (X,Y,Z, etc.)"
  3. - Statement of Qualified Allegation: "Frank Gaffney is reviled by the Left, which regularly condemns him as a conspiracy theorist."
  4. - None of Above: Frank Gaffney should not be identified as a conspiracy theorist in any manner whatsoever in this article.

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations

Volkswagen has admitted that it mislead testers by using software in its TDi diesel engines that turned on NOx emission reduction systems during static dynamometer testing that were normally left inactive. The US EPA Issued a notice of violation describing the measures Volkswagen took to mislead testing and compliance with the Clean Air Act. The EPA lists "Alleged Violations" on page 3. However, Volkswagen has not (yet) been called to any US court, and the EPA has not declared that there has been illegal behaviour on the part of Volkswagen.

Some media sources have declared that Volkswagen was guilty of illegal acts, and these sources are being used to state in Wikipedia that Volkswagen committed illegal acts.

Should Wikipedia:

  • Declare in its own voice that Volkswagen acted illegally?
  • Hedge any declarations by using the word "alleged" or "allegedly" or similar, as the EPA has done?
  • Say nothing about 'guilty' or 'illegal' in Wikipedia's voice but report fairly the claims made by various reliable sources in the voice of those sources.
  • Wait for actual court proceedings to occur before passing judgement?

--Pete (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing

Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

How should the clock be described in the lead?
  • A - "the internals of a commercial digital clock inside a locking pencil box"



Previously involved participants

  • B - The description of the clock as a commercial digital clock is only available from a handful of sources, while the preponderance of sources does not describe the clock as such, or as a Micronta clock as some bloggers and a handful of sources have argued. Notwithstanding the fact that it may be possible that the clock was built from parts of a commercially available clock, the lead should not make statements of fact based on the unattributed opinions of a few bloggers and commentators, which in turn were all based on a low resolution photo released by police. The assessments and viewpoints of the clock in the photo, as well as comments by the main actor in this incident, are better left to be presented and attributed in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christian egalitarianism

I made some changes with sources that where reverted. Egalitarianism is not a moral doctrine, where are the sources for such statement?

Also it should be added in the article about the Christian egalitarian activism. [19][20] Rupert Loup (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


I do not know what the opinion of the community is, but my personal opinion is that this is not an encyclopedic article. It is written like an essay, from a non-neutral point of view and in emotional language. The Deus ex machina section, for example, compares the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama. This might be excellent for a Political Science thesis, but it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Also, the fact that it is sourced does not really matter, because the (certainly reliable) sources are very subjective.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United Nations

“UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse”—oh, that’s nice… We have an article on physicians—should we include a line in that article stating that physicians have been accused of child rape too? After all, a quick Google search reveals that it happens quite often. Complete with references and all.

The fact that “UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse” has nothing to do with those accused having been UN peacekeepers. I propose that this sentence be removed from the article. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins

How should Richard Lloyd be described in the article?


  1. No qualifier
  2. "Analyst (or something similar) at military contractor Tesla Industries" (or some minor variant)
  3. "Former UN weapons inspector"
  4. "Expert in warhead design" (or some minor variant)

Indicate which option you prefer. Multiple options are fine. Ranked preferences are also ok. Kingsindian  19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina

Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs following the 2002 merger between HP and Compaq, without the lead providing well-sourced context, such as that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined?05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


Should the article be edited to make it less like a country article, including but not limited to a country infobox, and instead be made into more of an event article, possibly also merged elsewhere? Please see the discussion above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina

Fiorina is described in the opening sentence as an American Republican presidential candidate and former business executive who currently chairs the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360. Should the lead mention that Fiorina has never held public office?


  • Yes. This is an article about a former business executive and a current politician, and mentioning this fact in the lead is necessary to provide a complete biographical picture. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Special administrative region

I propose renaming this article to Special administrative regions of China. My reasoning for this is:

1. Some other nations have their own 'special administrative regions' (one inspired by the Chinese SARs exists in North Korea and is the primary basis for this side of the argument) or may use similar terminology to refer to select administrative divisions.
2. The name is inconsistent with the article names for other Chinese administrative divisions (i.e. Administrative divisions of China, Provinces of China, Autonomous regions of China, etc.). Pluralisation of the article name is also highly important as there is definitely more than one SAR in China and it keeps consistency.

I personally believe the current article name is too general, and the proposed name is not only keeps consistency with other similar articles, it also removed any possible confusion with any other regions referred to by a similar name. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Papineau (electoral district)


While not getting into the issue of reverting edits without first reaching out to the original editor to understand their motivation (in this case, the deletion of a table), Earl Andrew justifies the reversion of my deletion by pointing to other articles with the same flawed table...which he created!

Examples: - the above article - Ottawa South - Edmonton Strathcona

While we're on this topic, I found an identical table with identical formatting and citation in Toronto Centre...but added by Fungus Guy!

This strikes me as possible sock puppetry. I'm hoping a more sophisticated WP editor can either confirm or deny my hypothesis.

Earl Andrew already admitted to working as a polling firm employee in Ottawa. It seems likely the same user is responsible not only for adding the content cited, but actually generating it in meatspace. This in itself wouldn't make the content non-NPOV, though one has to wonder why Earl Andrew guards Canadian electoral district pages so jealously (including the "Political Geography" sections which he invented, the topic of our last edit war). Articles about Canadian electoral districts are not Earl Andrew's soapbox and should not be treated as such.

Further, in the edit history of every single article mentioned above (only a handful, but statistically, that makes the following more damning), Earl Andrew and Fungus Guy are responsible for the lion's share of edits. While I understand that topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors, this appears to be a suspicious pattern and should be treated with all due seriousness.

  • move from results It's not a result, it doesn't belong in results. It could be interesting to a discussion of the redistribution but labelling it a result is misapplication of the source. SPACKlick (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States

Which is the best version to include, and with what changes if any? 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:State of Palestine

Please comment on the need to restructure the three overlapping and jumbled articles (previously proposed at Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal):

The particular issues to be resolved are:

  • All three contain largely overlapping detailed sections on History and Politics
  • The SoP article does not contain a number of sections which would be usual for a country article, such as:
(1) Geography and Administrative Divisions (currently in PT and PNA)
(2) Demographics (currently in PT and PNA)
(3) Foreign relations (currently in PNA)
(4) Communications and Transportation (currently in PNA)

Please comment on the proposal to move these sections between the different articles to create more cohesive and focused articles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)



For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.

Deletion discussions



Cuckservative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cuckservative" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Last AfD did not gain consensus. Subject is just another Neologism which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Article has not improved since the previous AfD, where Drmies stated "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" samtar (msg) 17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. samtar (msg) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, still. Let's not say, please, that being mentioned or even discussed in a couple of newspaper articles means that a neologism from the political cycle gains encyclopedic relevance. NOTNEWS etc. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
However, the article has WP:ATTACK problems. I suggest removing the Notable people accused of being cuckservatives section for a start. If this accusation becomes significant in any political figure's career or campaign, it might well be included as a narrative, but the Wikipedia bullet list (however well-sourced, and I haven't checked) serves only as force-multiplier for smear campaigns. / edg 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to strongly disagree, silly political neologisms are not encyclopedic. They are, however, okay over at Wiktionary. I think Wikipedia is not a dictionary sums it up. samtar (msg) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Recent consensus on Wikipedia has been fairly liberal with neologisms when they have been demonstrated as notable in independent secondary sources. I'm not personably enthusiastic about this development. Forgive the WP:OTHERCRAP, but the DINO article, which I nominated for its 5th deletion discussion, has serious WP:NEO problems, and it appears to be here to stay. RINO, which had similar problems in its early years, is now a decent (if minor) article. / edg 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete, undue weight given to a minor and current neologism. Also, this article seems fundamentally unbalanced: it has a lot of detail about the right-wing originator's rationale for the term and little about its general impact. Mainstream new sources have reported its existence and usage among a distinct group, but this doesn't give it mainstream significance.Cyrej (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect (and Weak Delete) - redirect to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative. I !voted delete at the previous AfD. There was a flurry of coverage about the word (indeed not just using the word). The list leading up to the 8/14 AfD close included, among others, Slate, Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Salon, Salon twice, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Daily Beast, Washington Post, SPLC, and The New York Times, but no indication of lasting significance. That argument could still be made, but when I search for sources with the start date set to 8/14 (end of the last AfD), I see the coverage continued, although it has tapered significantly. Hence the downgrade from delete to weak delete. There are the high-profile conservative and far-right sources, yes (for example, American Renaissance and National Review -- which also made it to the The Washington Post opinion page), but there's also Bustle, National Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Telegraph, Radix Journal, NPR (WNPR), and NewsR. So this is a notable neologism, yes. But being notable does not mean it merits a stand-alone article (see WP:N). RINO is still the better known term, so it makes more sense for that to exist than this one, but maybe the best approach would be to fold them into something like "Criticism between conservatives/Republicans" (which I didn't bother to wikilink because my wording is abysmal). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, a nice notable contribution from The Almightey Drill. Also strongly agree with comments by Edgarde re notability, and recommendations by same user as to how to improve the article quality. Significant secondary source coverage among multiple sources -- even if we limit research to those references to only those sources cited that use the term in the title headline of the article, itself. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also agree with Keep rationale comments from the last AFD, by admin BDD. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, this seems like a clear GNG pass to me. It is a very similar concept to RINO, though, so a merge to Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative might not be so bad either. And it would deserve a merge rather than just redirecting—and I don't suggest that lightly. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This probably isn't going to reach consensus, as it's a politically-charged issue, but I don't think an encyclopedia filled with American political epithets is something anyone wants. While the top-tier media coverage might suggest some sort of notability, we must take the long view that notability guidelines suggest and not mistake media infotainment (which isn't the best article to link to here) for genuine coverage. This is an entry for Urban Dictionary.-- (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Silly and deeply offensive as it is, keep per Edgarde and Cirt. For those who suggest we are sullying ourselves a la Urban Dictionary, have you ever read WP:ODD? No, really, take a look at some of the really freaky political stuff we have already. In this case, it's well-sourced, although I'd take out the WP:BLP disasters in the "persons accused" section. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on the "persons accused" section. If the term were being used primarily to describe one or two people, that could be appropriate to mention in prose, but this term seems to be used pretty indiscriminately. We don't have a similar section at the more stable Republican In Name Only. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. 'Cuckservative' survived the previous articles for deletion nomination, and this second renomination within the course of two months seems pointless and political. In contrast to several predictions made in the previous discussion, dozens of new articles have been published in reliable independent sources on the subject. The most significant new mentions include articles published in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and National Review Online. I'm not the best at formatting, so this list will be a bit messy, but here are the mind-boggling 68 reliable independent sources on 'cuckservative':

Strong Keep How anyone could possibly claim that this subject fails notability guidelines is beyond me. Denarivs (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Denarivs: You appear to have two bold text !votes above. This is likely due to my collapsing the list, which separated two lines of text. Could you remove/strike one of them? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is self-evidently notable (the list of sources above, helps to illustrate that fact). It really does seem like the intensity of the opposition to this article, stems in part, from some people's personal discomfort with it, based on their own socio-political perspectives, and obviously, such personal considerations should play no role in these matters. Does anyone really believe that there would have already been multiple nominations for deletion of this article, if everything else about it were to remain the same, but with the sole difference that it was instead a slur used against White nationalists and their sympathizers, rather than one used by them? I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but that doesn't require me to get a lobotomy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publications. Don't see how it isn't notable Rossbawse (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Closing admin, please take into account the likelihood of socking taking place on this AfD again. samtar (msg) 20:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

New articles

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2015-10-09 19:02 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

Other listings

Cleanup listing
Popular pages
Top edits watchlist
Hot Articles list (Top 20)

Related projects

WikiProject Conservatism is one of the Politics WikiProjects.

General Politics | Biography: Politics and government | Elections and Referendums | Law | Money and politics | Political parties | Voting Systems
Political culture Anarchism | Corporatism | Fascism | Oligarchy | Liberalism | Socialism
Social and political Conservatism | Capitalism | Libertarianism
Regional and national Australia | China | India | Japan | South Korea | New Zealand | Pakistan | United Kingdom | UK Parliament constituencies | US Congress | U.S. Supreme Court Cases

External links

  • This project on Commons Commons-logo.svg COM