Talk:Cuckservative/Archive 1

Sourcing
Citing 4chan forum postings? Really? Does anyone here have the faintest clue about Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That ship has sailed. The references were put by an IP and are now gone &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we can get an article for Mansplaining, we can get an article for this. This is why I'm opposed to articles on neologisms. Akesgeroth (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All political labels, concepts, and psychopolitical symbols were once neologisms, picking and choosing what you think is worthy of cultural investigation or public lookup based on authoritative policies is not a direction Wikipedia should take if it wants to be taken seriously now and in the future by intellectually curious patrons rather than pandering to more ideologically sensitive: this article isn't up for deletion because it is offensive, this article is up for deletion because it has been the most wondrously politically subversive meme of 2015.

Really?
Shouldn't this be in Urban Dictionary instead of Wikipedia? 99.107.159.25 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a debate on this if you follow the link on the big red banner on the page. You are welcome to contribute &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Passive voice and SYNTH issues
I'll make an edit tomorrow, the content on the history of the term "cuckold" as an insult should come to the top. There needs to be changes to shorten the length of sentences and clarify them with more active voice. There needs to be clearer attribution of who said what, and less of people's opinions pushed into wiki-voice.-- Callinus (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

More Sources
Most of these sources only mention the term, but they may be useful for context or for proving notability should someone try to delete this article again. This list is not comprehensive.

The Blaze

Bustle

Carbonated.tv

Columbia Journalism Review

The Daily Beast

The Frisky

The Hayride

Mediate

National Review Online

Rolling Stone

Vox

Denarivs (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable people accused of being cuckservatives
I have deleted this list. The term is used as a slur or insult, not a factual description. It is a violation of the principles behind WP:BLP. Wikipedia should not be used to repeat insults. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4180:79EA:8547:CD30 (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Its not clear to me that WP:BLP prevents an article about a political slur, from being able to list prominent politicians who have been so slurred (as an example of what the term is intended to mean). The article is not claiming those people ARE cuckservatives;  it is merely noting that they have been so described. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you approve of a list of people who've been called "assholes"? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4180:79EA:8547:CD30 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. And in point of fact, the article asshole does list specific political figures who've been characterized by that term.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting it was a good idea. At the very least, every single entry should have a solid, WP:SECONDARY source specifically saying that X has described Y as a cuckservative. Citing a blog as a direct example is not acceptable per BLP policy regarding WP:SPS, as well as common sense, per the "asshole" example. Leaving the section out altogether is also fine. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that Lindsey Graham's IP address who made the complaint? All kidding aside, if we remove the list, then we ought to also remove Hanjian.--Cuckservative (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a bog-standard BLP violation as says. --Neil N  talk to me 14:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If your concern is to uphold the encyclopedic standards, I challenge you to remove Hanjian and any other similar list while we're at it. Regards--Cuckservative (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the people in that other list are, you know, dead. --Neil N  talk to me 14:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact the people mentioned in the cuckservative article happen to be living persons, is irrelevant, because the article is not claiming they are cuckservatives. It is simply noting them as examples of the sort of people to whom this term is commonly in reference.  KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is extremely relevant per WP:BLP, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and WP:BLPSPS. --Neil N  talk to me 14:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's what you think we're disagreeing about, then we don't have a disagreement. I was opposed to the blanking of the section in its entirety, not the removal of specific instances of improperly sourced material.  KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Neil N  talk to me 15:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these recent suggestions seem reasonable, and the article is fairly inoffensive. But it's too long and granular in my opinion, particularly for a comic slur that might not have a long shelf-life. You don't have to detail every permutation and instance. Tighten it up for now, and see if it should be expanded later on. MSVanVliet (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add here as a user who's just come across this article: I support keeping the article, but also strongly support removal of this list. It adds nothing much of use to the article; it's arguably an indiscriminate list, since I expect it could easily be much longer; and even if it is sourced, it still raises serious BLP issues. It pretty much could be entitled 'insult your Republican politician of choice here'. This term seems to be similar to Uncle Tom, Benedict Arnold and Quisling; thankfully none of those articles contain lists of living people who have been tarred with that slur, and this one should be no different. Robofish (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It is regretful to learn that this page exists
The fact that the first line points to it being a NEOLOGISM, and that there is a policy specifically against pages created about neologisms should cause the editors involved in this matter pause for thought. Looking through the citations, I see that many are describing the term in a secondary sense - which may seem fine to include as WP:NEO has an exception for such descriptive secondary sourcing - but no policy operates alone. So I'd like to also point editors towards WP:NOTDIC, which puts WP:NEO into a greater context.

Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of facts, it is not to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I put it to you that this page is WP:UNDUE as per WP:RS, the concept is not academic, and hence non-encylopedic.


 * "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

As the area of operations here is political theory - and this concept has no academic writings in that domain - and as WP:NOT seeks to prevent Wikipedia from devolving into a political hodge podge of rants and bias - I expect all responses to my comments to be based in good policy, not personal opinion. Is my reading of policy wrong - or is this pages existence wrong? That is my question, and I'd like it answered here. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you propose AfD, request an admin to silver-lock the AfD page to prevent canvassing. Google trends shows interest has declined sharply only months from the inception and rise of the term. You'll see AfD is filled with extensive discussion of "Alt-right" groups and their influence on the GOP.


 * In my opinion, it will be a topic of academic interest how much anti-immigrant groups are effective in the U.S. compared to other advanced industrialised economies (I'm in Aus). One of the keep arguments in the AfD is there should be coverage of that topic - In my opinion it was a CRYSTAL issue as well - there should be some coverage of how the far right in the U.S. operates, not just a single passing hashtag. -- Callinus (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Previous deletion discussions:
 * </ul>
 * Might be good to read these before proposing a premature 3rd AfD. (2nd AfD closed just 10 days ago.) Neither discussion led to a clear consensus. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As said before, Wikipedia is a mess when it comes to neologisms. See mansplaining or manspreading. Though I do not support keeping any of these articles, I don't think this article should be deleted until other similar articles are deleted first. Let it serve as an example of what happens when you allow this idiocy. Akesgeroth (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuckservative Definition
I made a significant edit adding 3 definitions of cuckservative + as a bonus a 4th definition out of a conservative news source in Spain. Since there is such an ocean of difference between how the term is defined by (1) left media, (2) by moderate right who've been targeted as cuckservatives, (3) by conservative right (non-racist definition), (4) by far-right/alt-right (i don't know what to call them without POV, pro-white ?) I copied out anything interesting out of 34 articles into a list found here , feel free to use it to expand this article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I recall seeing this word used with this meaning: a conservative who compromises on his principles, often to appease ideological opponents or to appear more palatable to mainstream audiences. --Stormwatch (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Using examples as sources
Many of the sources here are flimsy, especially as used in the 'Definition' section. Using these sources as specific examples of how the word is used seems like WP:OR to me, and runs into a lot of the neologism problems that have been repeatedly discussed here and in the AFDs. Return of Kings redirects to Roosh V, who is barely notable himself, and the website is a collection of blogs which are not usable as reliable sources. The Week is reliable, but it only used the term once, in passing, as a link to the Washington Post article about the term. The Hot Air piece is another blog which needs to be clearly attributed as a specific opinion. etc...

There are plenty of actual, usable sources discussing the term, but if those sources are opinion pieces, they need to be clearly attributed and held to a higher standard. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Quoting from white nationalist Richard B. Spencer without attribution, and then quibbling over whether the definition is "far-right" or merely "right-wing" demonstrates the problem pretty damn well, so I rephrased it to remove the qualifier and explain who is being quoted. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seth Rogan
I noticed in this 3 November 2015 article the author says internet far-righters were behind both the "cuckservative" meme and the #CuckRogan hashtag that lead to a boycott of The Night Before (2015 film). Does this connection warrant a mention in the article? Ranze (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We Hunted the Mammoth has been discussed on neighboring article talk pages before (I can't remember exactly where, so maybe you were part of that discussion? If so, sorry for the redundancy). The consensus was that it's not a reliable source per WP:SPS. I looked around a bit at that time, but didn't really find enough content about David Futrelle to support an article on him, so I don't think his opinion would be easily integrated into the article. There may be some mentions of it in borderline newsblogs or gossip sites or similar, but I think the connection would need to be very clearly documented by more solid sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The actual definition of the word, this article needs work.
Leftism is the demand to raise another man's child at gunpoint. And that's why conservatives who acquiesce to this demand are being called cuckservatives.

A simple definition emphasizing the aspects of evolutionary biology that this taps would be appreciated.

Again the key concept in cuck is that you are advancing someone else's genetic interests but not your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.38.179 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2015‎


 * Find a reliable source clearly supporting that definition. Blogs and similar are not reliable. Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research, so personal definitions are irrelevant and don't belong here, per WP:NOTFORUM. Grayfell (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

POV much?
"Those in the conservative media targeted by the cuckservative slur along with various moderate and left leaning news sites defined cuckservative as an anti-Christian,[3] racist slur[5][6] and rallying cry for white supremacists and "neoreactionaries".[7] In addition, it's a wildly anti-Semitic[8] pseudo-butch insult[9] fueled by anti-gay[10] sexual debasement,[11] created in part by a renaissance of toxic white masculinity,[12] tribalism,[10][13] and immature obsessions of "men's rights" victimologists[14]"

I realize this is a shitty article in an increasingly shitty online encyclopedia, but seriously, is this not a *little bit* below your usual level of quality? The second sentence, particularly, is absurd, presenting poorly informed, biased opinion as fact. I'd fix it myself, but that might involve interacting with you, something I would find deeply distasteful.184.66.4.239 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ That appears to have been removed or rewritten at some point. Equinox (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to white nationalism
There isn't a clear link between white nationalism and cuckservative. We've got the SPLC saying that cuckservative is used by white nationalists, but there are other sources (like Breitbart []) that identify it as being a word of general usage. Since the SPLC has a well known left-wing bias, it's best not to use the SPLC claim as a statement of fact. If we add it in at all, we need to clearly attribute the claim ("The SPLC claims that cuckservative is regularly used by white nationalists"...) I've reverted the edit since I also made some general improvements to the page. Denarivs (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many, many sources linking the term to white supremacy/nationalism/whatever. Most of the current sources in some way link the term to racism in their titles, no less. Are all of them biased, while Breitbart doesn't have any bias? Even if that were true, bias isn't what makes a source reliable or unreliable, see WP:BIASED. Breitbart News Network isn't a WP:RS for statements of fact. This has been discussed many places, such as WP:RS/N, so that is not a useful counter-argument in this situation. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Will readd content elsewhere in article so as to better note source bias. Denarivs (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Radix Journal quote
The attribution given in this edit is still way, way too vague. It's not even really attribution, it says info about the quote without giving any usable details. Who is the "advocate" and what's the website? The point of attribution is to explain this in the article, not just hidden in references. This is explained in WP:Quotations, MOS:QUOTE, and others.

The SPLC cite here doesn't mention cuckservative, or the article's author, or the article itself, so it's inclusion here seems like a false compromise with WP:OR and NPOV problems. It also doesn't actually say that Radix Journal is white nationalist (although I don't think anyone's denying that). It says that its founder is a racist and white nationalist, but it's sole comment about the journal itself are a passing mention that it has co-sponsored an event with the NPI and published works by like-minded ideologues. Using that source for this point in an unrelated article seems like an extreme stretch.

More importantly, I do not accept that Radix Journal is reliable, and would be willing to take this to WP:RS/N if needed. Outside of the small walled garden of academic white supremacists, there doesn't seem to be anyone even talking about it much, and even less often favorably. I see no indication of the reputation for fact checking and accuracy required by WP:RS. Even if the journal in general were reliable, the article is listed under Radix's "blog" section, rather than under its "Journal" section. There is no secondary coverage citing this quote, and the article was republished verbatim from a Wordpress blog which is itself totally unusable. I can't find any indication that Andrew W. Clark is a recognized expert of any kind that could meet WP:SPS restrictions. The article should not list a random right-wing blog's example of the term or its definitions, but should be limited to reliable sources and expert opinions, or non-expert opinions which are solidly supported by reliable, secondary sources. There would have to be some clear reason why this quote is being used other than subjective preference, and I do not see it. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, at least as far as Radix Journal's blog not being a reliable source right now. Agree with removal, though if we can find a better quote advocating for the use of the term I think we should add it. Denarivs (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

'See also' section
Seeking opinions/consensus on what links should be placed in the 'See also' section. Per WP:ALSO:
 * Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

The number of links now in that section should probably be addressed and the type of links in that section also need to be discussed. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You failed to gain consensus before making unilateral removal. Please refrain from reverting until we go through each one of them point-by-point. Would love to hear you make your case on why they're not relevant.--Make America Great Again (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of you seem to want to minimize the racial undertone of this term, yet it's listed under the "white nationalism" and "politics and race categories. Can't have it both ways, y'all.--Make America Great Again (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the see also section generally should not including things already linked in the article, which the longer list did. The point is to include things that are related but could not be intuatively linked in the article.
 * Beyond that, the whole section seems entirely arbitrary, including the ones which are already listed. Bootleggers and Baptists is connected, but in an abstract way which seems far less obvious than race traitor, and if we link to that in the body, why also link to Hanjian? Which of the terms mentioned in race traitor should we not link to, then? Betrayal seems faaar too abstract to mention, and fifth-column and collaborationism both just seem like their trying to make a point by connecting the term to other insults. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue with this is that it's listed under Category:White nationalism and Category:Politics and race, which makes white guilt, Uncle Tom, and un-American relevant. I concede race traitor shouldn't be there as it's already covered in the article. However, now that you've removed all the terms that have been there for months, why keep quisling? It has no relevance and greater importance to the article than the terms you removed. I would argue fifth column is a lot more relevant as many individuals who use this term consider cuckservatives a fifth column seeking to destroy the conservative movement from within.--Make America Great Again (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An easier solution is to get rid of the "see also" section altogether. None of the term currently listed would help any readers at this juncture. The entire section comes across as an amateur paint job.--Make America Great Again (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: to MAGA - Keeping in mind the Wikipedia guideline of WP:BOLD, I removed content, it has been reverted and now all of us get to sit down and have a discussion about the issues. The 'See also' section seemed to me to link to disparate Wikipedia articles that don't seem all that connected to the article's subject-matter.  Would welcome seeing justification for keeping the information in or not. Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * x2 I would agree to removing quisling. As I said, the whole thing seems arbitrary. If fifth column is widely connected, then there should be some mention of it in reliable sources which could be used to explain that. Otherwise, it's very cryptic. If an entry is contentious, which the whole article is, then the connection needs to be very obvious, otherwise it's proving a point. People use lots of terms and ideas in connection to the term, but not all of them are obviously relevant. Deleting the entire section works, too, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Southern Poverty Law Center's article from lead
In the article's intro, I believe the main focus should be to discuss the neologism of the word rather than alleged users of such words as it could never be all inclusive (users could be black conservatives, white nationalists, KKK, Rush Limbaugh listeners, truckers, blue collar metal shop workers, etc.) are we seriously going to bundle ALL who use this word as white nationalists? Marco Guzman, Jr Talk  15:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't says that everyone who uses the phrase is a white nationalist, only that it has become increasingly popular among that group. Many, many sources, including some already in the article, connect the phrase to racism and white nationalism. This is not just mentioning some people who happen to use it, (again, according to multiple sources) it is a defining trait of the term, and a significant part of its origins. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016
There is no evidence of white supremacists using the word cuckservative. That is just blatant political bias.

97.92.17.66 (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

U.S.-centric
This article tends to center and/or focus entirely on the United States. I'm certain there are similar epithets around the world used to describe this phenom that are encyclopedic. Marco Guzman, Jr Talk  19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is about the neologistic epithet, not the concept. If there are similar epithets around the world, wouldn't it make more sense to write articles about those epithets, rather than try and shoehorn them into this one? Do you have any sources to support this certainty? Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you missed the part of the article about Spain's version of the term? Please re-read the article, it has been there for a while. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "White Supremacist(s)" within the article
The density for the terms 'white supremacist(s)' is at 1.07% within this article, and is the highest of any article on Wikipedia. So in this article, 1.07% of all 2-word phrases are the terms 'white supremacist(s)'. This means that the density of the phrase 'white supremacist(s)' in this article is over 13 times higher than in the article about the Ku Klux Klan (0.08%), 8 times higher than the article about Nazism (0.12%), and greater than even in the article about White Supremacy (0.81%)! In the entire article about Racism in the United_States and in the article about Nazism, the terms 'white supremacist(s)' are used just twice. Yet in this article, the terms 'white supremacist(s)' are used 7 times. (I've used this tool to check the density of the above pages ) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find! Yea I think its given too much weight as well. Just because White Supremacists Do use the term, it is by no means only used by white supremacists. In fact, in large numbers it is used by non-White Supremacists. Would be worth trimming. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * White Supremacists probably drink a lot of Coca-Cola. Should we mention that on the Coca-Cola page? Of course not. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Those numbers seem way off. I'm very skeptical that an SEO site is an appropriate tool for this, but even using that site, it lists a combined density ("white suprem") at the white supremacy page of over 2%. It looks like that site including reference info when just fed a URL, which is going to throw things off. Using a word processor and ignoring refs, I found 35 uses of "white suprem" in the white supremacy page, which is much higher, even proportionally, than the count at this page.
 * Even if we accept those numbers, I'm not sure what the point of this analysis is, and it seems like a statistical gimmick. Comparing word frequencies of articles of different sizes, histories, and contexts is almost pointless. There's no threshold for how often a term should be used. Sources are very clear there is a link between "cuckservative" and white supremacists. If it's used unusually often, that may possibly be because it's not obvious from context. If sources repeatedly linked Coca-cola to white supremacy, then it absolutely would belong there, because that's not obvious and should be explained, right? Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't recall if I've edited this article, but I ended up with it on my watch list. Seeing the day in and day out reverting over this topic, I think there seems to be a lot of unilateral editing and and possibly WP:OWNERSHIP issues. There needs to be a consensus sussed out on the talk page, not dictated from on high by one editor. I get it. It's a mean word. But there seems to be more of a slanted tone in the entry in favor of demonising those who use it rather than documenting the phenomena, context and usage. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with the frequency of the phrase "white supremacist"? Isn't sussing it out on the talk page what's happening here? Since it looks like I've edited this page more than anyone else, I guess you are talking about me. I wrote very little of this article, however, and most of my edits have been reverts of people who remove content without any discussion at all, or who add unsourced (or BLP violating) content. I also did not participate in any of the three AFDs for the article. Is that ownership, or where you talking about someone else?
 * For what it's worth, I don't think the term is nearly as mean as its relatively few users would like to think it is. That seems common among non alt-right opinion pieces about the term: puzzled amusement over why it's thought to be an effective insult. Regardless, documenting the context and usage of the term must include the less flattering parts, as well as it's (well-documented) racially-charged origin. Downplaying that to avoid possibly demonizing some of the term's unnamed, hypothetical users would be non-neutral. Disagree? Okay, fine, propose some actual changes, please. If you think there's inappropriate behavior, you're going to have to be more specific, either here or at a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Connection between Racism and Interracial sex
I've added an Elucidate tag to this article regarding the claims of racism. The current implication between the two is very weak and needs to be clearly defined in easily understandable terms. Simply by virtue of tying a the concept of a negative term to a form of pornography which occasionally features persons of different ethnic backgrounds is not compelling enough. Example:


 * Are there racist terms used in this form of pornography?
 * Is there some kind of racist subtext to the setting of those plots?
 * Is there some kind of dominance/submissive interplay between the actors/actresses that could be construed as slavery?
 * Is all cuckold pornography interracial? If so, is that strong enough reason on its own to be labeled as racist? In my mind, pornography with less interracial sex would be more easily be acused of racism due to a lack of diversity and inclusiveness.

Sawta (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources say that it's racially charged, to put it mildly. Trying to define what is and is not precisely racist/racially charged would be original research. That said, the genre strongly emphasizes a power-dynamic between white women and black men which ties in with a long line of racially charged history and imagery. It's been widely documented and discussed why this genre, which mostly presumes a white male audience, is racist or potentially racist, (here's one example :) but again, the important part is that this article reflect reliable sources, not that we narrow our definition of racism for convenience. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * TBH, I'm still not 100% familiar with all of Wikipedia's guidelines/rules/etc. regarding how information should be presented. It makes sense in that vein then, that you would point to Original Research issue.  To ensure that I understand the concept of OR properly, it is essentially Wikipedia's stance that: You shouldn't present new evidence, theories, etc. on Wikipedia itself, the information should instead be provided by an outside resource, preferably with multiple citations to those sources, and the authors of Wikipedia determine whether the source is credible, right?  I use the site daily for informational purposes, but I rarely feel the need to actively contribute.


 * It's unfortunate to hear about the power-dynamic, white/black imagery thing. The reason why I was making such a point about the claim of racism is because the understanding that I had of that genre of pornography essentially this: "Another man has sex with your wife while you watch.  It's not voyeurism because you don't enjoy watching it."  Based on that information I didn't see a particularly strong race-related connection, even though black men are included in it.  I imagine there to be a large range of ethnicities in pornography due to the sheer size and scope of the industry, so simply saying "There are black people having sex with white people in it" didn't really resonate as racist to me.  I was also concerned with the charge of the term being "racist" in nature because the meaning of the word racism has been largely diluted of the importance and impact it once had.  The word is essentially just the butt end of a joke someone uses when they're mimicking an overly sensitive, thin skinned young person.  I felt that it was very important to ensure that in this case, it wasn't simply being abused like it so often is, just to assign that cheap mark of "badness" to people the author didn't like.


 * That's a fair point to make about the sources. Personally, I haven't had a chance to read up on the justification for the accusation of racism.  I don't know if I'll bother, honestly.  I don't any great interest in reading about a genre of pornography I have a visceral disgust towards, but if I do read the sources, and I do have additional questions I will refer to it before pursuing the matter further.  Thanks.


 * Sawta (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall, careful weight should be given to such a claim and kept to a minimum. It is almost exclusively detractors who claim the term is racially charged. We have to remember that just because sources exist for a claim we still have to consider proper weight. In this case, it seems off to assert that anyone using the term (or even a majority (or even a large minority)) specifically mean it in the racial way that detractors claim. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not assert that. How far do we have to bend over backwards to emphasize this one point, and why? To assuage hypothetical readers' concerns that the term isn't necessarily racist? That's not neutral. The article already uses too many weaselly equivocations to try and downplay this one aspect of the phrase, even though sources tend to agree that it's central to its origin. We don't need to try and create false balance between those who use the term and 'detractors'. Neutrality isn't served by dismissing reliable sources which are unwilling to rush to the defense of a term which is designed to be a childish insult. Regardless of the hypothetical intention of the people who use it, the term is racially loaded, and ignoring that is whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't even pretend to be NPOV.
>In addition, it's a wildly anti-Semitic[8] pseudo-butch insult[9] fueled by anti-gay[10] sexual debasement,[11] created in part by a renaissance of toxic white masculinity,[12] tribalism,[10][13] and immature obsessions of "men's rights" victimologists[14] Furthermore, a few left leaning news sites took a stab at presenting the psychopathology behind the "cuckservative" label and concluded that's it is steeped in the psycho-sexual insecurity[8] of the cuckold-porn-fluent[6] racialized castration anxieties[14] experienced by the political far-right as the break up of white male hegemony[12] accelerates even further in the second decade of the 21st century.

Come on.

82.27.120.14 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article suffers substantial left-wing POV problems as a result of consistent malicious editing by partisan editors. Better editing and reverting can help reduce the significant leftist POV that pervades the article. Denarivs (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing is likely to help this article, since we can assume the current editors think it's just fine. You could waste hundreds of hours fighting losing battles to improve the NPOV of this article, but the best course is probably to leave it alone, let it serve as an example of how broken Wikipedia has come to be. 184.66.4.239 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is well known that Wikipedia is controlled by (((leftist))) editing cartels. If you find an article referencing something like "white supremacists" it's basically a lost cause. These people are hopeless and have zero interest in objectivity. 2601:5CD:C002:1FD0:B125:C61C:59A6:37D2 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is 100% correct. Editing wikipedia has become a waste of time.  Tried to explain the 'Ukrainian Revolution' was a not a revolution but a coup based on the undisputed fact that the form of government did not change.  But no, the plain meaning of the English language cannot win an argument when it is undermines the propaganda they're trying to push.  Just don't get it confused that this is a result of 'editing cabals'... it is a direct result of wikipedia management wanting this to be a propaganda tool.  2601:47:4100:2EDC:C12B:AAE2:E98C:706D (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to all editors who post on this talkpage
WP:NPA. As in
 * '''Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * '''Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * '''Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.
 * '''Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.
 * Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. Shearonink (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Semi-protection - Richard Spencer
I've put in a request for semi protection. Looks like the last 6 or so edits/reverts have been arguing over whether Richard Spencer is a White Nationalist, White Supremacist, or an Identity Activist...Identity Politics?

There's lots of talk on here of the topic of white supremacy, and whether or not there is a WP:POV issue. Personally, I suspect that there probably is, but I see very little in the way of constructive critisicsm, and a large amount of commiseration -- editors are essentially just reverting what they don't happen to like and thumbing the other editors nose in it. E.g. "nice try" by. It's incredibly unproductive and filling up the history with garbage.

Let's bring in some civility, maintain WP:AGF when discussing our points on the matter, and come to a solid conclusion before reducing the article to edits and reverts. Also remember, this is not a forum or message board, Arguments should be based on facts and sources, not on opinion, emotions, conjecture, and insults. Sawta (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Nice try" was shorthand for "This has been discussed on the talk page to the point of exhaustion, more than once, and each time, overwhelming consensus was that, according to reliable sources, Richard Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist." When an anon IP blows past those volumes of discussion and just removes "white supremacist" from the lead in a drive-by edit, it gets exhausting to explain the entire situation every time. I can see how, to a new observer, "nice try" would come across the wrong way, but I assure you, if an editor is willing to engage in discussion on a topic, I will engage him. If an anon IP just makes one edit and disappears, I don't put in the time to explain the reversion and leave a note on the anon IP talk page anymore. It's just not worth the effort. But okay, I'll keep it less flippant next time. Rockypedia (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * White supremacy is fundamentally non-civil, and accommodating white supremacist euphemisms and PR games (no matter how "civil" the presentation) makes Wikipedia a more hostile place. WP:AGF doesn't mean Wikipedia has to accept trolling, or mindlessly accept Spencer and his ilk's pseudo-intellectual garbage at face value. That's not how civil discourse works, that's not how free speech works, and that's not how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Civility" means courteousness and politeness. It does not mean restricting oneself to views that are socially acceptable. AGF is specifically about how WPians treat each other - not about how WP treats the subject of the article. That's what BLP is for. If you want to argue for using a specific term to describe Spencer, the correct way is to reference the article about him and the discussion thereupon, and the sources thereof (which, incidentally, currently support you).


 * As for "freedom of speech", yes it absolutely does work that way. Nobody is asking you to present Spencer's views as fact, or even to provide a mouthpiece for them. However, the default liberal position is to describe people as they would like to be described (without this principle, transgender people would lack a basis to fight for their pronouns) unless and until you can argue them down, and to listen to their arguments, extend a reasonable charity of interpretation, make sure you understand them, and then present your counter-argument. Failing to do so makes it come across as if you have no such counter-argument. If white supremacists are such a fringe minority, and what they say so obviously wrong, then it ought not actually be tiring to have to rebut them every time. If self-styled liberals actually consistently did the liberal thing, they would find they have a constant stream of allies, and an easy time establishing ideological superiority. Up until perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, liberals in the US actually did so, and the KKK became a shadow of its former self as a result. I don't really understand exactly what happened to cause a sudden loss of confidence in this system. 76.64.32.197 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A link to Talk:Richard B. Spencer probably would've been helpful, yes. Comparing being a white supremacist to being transgender is false equivalence to an extreme and offensive degree which undermines credibility. Those two things are fundamentally different, and should be treated fundamentally differently. Was that a serious point of comparison? If you think the problem with being a white supremacist is that it's not "socially acceptable", than you have completely missed the point I was trying to make. Wikipedia does, actually, draw lines, and neo-Nazism is over that line, for a variety of good reasons. It's not merely socially unacceptable, it's disruptive and antagonistic and is a form of trolling. Many of these past edits to this article are from actual trolls who have already been blocked multiple times for exactly this kind of time-wasting. If you want to spend your time debating white supremacist apologists, fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political debate, so consider doing it elsewhere. I suspect you may find those debates more tedious and less productive than you're making it out to be, but I wish you luck. I'm sincere about that. I have seen glimmers of real awareness on talk pages, but it's sparse and mixed in with piles of angry hot garbage. If you want to make the case that it's a worthwhile use of time for everybody else, also, you've got your work cut out for you. Lecturing me on what is and is not "liberal" in your opinion makes far too many assumptions to be productive. Wikipedia editors should not use euphemisms (such as "identitarian" for Spencer, or "race realist" as Jared Taylor calls himself). That's all this boils down to. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and, thank you for the responses! Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner. I have trouble with keeping up with some of the articles I'm interested in editing, even with the watchlist it can be difficult. Being new to editing and the rules that go along with it on Wikipedia has not made this issue any easier.


 * , the response about the nice try comment regarding anon IPs makes sense, thanks for the clarification on that. One of my primary goals on Wikipedia is ensuring that Neutrality is maintained on especially provocative or divisive topics, so I asked mainly to ensure that Neutrality was being maintained. I don't see the area on the talk page that you're referring to about this topic being exhausted already, could you please link? I don't see one of those "archive" functions on this page so I'm a bit confused where it is, are you sure you aren't thinking of a different article talk page? I see link to White Nationalism and discussion about the overuse of the phrase White Supremacist. I haven't had a chance to closely examine the reliable resources yet. I will do so before making any edits to the area.
 * I was referring to Talk:Richard B. Spencer as far the the discussion about what Mr. Spencer is notable for and how he is described Wikipedia-wide. Rockypedia (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To a degree, I would argue against applying the term "White Supremacist" to Mr. Spencer, simply because several reliable sources have named him as much. Shouldn't the label that Spencer applies to himself hold some level of precedence when referring to him in an article? That is, if I state that my name is José, but several reliable sources, which might have a vested interest in controversy, state that my name is Pedro: Is it more neutral to refer to me strictly as Pedro, strictly as José, or: "José, commonly referred to as Pedro"? I'm of the opinion that a bland statement over solely a singular name would be the most neutral way to approach it, and I don't see why that wouldn't be applicable here as well. Again, if you can please refer me to any discussions of this that have occurred previously, please do so.


 * , (Note: This is in response to your initial comment, it appears a lengthy conversation has taken place since then.) I agree that White Supremacy has a number of issues which can create an incredible amount of conflicts when covering the subject. However, treating the subject any different from articles on say, Train Station Architecture or Conflicts in the Middle East, would be an unforgiveable precedence to set. Strict objectivity and brutally thorough Neutrality is a function that allows factual, Neutral information to be attained by anyone on the planet with an Internet Connection. It is not our job or our place to influence the opinion of the reader. Our role is to accurately project information and facts, which are then consumed by the reader. Giving into personal or emotional opinions would do a disservice to the reader, the site, and to a broad degree, knowledge itself. Information is fact. Opinion is the beliefs that individuals form based upon those facts. Under that premise, I believe it should be seen as immoral for any editor to purposefully sway or present information with a preconceived opinion on that information. Sure, bias exists within all of us and it's impossible to manage it perfectly, but we must do everything within our power to restrain and manage it, for the good of the article and the reader. The tone of your comment seriously concerns me and your ability to be Neutral in relation to the discussion and the article. Sawta (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When we say "neutral" we have to be very clear on what that means. We don't give equal time to fringe perspectives, like pseudoscience, because even presenting them at all can be a form of validation. Wikipedia is at core a reflection of reliable sources, not a clearinghouse for original research, so we do not accommodate ideas which have been rejected by published sources. By going against sources to humor Spencer's pet-euphemism for his ideology, we have to make sure we aren't subtly validating it. Since this is, by his own admission, exactly why he and his ideological partners use these euphemisms, this allows Wikipedia to be used for PR purposes, which against policy and obviously not neutral.
 * As for treating this the same as train architecture or similar, white supremacy is, by definition, hostile to non-white people, including non-white Wikipedia editors. Brutal neutrality shouldn't mean playing stupid to that reality. Civility that ignores one particular type of extreme antagonism isn't really civility, it's false neutrality. Wikipedia editors are expected to treat each other, and to treat all living people, with a basic level of respect. This necessarily means taking position which is opposed to supremacist ideology. This isn't a mere compromise, this is basic decency, but it's also necessary to preserve the integrity of the project. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguing with liberals on a wikipedia is a waste of time. The liberals always win.  This entire article is meant to be an insult against conservatives.  Every two-faced liberal in this thread knows it.  And they will continue to spew bullshit about policy anyway.  At the end of the day wikipedia is run by liberals who hate conservatives and their hatred infects every article on this site.  It's amazing to me to see 3000 year old history rewritten to suit the narrative of modern liberalism... yet I've stopped to be surprised after seeing a decade of liberal propaganism on this site.  That is why wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.  2601:47:4100:2EDC:C12B:AAE2:E98C:706D (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I love that people want to blank comments from the discussion page. This page is, in fact, abusive and meant to be.  Sorry if you don't like to hear it.  There is no doubt in my mind that the people behind this page are a bunch of liberals intentionally using this article to insult and deride conservatives.  That's relevant to the discussion here.  Quite frankly this page should be deleted as an embarrassment to Wikipedia... but the propaganists who have taken over this site have no shame.  This article is an insult to conservatives and the people hiding behind policy know full well that it is meant to be an insult.  The editors involved in this travesty are two-faced liberals pretending to be neutral while knowingly pushing disgusting and hateful propaganda.  2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting the discussion page without discussion.
 * At least pay lip-service to policy: "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary."  If you're going to pretend to follow policy then go through the process of telling me why you think SoapBox applies to my comment and not to the entire article.
 * This article is hateful. It is meant to be hateful.  The people defending this article are hiding behind policy in order to spew their hatred.  This is disgusting and wikipedia should be ashamed. 2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If this article is valid... then "Libtard" would also be a valid article? Correct?
 * Strange that Libtard doesn't seem to appear on Wikipedia. Strange until you account for the bias of the editing cartel that is. 2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. If an edit is under discussion, discuss its merits based on the quality of the source, the source's support of the claim, and the claim's weight in our article. Take side discussions to another (more appropriate) forum. czar 17:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Caution: Keep it civil please

 * I just noticed the immediate above post by which mine substantially duplicates and which I fully endorse. The bottomline is Tone it down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. We are going to "Tone it Down" in an article called "Cuckservative".  Right.  Wikipedia is full of two-faced editors hiding behind policy when they know for a fact that this article is meant to be hateful.  2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Assume Good Faith" is just a way for you to hide your hateful articles behind policy. Those responsible for an article titled 'cuckservative' are not entitled to good faith. 2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I just noticed the immediate above post by which mine substantially duplicates and which I fully endorse."
 * Funny, because your talk page clearly shows that reached out to you to back her up.  So not surprised you'd endorse her position.  That's how the editing cabals work.  I disagree with one person and they bring in 20 friends, 'outvote' anyone who disagrees, and call it consensus. I guess consensus means you have a larger circle of Wikipedia friends to reach out to then I do.  You pretend that you stumbled across this issue but you did not.  This is exactly why you don't deserve good faith.  2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did get a request to come here, and for good reason. No I didn't notice their comment before I started writing my own. Please take note of the warning posted on your talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is hateful. If you're going to block me for saying so then go for it.  This article is intended to be an insult to conservatives and you all know it.  You can hide behind policy and tell me I need to "assume good faith" all you want.  The fact is that you are arguing for an article titled 'cuckservative' so I will not assume good faith in this matter.  I assume bad faith.  I assume you're hiding behind policy in order to spread hateful, insulting, derogatory articles... because that is clearly what is occuring.  You don't get to demand good faith while you demonstrate bad faith.  Go ahead, call your horde of biased liberals down on me and pretend that ganging up is the same thing as consensus.  But don't tell me I owe you good faith when you're defending an article titled 'Cuckservative'. 2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does this article exist
While other equivalent ones like "libtard" don't exist? 188.24.141.178 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Every topic is judged on its own merits based on whether each has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) There are four deletion discussions linked at the top of this page with more specific detail on this article's sourcing and policy arguments. But mind that this talk page is for discussing improvements to this specific article. If you have general questions about Wikipedia, the WP:Teahouse is the best place to ask. czar  16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An obvious mistake in the first sentence
If Wikipedia has to include such topics it at least should try to avoid appearing totally clueless about them. Anyone who's been on the internet over a week knows that "cuck" is not synonymous with "cuckservative". The former term is a general insult directed at any male that the "alt-right" doesn't like, while the latter only concerns a significantly smaller subset of them. 217.66.154.89 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this your opinion, or do you have a source for this assertion? Rockypedia (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As ever, Google obliges:
 * "Now, it is a catch-all among the alt-right, in the dark corners of the internet where #feminismisacancer hashtags are a badge of pride and the real enemy is PC culture, where “cuck” has become shorthand for any perceived weakness, or rather, perceived reluctance to exploit strength."
 * https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-white-men-love-calling-people-cucks
 * "Cuck basically means liberal now. But not just liberal: Weak, feminine, politically correct, and generally un-Trump-like."
 * https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8ge95a/actual-cuckolds-are-pissed-off-at-the-far-right-using-cuck-as-an-insult 217.66.154.89 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those two sources do not appear to support your opinion that "The former term is a general insult directed at any male that the "alt-right" doesn't like, while the latter only concerns a significantly smaller subset of them," sorry. The Vice article actually appears to support the view that the two words are interchangeable, if you read the whole thing, so it's really running counter to your argument. Rockypedia (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to demonstrate the difference. Both terms are applicable when directed at a mainstream conservative, but it would make no sense to insult, for example, a Hillary supporter as a "cuckservative", while "cuck" obviously (to an alt-righter) applies. 217.66.154.89 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your opinion. You need a reliable source to state what you're offering, and then it can be added to the article. Please read WP:RS for more on this. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While there probably doesn't exist a "reliable" source which would fully describe the actual current use, it being offensive slang and all, the quotes I presented are still much less inaccurate than the total equivalence that the article currently implies. If everybode else is fine with it then there's nothing more to be done. 217.66.154.89 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are currently 24 reliable sources listed in the references section of this article. I would rethink my approach to this if I were you. Rockypedia (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Reliable according to whom? Source for their reliability? I spend alot of time on 4chan and youtube and can assure you that cuck is way broader in its usage than cuckservative. Obviously cuck can standalone while cuckservative cannot by definition. Any source for "often shortened to "cuck""? You will not find a survey giving you precise information on this particular question.

Source for the usage of cuck: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cuck, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuck. Why cuck was combined with conservative should be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.50.152 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are completely right. This whole article should be removed in favor of "cuck", which is the far more popular term, and not at all synonymous with "cuckservative". This article currently reads like a thorough misunderstanding and is completely misleading. 2001:16B8:2C92:CC00:1192:2630:D61C:F552 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bias
At the bottom of the article it says "Alt-right: anything the extreme left deems disagreeable regardless of fact." Can somebody remove that? 2001:BB6:7A09:5B58:19FD:7B3:2468:B934 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. The offending text came from vandalism to a template that was transcluded here. I've reverted the template back to normal, but it may take a little bit of time to show up on this page because it's not a direct change. Thanks for pointing out the problem! <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 18:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

First result for "define cuck" in google
Not really a wiki issue but still worth mentioning in my view, because this page comes up as the first result for "define cuck" in google. Yet the term "cuck" is overwhelmingly a term used against the left, rather than conservatives.

It shows 100% bias in google's search and therefore deserves a link to the 'true' usage of cuck in the lead for this article. If you disagree with this I claim you are not being politically objective. If it were a left wing term being reversed like this there is absolutely not way wiki editors would allow it to stand without some kind of un-ambiguating link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.49.151 (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Article should be removed in favor of "Cuck"
This article should be removed in favor of a new one on "Cuck", which is the far more popular word. While it's completely obvious to anyone knowing internet memes and culture, if you need an outside source: "Cuck" has over 22 million results in Google, "Cuckservative" only 200,000. 2001:16B8:2C92:CC00:1192:2630:D61C:F552 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. "Cuckservative" is clearly derived from "cuck," which is short for cuckold and basically means a weak male. A "cuckservative" is a so-called conservative who is a "cuck."Bizud (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet"

I think we know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.49.151 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

how the actual hell
How in the actual hell is the term “cuckservative” anti-Christian or in any way offensive to Christians?? 184.53.32.151 (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be. Christians tend to be much more racist.
 * https://prospect.org/article/religious-people-racist/
 * https://sojo.net/about-us/news/donald-trump-how-tycoons-message-racism-and-hatred-has-struck-chord-evangelical
 * "anti-christian" should be removed from this article. -50.243.42.201 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The word nowadays applies to Trump and the Republican Party in general
While it may have meant opponents of Donald Trump in 2016, it largely applies to Trump and the modern GOP in 2020. AHC300 (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as you supply reliable sources to which that claim can be cited, feel free to add that. Jlevi (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)