Talk:Cuckservative
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cuckservative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | On 29 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cuckservative to Cuck (insult). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
How the hell...
editIs this here? PS: Kek 2601:19A:4400:218C:120B:A9FF:FE61:EFBC (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, i do not know if i should even write this here, but this should not exist on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.16.109 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- It should exist if it is noteworthy and correct, but it arguably is not. This term is also used by leftists as mockery based on studies which state that conservatives are more likely to fantasize about sharing their wives. Asserting that it is used only by conservatives is a distortion of facts. Drinkypoo (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Drinkypoo: Can you share the PubMed links to said "studies"? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Cite Error
editThere is a big red cite error listed at the bottom. @Captain Pingu, it appears your edit did so. I don't want to do a blanket revert, but could you correct said? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nevermind.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 29 April 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Cuckservative → Cuck (insult) – I'm pretty sure the term "cuckservative" has not been used by anyone since 2016. A cursory Google search shows that the last news articles to use the word "cuckservative" to be in 2015 and some in 2016.
Meanwhile, the insult "cuck" has been regularly used for years by now, such as these recent examples: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/11/zuck-is-a-cuck-why-is-elon-musk-borrowing-insults-from-white-supremacists https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d93x5/cuck-obsession-jeff-bezos https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a26426435/cuck-meaning-definition/
If the page is moved to just being about the insult "cuck" in general- with a section on the longer word "cuckservative" that was used from 2015 to 2016, then it could be broader, longer, and more in-depth. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, page should be rehashed into the "cuck" insult, with a small section for cuckservative (what a sentence).--Ortizesp (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The trouble with this is that the sources in this article are talking about the word cuckservative. An article about the insult 'cuck' could potentially be written, but my impression is that cuck as an insult and/or sexual fetish was in use prior to the term 'cuckservative' being coined - certainly Google NGram shows an uptick in its usage from 2014-ish onwards, but it was used in one context or another quite a bit before that. The word is, I think, a straigtforward abbreviation of cuckold, rather than an abbreviation of the portmanteau. Once a new article for 'cuck (insult)' has been written, it may then be desirable to merge the content of this article into that one, but that's not a page move. Happy to change my view if good evidence comes forward to demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong. Girth Summit (blether) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not the only (or primary) use of "cuck" as an insult. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't "cuck" simply a shortened form of cuckold? An article about that already exists (and refers to this article for further information about "cuckservative"). What would be the distinction between this article and that one? Should they be merged? — BarrelProof (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Support - This single barely noteworthy pejorative does not need a dedicated article. It seems much more appropriate to incorporate it into a larger one discussing the far more widely used parent term. Durchbruchmüller 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)- Oppose This article is not about "cuck" or "cuckold" as an insult. It is restricted to cuckservative. You should write an article on "cuck" and then merge "cuckservative" into it. "cuck" predates "cuckservative", and has a broader usage and meaning. Or just merge this article into cuckold -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)