== Binders and women == 

 See http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/17/wednesday-words-malarkey-binders-of-women-and-more and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/binders-full-women-reconsider-voting-mitt-romney for this change. Opinion pieces such as the Guardian column by Ana Marie Cox are primary source material. This is not in any way the same as a lexicographer noting that a term has become current in English. Rather, it is a pundit using a term, which is obviously detrimental and critical at the expense of a political candidate. Which makes this a violation of WP:NPOV. Aside from that, it has been less than 12 hours since the coinage of this supposedly new term. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and WP:NOT#NEWS.When a Wikipedia editor finds example of usage of a term, and uses those to build a case that X is a term for Y, that is original research, and it violates the policy WP:NOR. What you need is a reliable source which actually says, "X is a term for Y". The first is an example of an editor playing amateur lexicographer; the second is an example of what we mean by verifiability.