This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I edited the description of Votergate because it was factually incorrect. and silly.
I removed the following items because they scored extremely low on the google test: AWOLgate (33 hits), Cocainegate (5), Gennifergate (3), Hairgate (35), Lancegate (23), Passportgate (36), Peanutgate (7), and Winegate (29). Just so you know, the other examples retreived between 400 and 25,000 hits. Kingturtle 03:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following: (linguists call this process back-formation) A back formation produces burgle from burglar. It does not apply here. Wetman 04:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User:Gzornenplatz declares that "articles should not address the reader." To avoid the appearance of sinning, one can use expressions like "See also" "Compare" and "An alternate interpretation is..." Wetman 19:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
there is precendent in wikipedia to simply have articles of suffixes be written as: -cide, -cycle, -cracy, -ic, -ism, -ist, -ography, -oid, -ology, -omics, -onomy, -onym, -philia, -phobia, -scope, -stan, -ware.
Maybe this article should be named simply -gate. Kingturtle 23:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although the term Nipplegate has been used by major news agencies like CNN, I still think the "gate" term should be confined only to political scandals. If every news story that breaks out gets a "gate" suffix, the list of gates in Wikipedia would never end. Let's stick to politics, shall we?
It does not demonstrate what it is setting out to demonstrate if it does not show news services actually coining and using these terms. Every "-gate" term should be accompanied by a citation of a news service using the term. Terms for which no news citations are provided or can be found should be mercilessly excised. Uncle G 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I think all the "gates" that have no citation and aren't even well known events should be removed. This article looks like a joke because of inclusion of such things as "fajitagate". I find it hard to believe anyone has used this term outside a small circle of friends, or maybe one reference in a newspaper. Entries like these are obviously one of the reasons why this article was nominated for deletion. (though upon further research it appears that there are references to this in the San Francisco Examiner)
The question, I think is "is this article supposed to reference "gates" that are widely known across a region, or just any old "gate". I see references to "gates" that haven't even happened in English speaking countries. Since this is the English wikipedia, I'm not sure listing "gates" in non-english speaking countries is appropriate.
I do think this page is worthy of wikipedia however. The Daily Show has gone as far as having an entire segment about a presidency needing a "gate" controvery. I find this evidence that the "gate" phenomenon has reached the popular culture, and should have a wikipedia entry for it. Can we get some more opinions on a cleanup, and then maybe someone can delete a large portion of the largely unreferenced ones?
At the very least I think the initial section should list the "well known" gates, and the minor ones should be either deleted or be listed in a different section. In my estimation this would include Watergate, Irangate, Contragate, Billygate, Filegate, Memogate, Travelgate, possibly Monicagate Zippergate and White Water Gate (though these scandals weren't generally referred to as "gates"). I'm not familiar with all the Canadian, UK, and regional US "gates" to have any idea if these are widely known even inside these regions/countries. More input on which are the definitive "gates" would be appreciated. Vellmont
I seperated the well known scandals from the lesser known or disputed scandals. I believe this is a first step in cleaning up this page into something that's a lot more useable rather than just looking like a listing of "any scandal name+gate" page. There's likely some I don't think are well known that actually are well known, so someone might want to edit the list somewhat. It's likely my view of what's well known is very US centric as well. Despite this, there clearly has to be some kind of distinction made, so that's why I went and seperated the list.
I removed all the bullet points in front of each cite because I thought it made the article much harder to read. Bullet points should distinguish items in the list, and having one for each cite is only confusing. There's still some items that need the cites listed properly.
I did a second edit that shortened some extremely long summaries of each scandal. A summary should be one.. or very rarely two sentences. Anything more makes the article difficult to read, and messy. If a reader wants more information they should go to the linked article. If anything I think there's room to shorten many of these summaries even further. Vellmont 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Dropped by the scandals page to see if there were categories for maybe police scandals - which are political scandals not involving politicians, other than may a Solicitor-General or Attorney-General (here in Canada the cabinet post which governs/runs the police/court system), so don't fit the "political scandal" category. So I came upon the list of -gate scandals and saw the "widely recognized" list, which (sans descriptions) is
I'm well-informed and follow the news; the only terms in that list which strike me as "widely recognized are Irangate - always better known as Iran-Contra - and Rathergate; Nannygate and Billygate I've heard of but I wouldn't consider those "widely recognized". Plamegate internationally is the Plame Affair or (now) the Rove affair/case.
Point is, just because something is "widely recognized" in the United States doesn't mean it's widely recognized everywhere; IMO Wikipedia should strive to not make America-first assumptions in terms of what or who is famous/well-known/important, i.e. to all wikiwebreaders. Skookum1 18:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for a record. Postdlf 01:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is Coingate listed under both the widely recognized and the less widely recognized sections? Cynicism addict 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the combination could be made more smoothly rewinn 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn
I contend that some of the sources listed sound highly suspiscious, although the scandals and their names are probably legitimate. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely the division is rather subjective? The Fettesgate affair (which I intend to write an article on btw!) seems much more notable to me than the publicity stunt with the singer's tit slipping out! Other than the original Watergate and maybe Irangate and Muldergate, surely they are all debatable in their importance? The current division looks somewhat US-centred. -- Guinnog 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What about " Calciogate", the scandal in Italy regarding the football teams of Juventus and Co. ?? -- CdaMVvWgS 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have much time right now, but I noticed the page doesn't link to the Pardongate scandal involving FALN members in 1999 with Bill Clinton. 64.131.23.31 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this -gate construction of scandal naming, rather than traditional wording of scandals (i.e Iran-Contra Scandal Versus Contragate or Irangate) a scheme designed to eliminate thought or inquiry by using the indicitive emotion of a "-gate" suffix? I dunno, it's interesting, at the least, and might deserve a mention on the page.
I added this entry to the main-page, a little verbose I think. I will write the page for Waterkantgate and shorten the entry. Waterkantgate is one of the most recognized German political scandals, ending in death for one of the politicians involved. There are similarities to Watergate, e.g. illegal phone taps. Ruedigers 00:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line from Rathergate about the scandal being that CBS accepted forged documents as real without verification, and not that the allegations were untrue. I mean, if that's not a biased statement, I don't know what is! The only "evidence" peresented in favor of the allegations was the memos, which are demonstrably forged! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
"This new label has sometimes stuck but often a new name is used."
Does new actually mean different? What on earth does this sentence mean?
138.243.129.4 09:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely NOT a widely recognized term. I had never heard it that way before, and I was following the whole thing very closely as it happened. A google search turns up only 616 hits, only 350 of which are unique. By contrast, Plamegate turns up 500,000 hits.-- RemoWilliams 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one have heard this reference many times. It was probably fairly popular because one just needs to prepend "White" to the original scandal name.
I have to wonder if we want count of Google hits to be the sole arbitor of inclusion. Joe 21:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bias, Bias, Bias. If the only source of information for something is what perhaps could be called The Dead Tree Collections (print-only) or The Background Sound Machine (radio), then "everyone" may now of something and BINGo... But It's Not Google-able becomes a reason for de-Wiki-ing information (What I Know Is, what the Admin-super-editor doesn't know is to be s-p-e-e-d-i-l-y deleted). User:unSpeedy2009 14:42, 4 Aug 2009 (UTC)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=57969&in_page_id=34
Should this be included? -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
These two (Spygate and Videogate) are actually the same scandal (The New England Patriots video-taping the New York Jet's Signals). Adarsharon ( talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now the following are listed: Spygate, Jerezgate and Rascassegate.
I think the following should also be mentioned, I will make the request for these articles on the Formula 1 portal if they do not already exist:
-Michelingate 1: 2003 season scandal relating to improper tire-wear on the Michelin tire compounds -Michelingate 2: The better-known of the Michelin scandals, resulting in the partial boycott of the 2005 United States Grand Prix -Buttongate1 / Buttongate2: The scandals relating to Jenson Button's contractual wranglings with Honda and Williams. The Dunnie ( talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I added Bonusgate to the list, and even though it is a Pennsylvanian political scandal, the term is unique (so far) and is widely used and reported (7,350 Googlehits just now). If you need further justification, just check out the article about it. -- RedShiftPA ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
These are emergent names for the scandal surrounding the BC Legislature Raids, which is the "home" article for the scandal currently but I've got a move/rename proposal in because the scandal is about more than the raids or the associated legal case (still torturously in the pretrial phase). Ledgegate when googled gets about six hits, Railgate only about three.....this is a sign of the degree to which the major media, normally quick to label/tag anything they want to hype, have been doing their best to ignore/muffle the scandal. Railgate, though the newer term, seems now more appropriate because it's the sale of BC Rail that's the focus of the scandal, rather than the raids on the Ledge themselves (that's what we call the British Columbia Parliament Buildings) Anyway, once the dust settles and one of these two terms "gels", it should be added to this list; it's a well-known scandal, but these names aren't well-known, but there's no other name to use.. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the "disputed" list altogether because if something is disputed that means it isn't reliably sourced. Please add the undisputed, reliably sourced, items back. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems I'm finding sourcing Chinagate is that the term is used widely on conservative blogs and the like it doesn't seem to be mainstream at all. I just cannot find any mainstream newspaper references to the term, which might indicate that it has a certain minimal currency. I'm reluctant to source to blogs and the like because a blog entry is here today but in five years time it may have vanished entirely, whereas you can go to a library and ask to see a newspaper in their archives, often going back well over a century. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This description seems inaccurate, Ian Brodie hasn't actually revealed any documents to the media, and further to that so far he's only been alleged to have gossiped about Clinton reassuring the canadian government not to worry about her anti-NAFTA rhetoric.
"NAFTAgate [1]- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie reveals to the media a document leak revealing that the Canadian government should not worry about U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric."
perhaps the following would be a better type of description: "Sources alleged that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie revealed to the media that the Canadian government had apparently received reassurances from the Clinton campaign that her anti-NAFTA rhetoric should be taken with "a grain of salt". Later, an internal Canadian government memo is leaked to the media which suggests that the Obama campaign also contacted the Canadian government to play down Obama's own anti-NAFTA rhetoric."
what do you guys think? Jozsefs ( talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What if there was a scandal involving water? Personally, I loath the -gate suffix. It's lazy journalism. Watergate had nothing to do with Water. If there was another "scandal" at The Watergate Hotel, would it now be Watergategate? MrMarmite ( talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't mentioned in the article. Please add it, if you think it fulfills the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.254.123 ( talk) 09:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He tends to mention a few things Bush did every day and tack -gate onto them, like FEMAgate, Miersgate, FISAgate, etc. Should this get in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockingbeat ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You are missing this famous Canadian scandal involving the federal Liberal Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.133.77 ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article is missing some important incidents with the "-gate" suffix:
That took a rather long time to compile. I hope someone can add these incidents soon. Greggers ( t • c) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no citing for this source; it seems like hacking. It should either be cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.76.62 ( talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, Watergate itself is not on this list. 68.249.7.50 ( talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Anonymous
After following this story since it unfolded, especially on both liberal and conservative blogs, I've get the feeling that the Gatesgate dubbing is used by those who support Prof. Gates' position on the events that unfolding leading up to and including his arrest and Stupidgate is used by detractors of Pres. Obama's remark that police "acted stupidly" in their handling of the event. SonPraises ( talk) ( contributions) 04:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Missing "Garbagegate"; see Google Books for examples. 86.153.8.180 ( talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Rubbergate must be considered only an alternate term. As discussed at the House banking scandal talk page, a Google search shows that Rubbergate appears less the a couple percent of the time as the name of this scandal.
Also the term "bad check" does not correctly apply. The term is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as "A check which is dishonored on presentation for payment because of no, or insufficient, funds or closed bank account. Writing or passing of bad checks is a misdemeanor in most states." In the House banking scandal, all of the checks were honored, which was the real source of the problem. The overdrafts were accepted without penalty.
Accordingly, I am reverting the changes made to the Rubbergate entry by 68.39.174.238.
the article on this affair is called the 'cunningham scandal'. none of the references cited there use the term 'hookergate', nor does the text of the article. prostitutes were apparently a very small part of the story. you've got one journalist cited using the term. i would suggest a/ this is sensationalism,(bribery makes for ho-hum reading compared to sex) b/ it's just beefing up the numbers of this list, c/ unless the term can be substantiated significantly, it should go.
This list has accumulated a lot of crap added by people with axes to grind. So let's have some ground rules:
- Must be a serious accusation of wrongdoing causing major political fallout - No corruption scandals occurring within a company. - No local politics. - No scandals created by a marketing department as a way of using controversy to get attention.
Those sound pretty extreme, but a lot of things here met one of those criteria. I'm going to start removing entries as I work through the list, but feel free to help out when you see bogus entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlbtlbtlb ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A large number of entries was recently removed, citing "obvious PR". While I agree that the list has become somewhat long, and many of the entries should be removed, the ones removed recently seem somewhat abritrary. Entries that are made primarily for self-promotion (as opposed to PR, per se) should be removed. But entries for events that are already widely publicized in reliabe sources should remain, regardless of whether someone or some group would receive either positive or negative PR. My suggestion for the inclusion criteria would be that the entry was widely publicized in reliable sources and is of general interest on a national or international level. Scandals that are only known within a special interest group, or in a more localized area should not be included. Dhaluza ( talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this worthy of list inclusion? While the first source doesn't actually use the term "Beachballgate", the second does... However, the event itself merits only three sentences in the Liverpool F.C. season 2009–10 article and never uses the term. It think it's safe to say that this is an example of something for which you can find reliable sources that might use the -gate term, but it's not notable enough for inclusion. — Scien tizzle 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Beachballgate — Controversy surrounding a beach ball that was thrown by a Liverpool fan, causing a football, kicked by Darren Bent of the opposing team Sunderland, to deflect off the beach ball into the net.[ 12][ 13
Guys, please be careful with removals. I understand that it is annoying if this list is getting constantly spammed with minor or alleged scandals, but the last cleanup (accidentally) even removed Dunagate (one of the biggest Hungarian polit scandals) and Irangate (possibly the most famous -gate after Watergate).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The lede calls this a list of scandals, implying that any vent with a -gate" suffix must rise to the level of a scandal. Many are, to be sure, but some do not appear to rise to that level, and might be more properly labeled "controversies". In fact, based upon a quick perusal of the list, many do use the term "controversy" and not all use the term scandal. (A proper review would include checking all the references, which should be done if there's any support for my proposal.)
I suggest that the lede should be modified to something like:
This is a list of alleged controversies named with a "-gate" suffix, by analogy with the Watergate scandal. In some cases, the incident was serious enough to be labeled a scandal.
I note in sections above there are proposed ground rules for inclusion. While rules for inclusion are valid, we must be careful not to appoint ourselves the gatekeepers (pun intended) of what should qualify as an acceptable x-gate. An encyclopedia is, by definition, descriptive, not prescriptive, so we should be noting what the world is using for appellations, not deciding what can be used. To be sure, we have rules on inclusion, but the usual criteria of notability apply. Declaring that we would exclude a term simply because a marketing department coined it is out of bounds. If it passes notability, it should be included.
I must note a potential for bias - I visited this article because of the latest flareup of the climategate naming issue. While my last declared position was opposed to a renaming, I find the argument wanting that Climategate fails because it implies scandal. It is my observation that a -gate suffix generally implies controversy, sometimes rising to the level of a scandal. If other agree that this is an accurate description of the world of -gates, then a rewording of the lede is in order.
In view of the possibility of varied opinions regarding the change, I have opted to start with the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD, rather than starting with a bold change.-- SPhilbrick T 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose a new criterium for inclusion in this list: the name with the suffix -gate must be mentioned in the WP article about the particular scandal. What do people think? - BorisG ( talk) 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article says, "Climategate" is "A term used by some to refer to the hacking of a computer server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Thousands of e-mails and other documents stolen and released into the public domain. Based on these documents, allegations were made that some scientists involved in climate change research have falsified data to support their theories, and destroyed data that refutes them.[26]"
This is just completely false, and surprisingly so. "Climategate" is the name given by climate change skeptics to describe apparent scientific misconduct as evidenced in the contents of the leaked/hacked emails.
Is it OK if I fix this up? Alex Harvey ( talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in adding crygate for the Miami Heat episode?
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Miami-Heat-Big-Three-can-grow-from-current-woes-030711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.192.85 ( talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that only scandals that are big enough to have their own article can be included in the list? I thought any scandal in a Reliable Source can be listed. If this is the consensus, it is obviously not being applied to the section of the fictional scandals. Victor Victoria ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that there isn't an entry for Weinergate yet. Is that just because nobody has thought to do it, or is there some reason to hold off on that? It seems like the term has certainly already entered our vocabulary. Tbear1234 ( talk) 11:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) And it seems like an entry has been made, so issue resolved. Tbear1234 ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That one seems to have been left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.146.1 ( talk) 03:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Cleveland Catholic Bishop called the Jan 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.201.187 ( talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the "-gate" suffix has become synonymous with scandal. As such, I don't think simply using the suffix is enough to merit inclusion this list. A good number of the items on the list are not generally known by a "-gate" suffix. This list includes many "controversies" which are trivial, not widely reported, sourced to dubious sources, or only mentioned in passing. Looking at the first few entries on the list:
And so on. I suggest the list be cleaned up to remove the scandals which have been recognized with the "-gate" appellation by only a single sentence in a single source. Feedback? aprock ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Cleveland Catholic Bishop called the Jan 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.201.187 ( talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the "-gate" suffix has become synonymous with scandal. As such, I don't think simply using the suffix is enough to merit inclusion this list. A good number of the items on the list are not generally known by a "-gate" suffix. This list includes many "controversies" which are trivial, not widely reported, sourced to dubious sources, or only mentioned in passing. Looking at the first few entries on the list:
And so on. I suggest the list be cleaned up to remove the scandals which have been recognized with the "-gate" appellation by only a single sentence in a single source. Feedback? aprock ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the desire to distinguish major from minor scandals, but the current structure seems rather US-centric (all foreign gate scandals appear under "other"), but more importantly it is not at all clear by criteria something appears under "major scandal" and by what criteria it appears under "other scandals". I mean is this purely a single editor's choice? The result of an editorial consent? Is there any hard or soft criteria applied to classify the gate scandals?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Kmhkmh. The two separate groupings should not be maintained. If there is going to be some criterion such as "referenced in 20 news articles" for the "widely recognized" scandals, this will impose an inordinate amount of work on editors. In any event, it cannot be said that this verification has been carried out for each - or indeed any - of the scandals listed. In many cases, we can probably agree that this verification could be carried out, but one's appreciation of the obviousness of this will depend largely on personal familiarity with the scandals. So far the list does appear very U.S.-centric. Perhaps more importantly, the article seems to imply falsely that the other scandals are not widely recognized, when in fact they have simply not yet been verified to be "widely recognized" by Wikipedia. In short, the status of scandals as belonging to one category or the other cannot be easily verified. In its current state, the list is not an accurate reflection of the categorization "widely recognized" vs. "not widely recognized", and therefore misrepresents the situation to readers. Making the list accurate would entail a debate and agreement on criteria, as well as long investigations into each of the scandals listed, including those "not widely recognized". Realistically, this is unlikely to happen, and the result will be an article that remains inaccurate, probably permanently. The distinction, even if accurately reflected, would be of limited, if any, usefulness to readers. For the reader, there is even a downside, which is having to look through two lists rather than one. 96.46.204.126 ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed that for now since afaik it is not really used in serious media (yet) nor is it mentioned in the target article of the wiki link. The daily mail (low quality yellow press) as the sole source, which in addition only uses the term in quotes, isn't sufficient for an inclusion here.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on what is meant by or "serious mainstream media publication" here. If someone could clarify the threshold for sourcing required for this list, then that standard could be applied to all the sources. As it is, the current listing criterion appears to allow the use of any source which uses a -gate suffix. If that's not the criterion, then I suggest it be updated. Personally, I would remove many of the items on the list, but until we have an objective listing requirement it's difficult to justify that. aprock ( talk) 21:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I should add, that I would certainly endorse updating the listing criteria, especially if it was based on a secondary source. aprock ( talk) 21:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Prime Minister's Office Civilian Surveillance Incident is recently getting noticeable in the South Korean public again. There's no such thing as Leegate or Lee Myung-bakgate. But is it ok to put this incident as Watergate of Korea in this article? Komitsuki ( talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd find it extremely interesting to also find the first mention of each "gate", whenever possible. It might help illustrate the inflational use by the media, and I'd be surprised if it were completely decorrelated with the tendency of certain news outlets to escalate events to scandals. I wonder if there's enough hard data for this to actually work, though. -- 172.218.117.171 ( talk) 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article for the Coal Mining Scam [1] mentions three sources that use the name "Coalgate". I think this warrants inclusion in the list.
98.119.117.183 ( talk) 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
References
i created Yomagate please check it out and add it to your list Vjiced ( talk) 06:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is the discussion on the William Connolley hijacking of Wikipedia? Furthermore, where's the discussion on "Wikigate" being used as a title for the Wikileaks affair? Hm... see: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ for more details/ Dragoon91786 ( talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous IP user recently added "Obstructiongate" related to the 2013 World Series. No reference was cited and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any use of this term outside of some internet forums. If someone can provide credible sources for this naming of this controversy, please do so, otherwise this one will need to be struck. — DeeJayK ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I deleted
Because the sources are unreliable. The first is a self-published blog, against Wikipedia policies; moreover it is written as opinion, not fact, and it a rant with many exclamation points and draws conclusions he desires that are beyond the evidence he presents. The second is an opinion piece that absurdly claims that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent: another highly partisan rant, but not news. If someone wants to repost this item, find a reliable source. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Technically, Watergate itself shouldn't be in this list as the "-gate" part isn't a suffix. A scandal to do with water would be Watergate; a scandal to do with the Watergate hotel (assuming a -gate suffix) would become Watergategate. Darac Marjal ( talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we add Colgate to this list? There is something seriously wrong with this toothpaste. Gorba ( talk) 21:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A list like this might be useful. 173.58.47.102 ( talk)
Please note each section is now in sortable-table format - default sort is alphabetical, but you can just click to resort by year. Jinnayah ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It was a big scandal in Kansas City when Mayor Mark Funkhouser's wife Gloria Squitiro called one of her secretaries " mammy". The event and subsequent lawsuits that occurred are often (in Kansas City) often referred to as "Mammygate." KMBC-TV covered the event very well, and a section should be created for this. Their archives on their website can help the writer.
Jinnayah ( talk) 04:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC): Done
one of the dumber articles on Wikipedia. 71.221.67.50 ( talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the "gate" suffix is just a textbook case of hack journalism. Not something suitable for an encyclopedia article. 184.88.58.7 ( talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody add Deflategate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.33.93 ( talk) 07:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Related to the previous section; suggest inclusion of the Gamergate controversy Article under the Technology section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a rule of thumb when it comes to reliable sources. If you were doing a research paper for an academic course, would you use this source? If you answered no to that question, then the source is probably not reliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please remember this when making edits to articles, including this one.-- EggyEggPercent ( talk) 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Surprised that there is no mention of Plebgate. Already a substantial Wikipedia article on it - suggest add a link under politics.
~~Traskold~~ [27-09-2015 19:55] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.167.192 ( talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Already there, but alphabetizing is screwed, because it's listed as "Gategate or plebgate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.7 ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the problems we face with Gamergate is that we've been drawing a distinction between the Gamergate controversy - which is primarily about sexism in parts of the video game community - and the Gamergate movement, which is a movement that at least describes itself as being about ethics in games journalism and ant-feminism/anti-social justice critique. At the moment we have three descriptions that we've had some edit warring over. The first is:
That is accurate in regard to our article on the controversy, but doesn't match the Gamergate movement aspect. The second is:
That, however, suffers from only describing part of the movement, and ignores the controversy. The third is:
I prefer the third because it acknowledges both why Gamergate is controversial, while also acknowledging what the movement is about. This reflects the current source we've been using, [13], but isn't specific to the Gamergate controversy article. I'd rather not go for either of the first two description because they only tell the story from one side, unless the intent here is specifically to highly the controversy aspect. Any thoughts? - Bilby ( talk) 04:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Support description which includes both journalistic ethics and sexism aspects; per
WP:NPOV. The addition of "alleged" to one of these aspects, but not the other, however, appears POV-sided. Suggest striking it, giving: A controversy regarding sexism in video game culture,
Alternatively support the same without the social criticism aspect. I also would like to thank
Bilby for having raised this here, facilitating discussion & formation of consensus. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 11:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
alleged questions about journalistic ethics, and reactions against social criticism of video games.
Based on the discussion, I agree that we need to stick to sources and reflect the current Gamergate controversy article. Our current article leads with "A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture.", we should also lead with that. However, our article goes on to say "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics." That is also reflected in the New York Times article which we are using as as source for the entry here, as it says that Gamergate is "a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." Merging the two, we get:
The "perceived" is to reflect the WP article, as it goes on to highlight justified questions of the movement's claimed ethical violations. That said, I think it is best to reflect the lead of the Gamergate controversy article and the main source we're using, so we need to both describe what Gamergate is about and highlight the major controversy surrounding it. - Bilby ( talk) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Commentators from the Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, have dismissed the ethical concerns that Gamergate have claimed as their focus as being broadly debunked, calling them trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry.
Commentators ... dismissed ... calling. Commentators provide opinions, not fact. These statements are also sourced and attributed as opinions in the Gamergate controversy#Debate over ethics allegations section of the article. Per WP:NPOV, it would be improper for us to include them here as facts.
Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among othershave considered this a sufficiently important aspect of the controversy to present opinions on it. I'd suggest that these sources, the other sources used at the article, and the two sources which have been referenced here, all of which include coverage of the ethics aspects, are sufficient for us to consider this reliably sourced.
A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture, as part of a culture war encompassing social criticism of video games and what some perceive to be ethical violations in the gaming press., I have a few thoughts.
Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. If this is not a major or commonly held viewpoint, then one questions its place there. And therefore, also, here. I would be comfortable dropping that section.
claims that the gaming press engaging in social criticism are committing ethical violationswording. It appears a POV-sided "straw man", which isn't supported by reliable sources. (See: WP:NPOV@ WP:IMPARTIAL; WP:NOR(@ WP:SYNTH)).
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.In the first section of the policy, WP:YESPOV, we have
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability.
uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions(and that the topic not
specifically deal with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information). I suggest that these claims are neither uncontested nor uncontroversial, therefore they cannot be stated as facts in Wikipedia's voice; we must treat them as opinions, and attribute them to the sources from whence they came.
describe disputes, but not engage in them- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the loaded question and despite the burden of proof remaining on editors wishing to introduce information as factual to show that it is indeed factual; the standard that a counter assertion need obtain is quite small.
By policy (
WP:NPOV), as outlined above, it is not required to show that these assertions are opinions; though I maintain that they clearly are; it is sufficient to show that they are not uncontested and uncontroversial facts
or that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information
. In doing so it is, in turn, sufficient to show that they are either a) "not uncontested", b) "not uncontroversial" or c) that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over the information.
The third of these is trivial: Gamergate_controversy#Debate_over_ethics_allegations "Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues".
While the text here is a straw man argument, and could use work to bring it in line with core content policies, it clearly shows that the article in question documents a disagreement over this information - questions of ethics in gaming journalism is one of the core loci of this controversy.
This is sufficient.
For the first ("not uncontested") and second ("not uncontroversial") is is sufficient to show reliable sources describing them as contested or controversial. (An alternative would be to show reliable opinion sources contesting them.)
To whit:
These clearly describe debate, discussion, disagreement over the ethics claims, and that it is "heated" - therefore, these assertions are neither "uncontested" nor "uncontroversial".
This is sufficient.
To summarise, it is not appropriate, by policy, to include these assertions as unattributed facts; they must, by policy, be included as attributed opinions. Notwithstanding this, the synthesis & fallacy of composition issues with the proposed text; the issues of bias; that the proposed text involves Wikipedia in the dispute rather than describing it; and the undue nature of including a series of opinions here at this list article all remain.
I again repectfully suggest that we are better going with a simpler, factual, non-biased summary which lists the core loci of the controversy - similar to that originally proposed by Bilby. I think this is a fair compromise which takes no sides & passes no judgement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
I'm disturbed about the amount of discussion about Gamergate on a mostly unrelated list article. In general, secondary articles should echo the characterization and consensus of the main article, so there should be little reason for such a long discussion about the nature of Gamergate here, since this article should simply copy the main one. Secondary articles should not be used as proxy battles for conflicts regarding the main article. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been sitting here for too long, so let's see if we can get it fixed. At the moment, the wording "a controversy concerning sexism in video game culture" fails to either properly represent the source that this article currently uses or the article Gamergate controversy which this links to. I'm proposing:
We can ascribe the belief that it concerns ethics and social criticism to the proponents, as part of this is questioned by other groups. This brings it in line with the NYT, which describes GamerGate as "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." This also brings it in line with Gamergate controversy, which leads with "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture", but follows that in the next paragraph with "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity ... Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews". While the current wording has the advantage of brevity, for the sake of NPOV we need to express a bit more. - Bilby ( talk) 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Granarkadis, welcome to Wikipedia. Recently you've edited the summary given of the Gamergate controversy on this list to state that it is about journalistic impropriety in the video game industry- ethics in games journalism for short- and that this 'spawned discussion' about sexism and social justice. I don't believe this accurately reflects the characterisation and consensus of the main article we have on the Gamergate controversy. However, on reflection, I don't believe the old description reflected it either. Hence I'm proposing a new summary- The Gamergate controversy is a controversy notable for the misogynistic harassment campaign orchestrated both through and related to the use of the gamergate hashtag.
What do you think?
PeterTheFourth (
talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Cavalierman: Hi Cavalierman- here is the discussion on the talk page! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
When it is written that the GGC is 'pertaining to allegations of journalistic impropriety' it is a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the harassment campaign. I urge you to read our article on it, whose lede sentence I lifted in my proposed description of the controversy. Your edit does not echo the characterisation or consensus of the main article, which mentions the 'actually ethics in games journalism' stuff only so far as to establish how categorically they are rejected by reliable sources, and their existence as a cover for the harassment campaign. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 01:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I solicited additional editors at Talk:Gamergate controversy to participate in this discussion. While the issue may be controversial, a summary of a summary should be possible. UW Dawgs ( talk) 01:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What is 'social' criticism of video games? Are we to understand that the gamergate controversy wants criticism only by hermits and shut-ins? Dumuzid ( talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In much the same way the lede of the current article has been improved in clarity, I'd suggest this summary can be made far better. Instead of talking about what it concerns in some vague genre-esque way, how about-
Gamergate Controversy: A controversy about the sustained harassment of feminist figures within the video game industry due to debunked accusations of ethical misconduct. This harassment was often tagged with the Gamergate hashtag.
Accuracy is to be welcomed. Thoughts- Should it be longer/shorter, or would that length be sufficient? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I changed the source back to the NYT. Kain's piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG, and therefore cannot be used for statements of fact, only to illustrate his own opinion; it's not usable as a source here. Beyond that, nobody, as far as I can tell, has objected to the change to the NYT piece, so I don't agree that that particular change lacks consensus. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Fellow editors, I have restored the version discussed above as a consensus version, which was changed in
this edit, with edit summary Undid revision 680454367 by 2602:306:CEA0:EA50:214C:AAAC:7D6B:6507 (talk) hew closer to main article
. Given the controversial nature of this topic and the extensive discussions above, it would be preferred for changes to be discussed, and consensus formed, before edits to this article are made. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 12:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is the country of origin "united states" on it? 190.77.18.17 ( talk) 02:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there a name for this usage? It's not a pun as such, or a portmanteau word (though the original term might be, as in gerrymandering). It's a very old practice (after the portmanteau word " Gerry-mandering" was coined, "Henry-mandering" was used in 1852). Pol098 ( talk) 13:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I edited the description of Votergate because it was factually incorrect. and silly.
I removed the following items because they scored extremely low on the google test: AWOLgate (33 hits), Cocainegate (5), Gennifergate (3), Hairgate (35), Lancegate (23), Passportgate (36), Peanutgate (7), and Winegate (29). Just so you know, the other examples retreived between 400 and 25,000 hits. Kingturtle 03:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following: (linguists call this process back-formation) A back formation produces burgle from burglar. It does not apply here. Wetman 04:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User:Gzornenplatz declares that "articles should not address the reader." To avoid the appearance of sinning, one can use expressions like "See also" "Compare" and "An alternate interpretation is..." Wetman 19:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
there is precendent in wikipedia to simply have articles of suffixes be written as: -cide, -cycle, -cracy, -ic, -ism, -ist, -ography, -oid, -ology, -omics, -onomy, -onym, -philia, -phobia, -scope, -stan, -ware.
Maybe this article should be named simply -gate. Kingturtle 23:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although the term Nipplegate has been used by major news agencies like CNN, I still think the "gate" term should be confined only to political scandals. If every news story that breaks out gets a "gate" suffix, the list of gates in Wikipedia would never end. Let's stick to politics, shall we?
It does not demonstrate what it is setting out to demonstrate if it does not show news services actually coining and using these terms. Every "-gate" term should be accompanied by a citation of a news service using the term. Terms for which no news citations are provided or can be found should be mercilessly excised. Uncle G 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I think all the "gates" that have no citation and aren't even well known events should be removed. This article looks like a joke because of inclusion of such things as "fajitagate". I find it hard to believe anyone has used this term outside a small circle of friends, or maybe one reference in a newspaper. Entries like these are obviously one of the reasons why this article was nominated for deletion. (though upon further research it appears that there are references to this in the San Francisco Examiner)
The question, I think is "is this article supposed to reference "gates" that are widely known across a region, or just any old "gate". I see references to "gates" that haven't even happened in English speaking countries. Since this is the English wikipedia, I'm not sure listing "gates" in non-english speaking countries is appropriate.
I do think this page is worthy of wikipedia however. The Daily Show has gone as far as having an entire segment about a presidency needing a "gate" controvery. I find this evidence that the "gate" phenomenon has reached the popular culture, and should have a wikipedia entry for it. Can we get some more opinions on a cleanup, and then maybe someone can delete a large portion of the largely unreferenced ones?
At the very least I think the initial section should list the "well known" gates, and the minor ones should be either deleted or be listed in a different section. In my estimation this would include Watergate, Irangate, Contragate, Billygate, Filegate, Memogate, Travelgate, possibly Monicagate Zippergate and White Water Gate (though these scandals weren't generally referred to as "gates"). I'm not familiar with all the Canadian, UK, and regional US "gates" to have any idea if these are widely known even inside these regions/countries. More input on which are the definitive "gates" would be appreciated. Vellmont
I seperated the well known scandals from the lesser known or disputed scandals. I believe this is a first step in cleaning up this page into something that's a lot more useable rather than just looking like a listing of "any scandal name+gate" page. There's likely some I don't think are well known that actually are well known, so someone might want to edit the list somewhat. It's likely my view of what's well known is very US centric as well. Despite this, there clearly has to be some kind of distinction made, so that's why I went and seperated the list.
I removed all the bullet points in front of each cite because I thought it made the article much harder to read. Bullet points should distinguish items in the list, and having one for each cite is only confusing. There's still some items that need the cites listed properly.
I did a second edit that shortened some extremely long summaries of each scandal. A summary should be one.. or very rarely two sentences. Anything more makes the article difficult to read, and messy. If a reader wants more information they should go to the linked article. If anything I think there's room to shorten many of these summaries even further. Vellmont 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Dropped by the scandals page to see if there were categories for maybe police scandals - which are political scandals not involving politicians, other than may a Solicitor-General or Attorney-General (here in Canada the cabinet post which governs/runs the police/court system), so don't fit the "political scandal" category. So I came upon the list of -gate scandals and saw the "widely recognized" list, which (sans descriptions) is
I'm well-informed and follow the news; the only terms in that list which strike me as "widely recognized are Irangate - always better known as Iran-Contra - and Rathergate; Nannygate and Billygate I've heard of but I wouldn't consider those "widely recognized". Plamegate internationally is the Plame Affair or (now) the Rove affair/case.
Point is, just because something is "widely recognized" in the United States doesn't mean it's widely recognized everywhere; IMO Wikipedia should strive to not make America-first assumptions in terms of what or who is famous/well-known/important, i.e. to all wikiwebreaders. Skookum1 18:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for a record. Postdlf 01:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is Coingate listed under both the widely recognized and the less widely recognized sections? Cynicism addict 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the combination could be made more smoothly rewinn 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn
I contend that some of the sources listed sound highly suspiscious, although the scandals and their names are probably legitimate. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely the division is rather subjective? The Fettesgate affair (which I intend to write an article on btw!) seems much more notable to me than the publicity stunt with the singer's tit slipping out! Other than the original Watergate and maybe Irangate and Muldergate, surely they are all debatable in their importance? The current division looks somewhat US-centred. -- Guinnog 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What about " Calciogate", the scandal in Italy regarding the football teams of Juventus and Co. ?? -- CdaMVvWgS 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have much time right now, but I noticed the page doesn't link to the Pardongate scandal involving FALN members in 1999 with Bill Clinton. 64.131.23.31 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this -gate construction of scandal naming, rather than traditional wording of scandals (i.e Iran-Contra Scandal Versus Contragate or Irangate) a scheme designed to eliminate thought or inquiry by using the indicitive emotion of a "-gate" suffix? I dunno, it's interesting, at the least, and might deserve a mention on the page.
I added this entry to the main-page, a little verbose I think. I will write the page for Waterkantgate and shorten the entry. Waterkantgate is one of the most recognized German political scandals, ending in death for one of the politicians involved. There are similarities to Watergate, e.g. illegal phone taps. Ruedigers 00:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line from Rathergate about the scandal being that CBS accepted forged documents as real without verification, and not that the allegations were untrue. I mean, if that's not a biased statement, I don't know what is! The only "evidence" peresented in favor of the allegations was the memos, which are demonstrably forged! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
"This new label has sometimes stuck but often a new name is used."
Does new actually mean different? What on earth does this sentence mean?
138.243.129.4 09:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely NOT a widely recognized term. I had never heard it that way before, and I was following the whole thing very closely as it happened. A google search turns up only 616 hits, only 350 of which are unique. By contrast, Plamegate turns up 500,000 hits.-- RemoWilliams 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one have heard this reference many times. It was probably fairly popular because one just needs to prepend "White" to the original scandal name.
I have to wonder if we want count of Google hits to be the sole arbitor of inclusion. Joe 21:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bias, Bias, Bias. If the only source of information for something is what perhaps could be called The Dead Tree Collections (print-only) or The Background Sound Machine (radio), then "everyone" may now of something and BINGo... But It's Not Google-able becomes a reason for de-Wiki-ing information (What I Know Is, what the Admin-super-editor doesn't know is to be s-p-e-e-d-i-l-y deleted). User:unSpeedy2009 14:42, 4 Aug 2009 (UTC)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=57969&in_page_id=34
Should this be included? -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
These two (Spygate and Videogate) are actually the same scandal (The New England Patriots video-taping the New York Jet's Signals). Adarsharon ( talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now the following are listed: Spygate, Jerezgate and Rascassegate.
I think the following should also be mentioned, I will make the request for these articles on the Formula 1 portal if they do not already exist:
-Michelingate 1: 2003 season scandal relating to improper tire-wear on the Michelin tire compounds -Michelingate 2: The better-known of the Michelin scandals, resulting in the partial boycott of the 2005 United States Grand Prix -Buttongate1 / Buttongate2: The scandals relating to Jenson Button's contractual wranglings with Honda and Williams. The Dunnie ( talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I added Bonusgate to the list, and even though it is a Pennsylvanian political scandal, the term is unique (so far) and is widely used and reported (7,350 Googlehits just now). If you need further justification, just check out the article about it. -- RedShiftPA ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
These are emergent names for the scandal surrounding the BC Legislature Raids, which is the "home" article for the scandal currently but I've got a move/rename proposal in because the scandal is about more than the raids or the associated legal case (still torturously in the pretrial phase). Ledgegate when googled gets about six hits, Railgate only about three.....this is a sign of the degree to which the major media, normally quick to label/tag anything they want to hype, have been doing their best to ignore/muffle the scandal. Railgate, though the newer term, seems now more appropriate because it's the sale of BC Rail that's the focus of the scandal, rather than the raids on the Ledge themselves (that's what we call the British Columbia Parliament Buildings) Anyway, once the dust settles and one of these two terms "gels", it should be added to this list; it's a well-known scandal, but these names aren't well-known, but there's no other name to use.. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the "disputed" list altogether because if something is disputed that means it isn't reliably sourced. Please add the undisputed, reliably sourced, items back. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems I'm finding sourcing Chinagate is that the term is used widely on conservative blogs and the like it doesn't seem to be mainstream at all. I just cannot find any mainstream newspaper references to the term, which might indicate that it has a certain minimal currency. I'm reluctant to source to blogs and the like because a blog entry is here today but in five years time it may have vanished entirely, whereas you can go to a library and ask to see a newspaper in their archives, often going back well over a century. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This description seems inaccurate, Ian Brodie hasn't actually revealed any documents to the media, and further to that so far he's only been alleged to have gossiped about Clinton reassuring the canadian government not to worry about her anti-NAFTA rhetoric.
"NAFTAgate [1]- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie reveals to the media a document leak revealing that the Canadian government should not worry about U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric."
perhaps the following would be a better type of description: "Sources alleged that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie revealed to the media that the Canadian government had apparently received reassurances from the Clinton campaign that her anti-NAFTA rhetoric should be taken with "a grain of salt". Later, an internal Canadian government memo is leaked to the media which suggests that the Obama campaign also contacted the Canadian government to play down Obama's own anti-NAFTA rhetoric."
what do you guys think? Jozsefs ( talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What if there was a scandal involving water? Personally, I loath the -gate suffix. It's lazy journalism. Watergate had nothing to do with Water. If there was another "scandal" at The Watergate Hotel, would it now be Watergategate? MrMarmite ( talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't mentioned in the article. Please add it, if you think it fulfills the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.254.123 ( talk) 09:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He tends to mention a few things Bush did every day and tack -gate onto them, like FEMAgate, Miersgate, FISAgate, etc. Should this get in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockingbeat ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You are missing this famous Canadian scandal involving the federal Liberal Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.133.77 ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article is missing some important incidents with the "-gate" suffix:
That took a rather long time to compile. I hope someone can add these incidents soon. Greggers ( t • c) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no citing for this source; it seems like hacking. It should either be cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.76.62 ( talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, Watergate itself is not on this list. 68.249.7.50 ( talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Anonymous
After following this story since it unfolded, especially on both liberal and conservative blogs, I've get the feeling that the Gatesgate dubbing is used by those who support Prof. Gates' position on the events that unfolding leading up to and including his arrest and Stupidgate is used by detractors of Pres. Obama's remark that police "acted stupidly" in their handling of the event. SonPraises ( talk) ( contributions) 04:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Missing "Garbagegate"; see Google Books for examples. 86.153.8.180 ( talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Rubbergate must be considered only an alternate term. As discussed at the House banking scandal talk page, a Google search shows that Rubbergate appears less the a couple percent of the time as the name of this scandal.
Also the term "bad check" does not correctly apply. The term is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as "A check which is dishonored on presentation for payment because of no, or insufficient, funds or closed bank account. Writing or passing of bad checks is a misdemeanor in most states." In the House banking scandal, all of the checks were honored, which was the real source of the problem. The overdrafts were accepted without penalty.
Accordingly, I am reverting the changes made to the Rubbergate entry by 68.39.174.238.
the article on this affair is called the 'cunningham scandal'. none of the references cited there use the term 'hookergate', nor does the text of the article. prostitutes were apparently a very small part of the story. you've got one journalist cited using the term. i would suggest a/ this is sensationalism,(bribery makes for ho-hum reading compared to sex) b/ it's just beefing up the numbers of this list, c/ unless the term can be substantiated significantly, it should go.
This list has accumulated a lot of crap added by people with axes to grind. So let's have some ground rules:
- Must be a serious accusation of wrongdoing causing major political fallout - No corruption scandals occurring within a company. - No local politics. - No scandals created by a marketing department as a way of using controversy to get attention.
Those sound pretty extreme, but a lot of things here met one of those criteria. I'm going to start removing entries as I work through the list, but feel free to help out when you see bogus entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlbtlbtlb ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A large number of entries was recently removed, citing "obvious PR". While I agree that the list has become somewhat long, and many of the entries should be removed, the ones removed recently seem somewhat abritrary. Entries that are made primarily for self-promotion (as opposed to PR, per se) should be removed. But entries for events that are already widely publicized in reliabe sources should remain, regardless of whether someone or some group would receive either positive or negative PR. My suggestion for the inclusion criteria would be that the entry was widely publicized in reliable sources and is of general interest on a national or international level. Scandals that are only known within a special interest group, or in a more localized area should not be included. Dhaluza ( talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this worthy of list inclusion? While the first source doesn't actually use the term "Beachballgate", the second does... However, the event itself merits only three sentences in the Liverpool F.C. season 2009–10 article and never uses the term. It think it's safe to say that this is an example of something for which you can find reliable sources that might use the -gate term, but it's not notable enough for inclusion. — Scien tizzle 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Beachballgate — Controversy surrounding a beach ball that was thrown by a Liverpool fan, causing a football, kicked by Darren Bent of the opposing team Sunderland, to deflect off the beach ball into the net.[ 12][ 13
Guys, please be careful with removals. I understand that it is annoying if this list is getting constantly spammed with minor or alleged scandals, but the last cleanup (accidentally) even removed Dunagate (one of the biggest Hungarian polit scandals) and Irangate (possibly the most famous -gate after Watergate).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The lede calls this a list of scandals, implying that any vent with a -gate" suffix must rise to the level of a scandal. Many are, to be sure, but some do not appear to rise to that level, and might be more properly labeled "controversies". In fact, based upon a quick perusal of the list, many do use the term "controversy" and not all use the term scandal. (A proper review would include checking all the references, which should be done if there's any support for my proposal.)
I suggest that the lede should be modified to something like:
This is a list of alleged controversies named with a "-gate" suffix, by analogy with the Watergate scandal. In some cases, the incident was serious enough to be labeled a scandal.
I note in sections above there are proposed ground rules for inclusion. While rules for inclusion are valid, we must be careful not to appoint ourselves the gatekeepers (pun intended) of what should qualify as an acceptable x-gate. An encyclopedia is, by definition, descriptive, not prescriptive, so we should be noting what the world is using for appellations, not deciding what can be used. To be sure, we have rules on inclusion, but the usual criteria of notability apply. Declaring that we would exclude a term simply because a marketing department coined it is out of bounds. If it passes notability, it should be included.
I must note a potential for bias - I visited this article because of the latest flareup of the climategate naming issue. While my last declared position was opposed to a renaming, I find the argument wanting that Climategate fails because it implies scandal. It is my observation that a -gate suffix generally implies controversy, sometimes rising to the level of a scandal. If other agree that this is an accurate description of the world of -gates, then a rewording of the lede is in order.
In view of the possibility of varied opinions regarding the change, I have opted to start with the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD, rather than starting with a bold change.-- SPhilbrick T 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose a new criterium for inclusion in this list: the name with the suffix -gate must be mentioned in the WP article about the particular scandal. What do people think? - BorisG ( talk) 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article says, "Climategate" is "A term used by some to refer to the hacking of a computer server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Thousands of e-mails and other documents stolen and released into the public domain. Based on these documents, allegations were made that some scientists involved in climate change research have falsified data to support their theories, and destroyed data that refutes them.[26]"
This is just completely false, and surprisingly so. "Climategate" is the name given by climate change skeptics to describe apparent scientific misconduct as evidenced in the contents of the leaked/hacked emails.
Is it OK if I fix this up? Alex Harvey ( talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in adding crygate for the Miami Heat episode?
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Miami-Heat-Big-Three-can-grow-from-current-woes-030711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.192.85 ( talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that only scandals that are big enough to have their own article can be included in the list? I thought any scandal in a Reliable Source can be listed. If this is the consensus, it is obviously not being applied to the section of the fictional scandals. Victor Victoria ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that there isn't an entry for Weinergate yet. Is that just because nobody has thought to do it, or is there some reason to hold off on that? It seems like the term has certainly already entered our vocabulary. Tbear1234 ( talk) 11:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) And it seems like an entry has been made, so issue resolved. Tbear1234 ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That one seems to have been left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.146.1 ( talk) 03:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Cleveland Catholic Bishop called the Jan 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.201.187 ( talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the "-gate" suffix has become synonymous with scandal. As such, I don't think simply using the suffix is enough to merit inclusion this list. A good number of the items on the list are not generally known by a "-gate" suffix. This list includes many "controversies" which are trivial, not widely reported, sourced to dubious sources, or only mentioned in passing. Looking at the first few entries on the list:
And so on. I suggest the list be cleaned up to remove the scandals which have been recognized with the "-gate" appellation by only a single sentence in a single source. Feedback? aprock ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Cleveland Catholic Bishop called the Jan 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.201.187 ( talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the "-gate" suffix has become synonymous with scandal. As such, I don't think simply using the suffix is enough to merit inclusion this list. A good number of the items on the list are not generally known by a "-gate" suffix. This list includes many "controversies" which are trivial, not widely reported, sourced to dubious sources, or only mentioned in passing. Looking at the first few entries on the list:
And so on. I suggest the list be cleaned up to remove the scandals which have been recognized with the "-gate" appellation by only a single sentence in a single source. Feedback? aprock ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the desire to distinguish major from minor scandals, but the current structure seems rather US-centric (all foreign gate scandals appear under "other"), but more importantly it is not at all clear by criteria something appears under "major scandal" and by what criteria it appears under "other scandals". I mean is this purely a single editor's choice? The result of an editorial consent? Is there any hard or soft criteria applied to classify the gate scandals?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Kmhkmh. The two separate groupings should not be maintained. If there is going to be some criterion such as "referenced in 20 news articles" for the "widely recognized" scandals, this will impose an inordinate amount of work on editors. In any event, it cannot be said that this verification has been carried out for each - or indeed any - of the scandals listed. In many cases, we can probably agree that this verification could be carried out, but one's appreciation of the obviousness of this will depend largely on personal familiarity with the scandals. So far the list does appear very U.S.-centric. Perhaps more importantly, the article seems to imply falsely that the other scandals are not widely recognized, when in fact they have simply not yet been verified to be "widely recognized" by Wikipedia. In short, the status of scandals as belonging to one category or the other cannot be easily verified. In its current state, the list is not an accurate reflection of the categorization "widely recognized" vs. "not widely recognized", and therefore misrepresents the situation to readers. Making the list accurate would entail a debate and agreement on criteria, as well as long investigations into each of the scandals listed, including those "not widely recognized". Realistically, this is unlikely to happen, and the result will be an article that remains inaccurate, probably permanently. The distinction, even if accurately reflected, would be of limited, if any, usefulness to readers. For the reader, there is even a downside, which is having to look through two lists rather than one. 96.46.204.126 ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed that for now since afaik it is not really used in serious media (yet) nor is it mentioned in the target article of the wiki link. The daily mail (low quality yellow press) as the sole source, which in addition only uses the term in quotes, isn't sufficient for an inclusion here.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on what is meant by or "serious mainstream media publication" here. If someone could clarify the threshold for sourcing required for this list, then that standard could be applied to all the sources. As it is, the current listing criterion appears to allow the use of any source which uses a -gate suffix. If that's not the criterion, then I suggest it be updated. Personally, I would remove many of the items on the list, but until we have an objective listing requirement it's difficult to justify that. aprock ( talk) 21:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I should add, that I would certainly endorse updating the listing criteria, especially if it was based on a secondary source. aprock ( talk) 21:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Prime Minister's Office Civilian Surveillance Incident is recently getting noticeable in the South Korean public again. There's no such thing as Leegate or Lee Myung-bakgate. But is it ok to put this incident as Watergate of Korea in this article? Komitsuki ( talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd find it extremely interesting to also find the first mention of each "gate", whenever possible. It might help illustrate the inflational use by the media, and I'd be surprised if it were completely decorrelated with the tendency of certain news outlets to escalate events to scandals. I wonder if there's enough hard data for this to actually work, though. -- 172.218.117.171 ( talk) 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article for the Coal Mining Scam [1] mentions three sources that use the name "Coalgate". I think this warrants inclusion in the list.
98.119.117.183 ( talk) 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
References
i created Yomagate please check it out and add it to your list Vjiced ( talk) 06:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is the discussion on the William Connolley hijacking of Wikipedia? Furthermore, where's the discussion on "Wikigate" being used as a title for the Wikileaks affair? Hm... see: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ for more details/ Dragoon91786 ( talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous IP user recently added "Obstructiongate" related to the 2013 World Series. No reference was cited and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any use of this term outside of some internet forums. If someone can provide credible sources for this naming of this controversy, please do so, otherwise this one will need to be struck. — DeeJayK ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I deleted
Because the sources are unreliable. The first is a self-published blog, against Wikipedia policies; moreover it is written as opinion, not fact, and it a rant with many exclamation points and draws conclusions he desires that are beyond the evidence he presents. The second is an opinion piece that absurdly claims that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent: another highly partisan rant, but not news. If someone wants to repost this item, find a reliable source. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 07:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Technically, Watergate itself shouldn't be in this list as the "-gate" part isn't a suffix. A scandal to do with water would be Watergate; a scandal to do with the Watergate hotel (assuming a -gate suffix) would become Watergategate. Darac Marjal ( talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we add Colgate to this list? There is something seriously wrong with this toothpaste. Gorba ( talk) 21:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A list like this might be useful. 173.58.47.102 ( talk)
Please note each section is now in sortable-table format - default sort is alphabetical, but you can just click to resort by year. Jinnayah ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It was a big scandal in Kansas City when Mayor Mark Funkhouser's wife Gloria Squitiro called one of her secretaries " mammy". The event and subsequent lawsuits that occurred are often (in Kansas City) often referred to as "Mammygate." KMBC-TV covered the event very well, and a section should be created for this. Their archives on their website can help the writer.
Jinnayah ( talk) 04:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC): Done
one of the dumber articles on Wikipedia. 71.221.67.50 ( talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the "gate" suffix is just a textbook case of hack journalism. Not something suitable for an encyclopedia article. 184.88.58.7 ( talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody add Deflategate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.33.93 ( talk) 07:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Related to the previous section; suggest inclusion of the Gamergate controversy Article under the Technology section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a rule of thumb when it comes to reliable sources. If you were doing a research paper for an academic course, would you use this source? If you answered no to that question, then the source is probably not reliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please remember this when making edits to articles, including this one.-- EggyEggPercent ( talk) 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Surprised that there is no mention of Plebgate. Already a substantial Wikipedia article on it - suggest add a link under politics.
~~Traskold~~ [27-09-2015 19:55] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.167.192 ( talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Already there, but alphabetizing is screwed, because it's listed as "Gategate or plebgate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.7 ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the problems we face with Gamergate is that we've been drawing a distinction between the Gamergate controversy - which is primarily about sexism in parts of the video game community - and the Gamergate movement, which is a movement that at least describes itself as being about ethics in games journalism and ant-feminism/anti-social justice critique. At the moment we have three descriptions that we've had some edit warring over. The first is:
That is accurate in regard to our article on the controversy, but doesn't match the Gamergate movement aspect. The second is:
That, however, suffers from only describing part of the movement, and ignores the controversy. The third is:
I prefer the third because it acknowledges both why Gamergate is controversial, while also acknowledging what the movement is about. This reflects the current source we've been using, [13], but isn't specific to the Gamergate controversy article. I'd rather not go for either of the first two description because they only tell the story from one side, unless the intent here is specifically to highly the controversy aspect. Any thoughts? - Bilby ( talk) 04:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Support description which includes both journalistic ethics and sexism aspects; per
WP:NPOV. The addition of "alleged" to one of these aspects, but not the other, however, appears POV-sided. Suggest striking it, giving: A controversy regarding sexism in video game culture,
Alternatively support the same without the social criticism aspect. I also would like to thank
Bilby for having raised this here, facilitating discussion & formation of consensus. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 11:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
alleged questions about journalistic ethics, and reactions against social criticism of video games.
Based on the discussion, I agree that we need to stick to sources and reflect the current Gamergate controversy article. Our current article leads with "A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture.", we should also lead with that. However, our article goes on to say "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics." That is also reflected in the New York Times article which we are using as as source for the entry here, as it says that Gamergate is "a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." Merging the two, we get:
The "perceived" is to reflect the WP article, as it goes on to highlight justified questions of the movement's claimed ethical violations. That said, I think it is best to reflect the lead of the Gamergate controversy article and the main source we're using, so we need to both describe what Gamergate is about and highlight the major controversy surrounding it. - Bilby ( talk) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Commentators from the Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, have dismissed the ethical concerns that Gamergate have claimed as their focus as being broadly debunked, calling them trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry.
Commentators ... dismissed ... calling. Commentators provide opinions, not fact. These statements are also sourced and attributed as opinions in the Gamergate controversy#Debate over ethics allegations section of the article. Per WP:NPOV, it would be improper for us to include them here as facts.
Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among othershave considered this a sufficiently important aspect of the controversy to present opinions on it. I'd suggest that these sources, the other sources used at the article, and the two sources which have been referenced here, all of which include coverage of the ethics aspects, are sufficient for us to consider this reliably sourced.
A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture, as part of a culture war encompassing social criticism of video games and what some perceive to be ethical violations in the gaming press., I have a few thoughts.
Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. If this is not a major or commonly held viewpoint, then one questions its place there. And therefore, also, here. I would be comfortable dropping that section.
claims that the gaming press engaging in social criticism are committing ethical violationswording. It appears a POV-sided "straw man", which isn't supported by reliable sources. (See: WP:NPOV@ WP:IMPARTIAL; WP:NOR(@ WP:SYNTH)).
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.In the first section of the policy, WP:YESPOV, we have
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability.
uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions(and that the topic not
specifically deal with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information). I suggest that these claims are neither uncontested nor uncontroversial, therefore they cannot be stated as facts in Wikipedia's voice; we must treat them as opinions, and attribute them to the sources from whence they came.
describe disputes, but not engage in them- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the loaded question and despite the burden of proof remaining on editors wishing to introduce information as factual to show that it is indeed factual; the standard that a counter assertion need obtain is quite small.
By policy (
WP:NPOV), as outlined above, it is not required to show that these assertions are opinions; though I maintain that they clearly are; it is sufficient to show that they are not uncontested and uncontroversial facts
or that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information
. In doing so it is, in turn, sufficient to show that they are either a) "not uncontested", b) "not uncontroversial" or c) that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over the information.
The third of these is trivial: Gamergate_controversy#Debate_over_ethics_allegations "Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues".
While the text here is a straw man argument, and could use work to bring it in line with core content policies, it clearly shows that the article in question documents a disagreement over this information - questions of ethics in gaming journalism is one of the core loci of this controversy.
This is sufficient.
For the first ("not uncontested") and second ("not uncontroversial") is is sufficient to show reliable sources describing them as contested or controversial. (An alternative would be to show reliable opinion sources contesting them.)
To whit:
These clearly describe debate, discussion, disagreement over the ethics claims, and that it is "heated" - therefore, these assertions are neither "uncontested" nor "uncontroversial".
This is sufficient.
To summarise, it is not appropriate, by policy, to include these assertions as unattributed facts; they must, by policy, be included as attributed opinions. Notwithstanding this, the synthesis & fallacy of composition issues with the proposed text; the issues of bias; that the proposed text involves Wikipedia in the dispute rather than describing it; and the undue nature of including a series of opinions here at this list article all remain.
I again repectfully suggest that we are better going with a simpler, factual, non-biased summary which lists the core loci of the controversy - similar to that originally proposed by Bilby. I think this is a fair compromise which takes no sides & passes no judgement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
I'm disturbed about the amount of discussion about Gamergate on a mostly unrelated list article. In general, secondary articles should echo the characterization and consensus of the main article, so there should be little reason for such a long discussion about the nature of Gamergate here, since this article should simply copy the main one. Secondary articles should not be used as proxy battles for conflicts regarding the main article. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been sitting here for too long, so let's see if we can get it fixed. At the moment, the wording "a controversy concerning sexism in video game culture" fails to either properly represent the source that this article currently uses or the article Gamergate controversy which this links to. I'm proposing:
We can ascribe the belief that it concerns ethics and social criticism to the proponents, as part of this is questioned by other groups. This brings it in line with the NYT, which describes GamerGate as "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." This also brings it in line with Gamergate controversy, which leads with "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture", but follows that in the next paragraph with "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity ... Some of the people using the #gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews". While the current wording has the advantage of brevity, for the sake of NPOV we need to express a bit more. - Bilby ( talk) 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Granarkadis, welcome to Wikipedia. Recently you've edited the summary given of the Gamergate controversy on this list to state that it is about journalistic impropriety in the video game industry- ethics in games journalism for short- and that this 'spawned discussion' about sexism and social justice. I don't believe this accurately reflects the characterisation and consensus of the main article we have on the Gamergate controversy. However, on reflection, I don't believe the old description reflected it either. Hence I'm proposing a new summary- The Gamergate controversy is a controversy notable for the misogynistic harassment campaign orchestrated both through and related to the use of the gamergate hashtag.
What do you think?
PeterTheFourth (
talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Cavalierman: Hi Cavalierman- here is the discussion on the talk page! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
When it is written that the GGC is 'pertaining to allegations of journalistic impropriety' it is a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the harassment campaign. I urge you to read our article on it, whose lede sentence I lifted in my proposed description of the controversy. Your edit does not echo the characterisation or consensus of the main article, which mentions the 'actually ethics in games journalism' stuff only so far as to establish how categorically they are rejected by reliable sources, and their existence as a cover for the harassment campaign. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 01:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I solicited additional editors at Talk:Gamergate controversy to participate in this discussion. While the issue may be controversial, a summary of a summary should be possible. UW Dawgs ( talk) 01:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What is 'social' criticism of video games? Are we to understand that the gamergate controversy wants criticism only by hermits and shut-ins? Dumuzid ( talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In much the same way the lede of the current article has been improved in clarity, I'd suggest this summary can be made far better. Instead of talking about what it concerns in some vague genre-esque way, how about-
Gamergate Controversy: A controversy about the sustained harassment of feminist figures within the video game industry due to debunked accusations of ethical misconduct. This harassment was often tagged with the Gamergate hashtag.
Accuracy is to be welcomed. Thoughts- Should it be longer/shorter, or would that length be sufficient? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I changed the source back to the NYT. Kain's piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG, and therefore cannot be used for statements of fact, only to illustrate his own opinion; it's not usable as a source here. Beyond that, nobody, as far as I can tell, has objected to the change to the NYT piece, so I don't agree that that particular change lacks consensus. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Fellow editors, I have restored the version discussed above as a consensus version, which was changed in
this edit, with edit summary Undid revision 680454367 by 2602:306:CEA0:EA50:214C:AAAC:7D6B:6507 (talk) hew closer to main article
. Given the controversial nature of this topic and the extensive discussions above, it would be preferred for changes to be discussed, and consensus formed, before edits to this article are made. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 12:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is the country of origin "united states" on it? 190.77.18.17 ( talk) 02:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there a name for this usage? It's not a pun as such, or a portmanteau word (though the original term might be, as in gerrymandering). It's a very old practice (after the portmanteau word " Gerry-mandering" was coined, "Henry-mandering" was used in 1852). Pol098 ( talk) 13:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)