Talk:List of -gate scandals and controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elli (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 25 August 2022 (→‎Requested move 1 August 2022: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pencilgate

talk) 17:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:UNDUE because you are struggling to find any reliable sources to support the use of the term 'pencilgate' for this story, rather than just mentioning it in the context of the #pencilgate hashtag. And if you think there are entries in the article that are even less noteworthy than this one, then feel free to remove them too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This seems like
talk) 18:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The hashtag is pretty clearly a term. It probably merits inclusion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria needs to be settled

Like many lists, this is a target for OR, SYNTH, SPAM, and PROMOTION violations.

Notability is the primary inclusion criteria for all articles (notability in enough RS to survive an AfD). Notability is also a requirement for inclusion in a list article. The quick and easy method we have used for a very long time is somewhat unofficial, but it works very well. Notability must be established/proven by the creation of an article on the topic that would survive an AfD.

The burden of proof is on the proposer for inclusion, so let them create the article first. Even a stub is good enough. It is not the duty of other editors to prove notability by examining the references provided. This has successfully prevented the spam addition of all kinds of frivolous and non-notable topics to our list articles.

We really need to enforce this. I found these discussions in the archive:

Valjean (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a problem. I just removed "fingergate", as the article of the subject of this alleged "controversy" makes no mention of it. I do believe this page has an
WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. Just because some Internet commentor slaps a "gate" suffix on something doesn't make it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As you can see, I did some cleanup recently, but there is more to do. There has to be enough use of the "gate" term to qualify for a successful, existing, article, not just a few mentions in some reliable sources.
This list contains promotional and sneaky stuff, sometimes using redirects to point to places where "whatevergate" isn't even mentioned, or to real scandals that were not called "gate" enough to qualify as a
WP:Common name. Feel free to delete with hard hand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Some event may meet the definition of a scandal, but that is not the only inclusion criteria here. How big a scandal? It has to be really BIG, as in many RS and public recognizability. Lists like this have their own notability criteria, and that is enough notability using that term to have an article with that name. So ask yourself these questions: Is use of the term "Whatevergate" so ubiquitous that

WP:Common name
allows us to use it as the title of the article or a good section in another article about the incident with many RS? If you said "Whatevergate", would the average person know what you were referring to?

We place the burden of proof on the editor who wishes to include it. It is not our job to doublecheck all the references they use. Let them create the article. If it survives the inevitable AfD(s), where the references will be checked, then we can add it here. With this approach, we prevent misuse of lists for promotion, which is a big problem. Just because 3-4 RS mention the term does not make it a big enough scandal for inclusion here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially where there are BLP implications, that per
WP:LISTCRITERIA, the inclusion criteria should be a Wikipedia article about it, and with the same name, that can survive an AfD. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Slapgate

I added "

Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident article. It was quite long, but I could not determine which parts merited removal / abbreviation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I pared down the description, quite a bit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Spygate

Motion to add the Trump Spygate scandal, the Allegation that the Hillary Clinton Campaign spied on communications from the Trump Campaign in 2016 and continued spying on the White House while Donald Trump was president 74.102.17.28 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Spygate (conspiracy theory) first. Trump lied. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added to Conspiracy theories section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fartgate"?

Literally

WP:FART: Keep in mind: not every fart or burp is notable. Both the Canadian and American entries, really? These are real "scandals and controversies"? Is not the bar for inclusion on this list a little low there? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

yes,it meets the definition of a scandal/controversy.The gate gained national news and international news;which is alot more coverage than others that on this page. Basedosaurus (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may meet the definition of a scandal, but that is not the only inclusion criteria here. How big a scandal? It has to be really BIG, as in many RS and public recognizability. Lists like this have their own notability criteria, and that is enough notability using that term to have an article with that name. So ask yourself these questions: Is use of the term "Whatevergate" so ubiquitous that
WP:Common name
allows us to use it as the title of the article or a good section in another article about the incident with many RS? If you said "Whatevergate", would the average person know what you were referring to?
We place the burden of proof on the editor who wishes to include it. It is not our job to doublecheck all the references they use. Let them create the article. If it survives the inevitable AfD(s), where the references will be checked, then we can add it here. With this approach, we prevent misuse of lists for promotion, which is a big problem. Just because 3-4 RS mention the term does not make it a big enough scandal for inclusion here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tractorgate"

I am active in several UK politics spaces, and personally I have never heard people refer to the Neil Parish affair as "Tractorgate" seriously. Whilst it is definitely notable enough to warrant inclusion, I don't think it should be included based on one Guardian article referring to it as Tractorgate. Bouncyrou (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouncyrou, I agree with you on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. If someone wants it here, then let them create a Wikipedia article about it that can survive an AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carriegate

"Carriegate" is mentioned in non-headline text here and here. What is the criterion for inclusion in this list? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far those are the only two that use the term. I think it needs to be in much more widespread usage for it to be included here. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be early days. Some list articles give a clear definition of criteria for inclusion. I guess the meaning of "much more widespread" may just be agreed by consensus. Looking at the list as it stands, many entries are supported by just one or two sources? How does that work? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some list articles require the listed item to have a Wikipedia article of its own. Should we perhaps insist on that to help ensure notability of the entry, and to help avoid fly-by additions for each time a *gate word is discovered being used somewhere on the web? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that. Many of the "-gates" listed here without articles are pretty fringe. If something becomes notorious enough to have a -gate moniker assigned to it, there will be an article with suffiecient sources to justify inclusion on Wikipedia, let alone this list. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most list articles do not require the listed item to have a Wikipedia article of its own. That's why they're list articles. I'd say no, that's too stringent. But if you wanted to propose that, I think an RfC would be needed. But if the criterion is "widespread" (or at least "multiple") sources, this should be agreed and clearly stated somewhere. And then existing entries should be checked against that criterion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria are already covered here. Generally, according to that guideline. we should avoid creating standalone lists that contain non-notable entries. There can be exceptions, but I think when it comes to areas where there may be some controversy (including this one), it is better to stick with entries that have articles. That would avoid precisely the issue we are dealing with here of people trying to insert marginal entries for whatever reason. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest people are "trying to insert marginal entries" because they genuinely think they exist. So are you looking at the first item in the "Common selection criteria", that starts "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia...." I'm not sure this article exactly fits any of those three general types. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the first bullet point under Common selection criteria for only including notable topics, especially ...prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion or indeed people trying to add politically motivated content. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an event that happened. To record that it happened here is "politically motivated" simply because it embarrasses Johnson? Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an event that may or may not have happened (there are denials). It is mentioned at
WP:TOSOON. If this controversy does enter the public consciousness as "Carriegate" (which it clearly hasn't yet given the lack of sources) then it would be appropriate to add it. But not now. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure why it should appear at Carrie Johnson and not at Boris Johnson, but that's a separate question. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it will appear in both articles eventually. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think it says more abut BJ than it does about CJ. Who knows, it might even appear in this one eventually. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that this discussion belongs above at #Inclusion criteria needs to be settled? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2022

talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@QueenofBithynia: Just to aid the closer, if there isn't consensus for your proposal, am I correct in assuming that you would prefer LaundryPizza03's proposed alternative over the status quo? Graham (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed, although I would prefer a move to my proposal or List of scandals and controversies with names suffixed by -gate, as suggested by BarrelProof. - QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the proposed title would be longer and less clear than the current one. I'd be fine with LaundryPizza03's proposal, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquariumgate

Apparently, aquariums are the new pizza: [1] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AD07 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_-gate_scandals_and_controversies&oldid=1106647822"