Talk:List of -gate scandals and controversies/Archive 1

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.

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)

Sorry, I know this is almost 4 years later, but it seems a bit strange to remove Winegate when this scandal is specifically mentioned in the main body of the text as being the first example of the -gate suffix after Watergate. Google hits are low but one is the original Time article from 1974 about Winegate, which seems like a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.107.233 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• What do you say we develop a standard (just for our own fun) that would define when a scandal becomes a scandalgate? --Rj 05:51, Feb 26, 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)

Well, basically, articles should not address the reader as "you" as in "you can find out more there" etc. Also they should not address editors as in "please add descriptions" - such notes should be commented out so that they are only visible in the edit window. Gzornenplatz 07:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

there is precendent in wikipedia to simply have articles of suffixes be written as:

Maybe this article should be named simply -gate. Kingturtle 23:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd support a move to

-gate. The list portion needs a section header though, but I can't think of a suitable name that doesn't seem repetetive to the current article name atm thoguh. Thryduulf

23:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

indeed

WP:RM? Thryduulf

00:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but part of the list's purpose is to demonstrate triviality. Plus, "Nipplegate" wouldn't have been nearly as major an event if not for the political environment it happened in and the backlash from politicians that occurred over the following days. Fines were increased dramatically, and it became part of that whole "moral values" discussion during the election year. —Mulad (talk) 00:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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)

This is very easy to do for at least some of them. I looked up a few at the top of the list, and found things in the first handful of Google hits. -Splash 01:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And where it's not easy to find news citations on purported "scandals" maybe there's a reason... This list would be more interesting if it were pruned of nonsense to real "-gates" --Wetman 01:43, 13 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)

Yeah but American and apparently British prejudices as to what's well-known or not dominate the selection; I just moved

BC Legislature Raids). Most of the US and British scandals in the main list I've never heard of. I think the arbitrary division of this list should be ended.....Skookum1 (talk

) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• I have to agree. 'Widely recognised' is such a subjective term! I hadn't heard of some of the ones I am supposed to have heard of and had heard of a lot of the 'less widely known' ones. Cls14 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See

Why is Coingate listed under both the widely recognized and the less widely recognized sections? Cynicism addict 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Entries Combined

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.

Surely the division is rather subjective? The

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

Maybe we should hold a vote to decide so?--Mofomojo 07:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I might deserve such a mention if & only if we can provide a source otherwise

not. Jimp

08:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

"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

It seems you've tossed the babies out with not very much bathwater; why not just remove the one with unreliably sourced entries? They were by far in the minority. This may not be a compendium, but it's also not just about scandals known of in the United States; I've heard of Bibigate and Bananagate; and Railgate just went with "legit" as a cite in a mnajor newspaper just emerged (The Globe and Mail). Why don't YOU replace the cited/sourced items instead of expecting people who'd already placed htem to have to do it again????Skookum1 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm doing is working my way through the list of major references verifying them by finding at least one mainstream news reference (not a blog, not an op-ed). When I'm done with that I'll trawl the list I removed, if I can spare the time, and may add some more from that list if they can be verified.

I don't know how familiar you are with how Wikipedia works, but we have a policy called

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

02:04, 3 March 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. --

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?

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)

Obviously to avoid confusion with the original Watergate, there would be successive attempts to hush it up. Which would eventually lead to WaterWatergategategateWaterWatergategate. Or something. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

13:52, 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)

No, as per

WP:NEOLOGISM. WWGB (talk

) 00:30, 4 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:

• The scandal in which plots of land in Swindon, England were sold adjoined with houses when they were really under the control of the local government, leading to hundreds of home-owners being scammed into paying for land they didn't have. That was called "Garden gate".
• When
  Alfred Hoyt Bill was accused of stealing his plot ideas off other authors. He rushed them in order to get his novels published first, in a vain attempt to make it sound like he had had the original initiative. That was "Bill Gate
  ".
• The affair when Microsoft Windows started reversing the binary values of their programs to stop people reverse-engineering the technology and stealing the internal coding. The famous "Logic gate".
• The satellite that was put in space to intentionally confuse astronomers by looking like a celestial body. Many cosmologists debated how far away this body was from our Earth and how bright it was. The company who initially put it into space, SPECTRE, finally revealed that they were behind it a year after its appearance, leading to "Stargate".
• The fake metals on sale in San Francisco that conned thousands of innocent citizens into spending extortionate amounts of money on what turned out to be worth next to nothing. When arresting the culprits, the police said $120,000 had been made from "Golden Gate".
• The God
  Miming. Danish writers referred to this as "Baldur's Gate
  ".
• The disappearance of an entire Asian country behind an exceedingly large rock, "India Gate" caused all sorts of economic problems when scientists accidentally cloaked it.
• Finally, there was some story about a couple who were caught making out on a public footpath in England and forced to pay a fine to locals for indecent exposure. I can't remember the details, but it was called "Kissing gate".

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

Why should it be? It's in the start of the article. 129.241.151.82 (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I somewhat disagree, there no reason to exclude company corruption scandals as long as they they are widely reported/notable enough. While I some what agree on the term on the suggestion "no local politics", the term has to used carefully, i.e. local means the scandal was only locally covered, but does not mean "not widely reported in the US media" or "I haven't heard of it".--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2010 (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)

Agreed -- can you please restore those that should not have been removed? I believe the basic inclusion criteria is whether or not the term has been used by mainstream reliable sources. --guyzero | talk 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've just restored one of the falsely removed ones. Also if somebody is not quite sure about a particular removal, he/she should ask for 2nd opinion here, before possibly removing it. There should be definitely no "quick and dirty" cleanups.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the only viable long-term inclusion criteria will be to include only entries that have their own Wikipedia article (or perhaps a substantial section of a larger article). To look at a current example:

  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]

  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
  reliable sources that might use the -gate term, but it's not notable enough for inclusion. — Scientizzle
  16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

P.S. Another option to get a better control of the "gate spamming" might be to semiprotect the page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Does

Irangate redirects to Iran–Contra affair, but the text of the article doesn't contain that term...not saying it shouldn't, but I argue (and I think it's generally the way things are done) that a redirect should obviously be applicable to the main article. Iran–Contra affair may need to have "also known as Irangate^[ref(s)]" added to the lead. — Scientizzle

16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Iran-Contra-Affair doesn't mention Irangate as an alternative name, that it should be added. However a redirect

Dunagate

has no english article yet, but a hungarian Interwiki exists already.

While I agree that the list (ideally or ultimately) should only reference -gates that have there own article or section/chapter in WP, there should be temporary (redlink) exceptions for really notable -gates that are expected to get their own article in the future. For that such an entry of course needs to be sourced and fulfill the notability criteria for articles (both are given for dunagate). One has to keep in mind that WP is a work in progress and develops in parallel, that means target articles maybe incomplete (not mentioning all correct names for instance) or temporarily in a bad state or even non existing yet. In such cases reputable external sources need be used, to judge whether an article belongs in the list or not and to improve, fix or create the target articles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:42, 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

I think that the current phrasing "actual or alleged scandals" already covers this. As for climategate, the term has always met the requirements for being used here. (Notable, common usage, and currently, continued usage over a long period of time) The arguments to keep it out are simply POV pushing and strongly support the claims that the climate change articles are biased. Remember, the original Watergate scandal was a break in and the illegal acquisition of data that was not publicly available. Climategate was the (possibly illegal) access and (probably illegal) dissemination of data that was not publicly available. Both resulted in inquiries, continued public speculation, magazine articles, news reports, books, and perhaps much more. I think that the similarity is striking. Q Science (talk) 15:49, 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)

I don't think your particular take on the subject is

WP:NPOV, but neither do I think that the current wording captures the idea well. Please propose new wording here so we can workshop it. jps (talk

) 14:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just trimmed the entry--the details can be argued over in the article. — Scientizzle 21:25, 8 March 2011 (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)

I've already removed it once...there's never going to be a main article about this bit of triviality, so it's not worth it. — Scientizzle 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On the question of what should and should not be included in the list

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

I now see in

the archive, but nobody ever endorsed this. Victor Victoria (talk

) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I see in the article, as it is now, at least three scandals, "Mabelgate", "Macacagate", and "Maidgate", do not link to articles about the scandal, but to section in articles dealing with the scandals. I suppose this is a fair compromise: for non-fictional scandals, only include those that are large enough to be covered somewhere else within Wikipedia: either with its own article, or a section within an article. Fictional scandals should not require this level of scope, as it is fictional. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits to this page have been in-line with this general philosophy: to merit inclusion on this list, the given scandal must have its own target article (as a whole article or a substantive subsection discussing the scandal) with at least one cited source specifically using the "-gate" suffix. — Scientizzle 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Piñeragate: it links to an article about

WP:RS that uses the term Piñeragate. There is however, a comprehensive article on Piñeragate in the Spanish Wikipedia. So what do you do with this one? Victor Victoria (talk

) 16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the language-specific article exists, there are probably some sources worth finding ([1][2], however I'm ill-equipped to evaluate non-English sources)...As an example of a similar situation, I wrote

WP:RS citations using the term on this page to encourage the formation of the article or at least the translation of the Spanish version. — Scientizzle

16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess, it would be in-line with my philosophy above that one should be able to make a clear case that the given scandal, if a redlink, must reasonably be the likely subject of its own target article (as a whole article or a substantive subsection discussing the scandal) with at least one cited source specifically using the "-gate" suffix. — Scientizzle 16:43, 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:

• Aleshagate, this is presumably sourced to a single sentence in a blog post: [3]
• Baftagate, likewise sourced to a single sentence: [4]
• Flakegate
  , sourced to a tabloid, dead link
• Hot Coffeegate, sourced to a single sentence in a tabloid: [5]

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)

Ideally the given sources should be considered exemplary and editors should only add gate scsandals for which they checked that they occur in more than one media outlet. If there's only one source in total, then unless the source is very prominent, the scandal doesn't belomng into the article. For example take the baftagate from above is only appearing in the cited source (scotsman), but it appears at least in 2 books ([6]) and in the guardian ([7]) as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking directly to baftagate, this is a prime example of the sort of trivia that doesn't belong on the list. A passing mention in a book or two, plus a news article do not constitute enough coverage for inclusion here. Reviewing the criterion from the archives, the linked to subsection is nothing more than a stub and does not indicate that either the scandal or the specific -gate appellation rises above passing trivia. I'll go ahead and remove it. aprock (talk) 06:39, 17 November 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:

• Aleshagate, this is presumably sourced to a single sentence in a blog post: [8]
• Baftagate, likewise sourced to a single sentence: [9]
• Flakegate
  , sourced to a tabloid, dead link
• Hot Coffeegate, sourced to a single sentence in a tabloid: [10]

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)

Ideally the given sources should be considered exemplary and editors should only add gate scsandals for which they checked that they occur in more than one media outlet. If there's only one source in total, then unless the source is very prominent, the scandal doesn't belomng into the article. For example take the baftagate from above is only appearing in the cited source (scotsman), but it appears at least in 2 books ([11]) and in the guardian ([12]) as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking directly to baftagate, this is a prime example of the sort of trivia that doesn't belong on the list. A passing mention in a book or two, plus a news article do not constitute enough coverage for inclusion here. Reviewing the criterion from the archives, the linked to subsection is nothing more than a stub and does not indicate that either the scandal or the specific -gate appellation rises above passing trivia. I'll go ahead and remove it. aprock (talk) 06:39, 17 November 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)

Since

Watergate was a US event, it is not surprising that the most notable listings are US. If you'd like to suggest criteria for inclusion by all means put one forward. aprock (talk

) 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well most notable from the US perspective and right now I don't really agree at all that the current ones are indeed the most notable ones and i can't see by which criteria they are selected. In other words the current structure makes only sense if we have some practical criteria to distinguish between major (=widely recognized) and minor (=other) notables ones. If we don't have that, we should revert to the old structure not distinguishing between major and minor. If you think additional partitions are needed to avoid long uninterrupted lists other options might be to distinguish between geographical regions or languages.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means, do propose a criteria for inclusion. aprock (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you're not understanding me. I have no good criteria for "widely recognized" and "other" and if nobody else has one, we should not have such a partition.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have no good criteria for "widely recognized", do you have any suggestions for criteria for inclusion at all? aprock (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

yes included gets what was published in (several) serious media outlets and/or literature. But that gives no good distinction between "widely recognized" and "recognized/other". That was also the long standing practice for this article (all entries sources by reliable/serious/major media oulets or literature).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that most of the -gate's listed are not sourced to several serious media outlets or literature, I suggest that be used to distinguish between the "widely recognized" and the other. Please feel free to move any scandals with multiple sources to serious media describing the scandal with a "-gate" suffix up to the "widely recognized" section. aprock (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the criterion discussed in the archives is that inclusion should be based on the existence of an article or significant section covering the scandal. I would also add that the article or section also discuss the scandal using the -gate suffix. I think the idea that finding some tabloid somewhere, or a single person who uses the -gate suffix one time is enough to merit inclusion is incorrect. aprock (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You cannot use the essential entry criteria for the list as such to distinguish between "widely recognized" and "others". Moreover he fact that many of them give only one source in the article, doesn't that only one source exist, but merely that for convenience reason we list only one exemplary source (for instance we're not giving all the literature or newspaper/journal articles using them term Irangate but we just give one or two). A -gate scandal that shows up in its totality in source only doesn't belong in this list to begin with (with the possible exception that the single source is very very prominent media outlet).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: See also my comment 1 above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:55, 17 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)

In retrospect, I generally agree. Feel free to merge the lists. aprock (talk) 03:21, 4 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)

Given the general quality of sourcing in the article, that seems a bit arbitrary. As the Daily Mail is used to source another scandal, I'll restore the scandal for now. aprock (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that's not a sufficient reasoning, because polemically put you argue something a scheme like "it's ok t add errors, because the article contains already errors" and that not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Also I'd like to remind you of your own position further up ("remove the scandals which have been recognized with the "-gate" appellation by only a single sentence in a single source"). If there are other scandals which are not (better: cannot be) properly sourced, they need to be removed as well and you're welcome to do so. But please note a mentioning in serious media is not the same as a mentioning in the yellow press and having one exemplary source here is not the same as being able to sourced by one source only. So imho as far as "slutgate" is concerned, as long as the only source for the term is one article in the Daily Mail using the term in quotes, it should stay out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It would require a sufficient

reliable source using that term to be sufficient for this article. From what I have read I have not heard of this scandal being referred to as 'slutgate' by the mainstream media. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜}

21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the minimal requirement should be at least the usage in at least one serious mainstream media publication (better a mentioning in several).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:09, 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)

It is admittingly a somewhat grey area, but it has been discussed in the past. The idea of this article is to collect scandals which are somewhat/commonly known under/referred to by a name with a gate suffix (as well). The idea is not to collect all to scandals which were called "..."-gate by somebody at some point in time. Now a clear cut off might not be that easy, but at the very least I'd expect the use in one serious mainstream publication (better in several, see also older postings above). But note that usually it makes no sense to simply cite all possible occurrences. Hence I'd suggest as a practical approach, that editors planning to add new entries, confirm for themselves that the term is indeed in use in several or even many publications and then provides 1-3 exemplary citations of the most reputable/best sources. --Kmhkmh (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, given that the Daily Mail is sufficient for one scandal, I expect it's sufficient for another. I posit that what is somewhat/commonly known to one person is unknown to another, and obvious to a third. Using the articles current sourcing standards as a guide, which includes many tabloid sources, the Daily Mail clearly is an acceptable source. Without any other sourcing criteria, that's the best we can do right now. aprock (talk) 21:27, 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)

I don't know from where you get the idea that the Daily Mail is sufficient for one scandal or that there is/was any such listing criteria, the past discussions indicate exactly the opposite. If a term is a common place in tabloid sources one might argue that's enough for inclusion (but that would require at several tabloid sources). So far however you've provided only tabloid source that used the term in quotes and that is anything but an established common use of the term.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Currently, there is no listing criteria in the lead. Does the presence of quotes now affect inclusion? If so, that should certainly be noted in the non-existent listing criteria. aprock (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the "listing criteria" is here on the discussion page, but that aside the self definition of the article says "..list of scandals or controversies named with a "-gate" suffix" and imho it is common sense not to (artificially) read that as "...list of all scandals or controversies that have called a name with "-gate" suffix by somebody at some point in time". Moreover it seems to be consent of (almost) all comments on the discussion page (including the earlier ones of your own) that we do not want to have the latter. Now if you feel the need to state this explicity in the lead of the list, I don't think anybody has any objection to that, at least not me.

As far as the quotes are concerned, yes depending on the context they may matter, as from the authors' perspective you usually put something in quotes when according to your view it is not an established or generally accepted term.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Per

WP:STAND#Lead, the listing criteria should be in the lead of the article. I'm not arguing here for one criteria or another. I'm just saying that it needs to be spelled out, especially if it is to be used to exclude scandals with a "-gate" suffix. aprock (talk

) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is now officially resolved as Ratgate. Komitsuki (talk) 18:48, 30 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)

The wikilink for the article was incorrect. I've restored the entry and fixed the link. aprock (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

• Memogate (or "Rathergate") – The scandal over a forged memo about George W. Bush's military record that ultimately led to the resignation of Dan Rather as anchor of the CBS Evening News.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bernie Goldberg revivies Memogate Debates, Implicates Mapes, Rather |url=http://gawker.com/5345647/bernie-goldberg-revives-memogate-debates-implicates-mapes-rather/ |last=Belonsky |first=Andrew |date 29 August 2009 |accessdate=9 June 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/314297/|title=Rathergate expert on birth certificate|publisher=[[WND.com]]|accessdate=9 June 2013}}</ref>

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)

That's what I was coming to request. 149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note each section is now in

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)

¿Por qué? Weegeerunner (talk) 19:06, 19 November 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)

It's in there. It needs to be updated. The official NFL report (and findings) have now been released. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Related to the previous section; suggest inclusion of the

Sure thing, this sounds sensible enough. I'll move it now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:09, 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.--

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

"A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture."

That is accurate in regard to our article on the controversy, but doesn't match the Gamergate movement aspect. The second is:

"A controversy allegedly concerning ethics in video game journalism."

That, however, suffers from only describing part of the movement, and ignores the controversy. The third is:

"A controversy regarding sexism in video game culture, alleged questions about journalistic ethics, and reactions against social criticism of video games."

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

What the 'movement' is about, according to our reliable sources, is harassing people. The lede of this article states "This is a list of scandals or controversies whose names in scholarly sources include a "-gate" suffix"- that is to say, this article is a list of controversies, not movements. Our article at Gamergate controversy (the one being linked to) is about the controversy too, and it has taken a great deal of effort to get it to the level of quality it is at. The first description you've listed merely takes the first sentence of the lede of our article and places it here- it's the most accurate summary of it you could reliably give. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The specific source we're using describes it as being about more than harassment. Our article also describes it in broader terms. Harassment is a major part of Gamergate, but it isn't a full description, and as such appears only to show one aspect. The most notable aspect, to be sure, but not what I'd regard as balanced description. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I'll replace the bad quality source with a better one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"The source I said was reliable doesn't match my view on this subject, so I'll now find a new source". Wow, how "ethical" of you - 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.220.22 (talk)

The current

Gamergate controversy article does start by describing it as a controversy about sexism in video game culture. This is true. But the lead then goes on to describe the culture war, 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", and points out the claimed ethics concerns. The problem is that you've chosen a single line of a much longer description, and are saying that the one sentence describes the whole. But it doesn't - it describes the aspect we are (rightly) choosing to lead with in the main article, but it doesn't summarise the description overall. To be neutral we need to make a stab at a more complete summary. - Bilby (talk

) 04:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's any urge to make a large, bloated summary for the sake of some twisted idea of what neutrality is- it's neutral if it reflects the main article, which is neutral because it reflects what reliable sources say. Quick question: Should we place it in 'Arts and Entertainment' or 'Technology'? I see both applying here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

By bloated you mean 20 words - which is an unusual view of bloat. As a further example, you have now changed the source to the NYT article, [14], which is fine. But it describes Gamergate as "... a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage", yet we're not mentioning that, even though the source describes Gamergate that way. We can both describe it in terms of what we generally believe that it is - a harassment campaign - and in terms of what it is focused around - claimed ethical violations and anti-social critique. - Bilby (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

They are supposed to be brief summaries. I see your point, however- 'sexism in video games' is representative, but not terribly illustrative. How about: "A controversy concerning harassment of video game developers and critics who were believed to have committed ethical violations by criticising social elements of video games."? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support description which includes both journalistic ethics and sexism aspects; per

If we're going to be using NPOV to craft our summary, we should keep in mind what NPOV means- "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." (from the lede of the policy.) This would mean we cannot say that Gamergate is about journalistic ethics, because there is no significant view in reliable sources that it actually concerns journalistic ethics. Here's another suggestion: "A controversy concerning harassment of video game developers and critics who were falsely alleged to have committed journalistic ethical violations by criticising certain elements of video games." PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the NYT source you added, Gamergate is a term used by people who see problems with ethics in journalism and are concerned with the impact of political correctness in the field. It is also a harassment campaign, but that doesn't deny that Gamergate is used in regard to ethics and political correctness as well. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The key part of NPOV here being 'significant views'. It would actually violate our NPOV policies to mention the alleged journalistic ethics part without also stating (per our reliable sources) that these allegations are false. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The NYT is a reliable source. And yes, their ethics concerns have been minor or, in some significant cases, debunked. But that doesn't deny that they are concerned about perceived ethical concerns, and clearly they are focused on fighting what they perceive to be political correctness (or at least feminist critique). - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. Which is why I support including the ethics concerns as long as we correctly describe them (per our massive horde of reliable sources in the Gamergate controversy article proper) as "as being broadly debunked, calling them trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry."- a good word to summarise this might be 'false'. I'm open to suggestions, however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

WP:SYNTH

). Both of the sources which have been referenced here, and many others used at the article itself, include both aspects - ethics in gaming journalism and sexism/harassment - these are significant views in the context of WP:NPOV, and it would be undue to not mention them both. For the purposes of the summary here, the reception of or opinions on either of these aspects is moot. It matters only that they have verifiably been raised.

Finally, if the language proposed is used in the article itself, this is concerning; it will likely need to be brought in line with the

'c.s.n.s.'

07:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk! That our article at Gamergate Controversy is in violation of so many policies is very concerning. You should definitely raise those concerns on the talk page, there- they sound very serious. Hopefully, you'll enact change there to bring it in line with Wikipedia's policies- I will, of course, continue to advocate keeping our summary here in line with the content of the article proper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I agree that we need to stick to sources and reflect the current

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.

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

As I've previously said: Fine with 'what some perceive to be ethical violations' as long as we qualify that all reliable sources who've commentated on the accuracy of them have stated they are "broadly debunked, trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact" or "unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry." PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with that as well. I have yet to see a significant ethical problem identified by Gamergate, and the sources seem to reflect this - just a lot of minor transgressions or questionable arguments based on a pile of assumptions. I'll think about a further qualification. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. While we have a number of sources where opinions have been expressed along these lines, we do not have a reliable source supporting our stating it as fact (

WP:NOR

).

What we do have reliably sourced (in both the sources which have been referenced here, and in many at the article itself) is that ethical questions have been raised, and discussed, and that this is a significant aspect of the "controversy". We also have reliably sourced the other aspects - perceptions/claims of sexism in video games culture; suggestions of culture war.

I suggest that at the level of detail appropriate for this (List of scandals...) article, we should simply list these aspects of the controversy, without editorialising or passing judgement; and allow the reader to click through to the article itself for a more expansive description. -

'c.s.n.s.'

02:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(

'c.s.n.s.'

02:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read our article on the Gamergate controversy, Ryk- you'll find plenty of our reliable sources stating it as fact there, meaning your assertions are misplaced at best. Describing something succinctly and accurately is not 'editorialising'- whitewashing the description of something (especially so that it's contrary to how our article actually describes it) is editorialising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

'c.s.n.s.'

02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@

Gamergate controversy. PeterTheFourth (talk

) 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

From the article lede, which is by nature a synthesis, this section clearly states that it is opinion: 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.

I also refer editors to the policy at

WP:V#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it and the essay at WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

.

I reiterate that including this as opinion here is

WP:NPOV

, and add that it would also appear to be a misuse of sources.

If there are other sources which support including this text, I again invite editors to provide them. -

'c.s.n.s.'

04:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any attribution of opinion, just attribution of description by reliable sources. Would you be happier with 'these ethical concerns have been dismissed as false by a vast majority of commentators'? Honestly, what I'm getting is that believing that Gamergate is at all about ethics in journalism is such a

WP:FRINGE position to hold that to include it at all and not qualify it as fringe/misleading would be doing a disservice to our readers. PeterTheFourth (talk

) 04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting questions of using Wikipedia as a source and this being a synthesis aside; it is clearly opinion, as shown by Commentators ... dismissed ... calling. Commentators provide opinions, not fact. These statements are also sourced and attributed as opinions in the

WP:NPOV

, it would be improper for us to include them here as facts.

I do not concur that "the Gamergate controversy includes questions/discussion of ethics in gaming journalism or perceptions/allegations of ethical breaches in gaming journalism" is a

WP:FRINGE

theory. Each of Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others have 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.

Any opinions on the validity of the questions/discussion & perception/claims, including those held by Wikipedia editors, are just that, "opinions"; and we are required to present them as such; which would be undue in the context of this list article.

For additional reading, I suggest the essays at

'c.s.n.s.'

01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer

common sense to uncommon sense. You claim that the description of the ethical claims being undeniably false is opinion, and then claim that the description of these harassers by commentators- that is, them claiming to be about ethics, is an undeniable fact. Surely you can see that that would be cherrypicking? We either use the sources in their entirety or don't use them at all. PeterTheFourth (talk

) 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The key difference is that there does not appear to be disagreement that there is a "gaming journalism ethics" aspect to the Gamergate controversy; there does, however, appear to be significant disagreement as to the validity of some of the "ethics" claims/allegations. This disagreement appears (from reliable sources) to be a (the?) central point of the controversy. -

'c.s.n.s.'

02:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

By 'significant disagreement' do you mean a consensus among our reliable sources that these allegations are false? I'll again direct you to actually read our article on the gamergate controversy, where the hard work of tens of editors has described the whole mess far better than I could. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is clear from the article, and the sources, that opinions on the validity of ethics claims/allegations are opinions, not facts. It is also clear that there is not a "consensus among reliable sources" that the ethics claims/allegations are "false"; this is a

WP:NPOV

requires that we state it as opinion, not fact.

If there are reliable sources at the article itself to support stating this as fact, then they should be easy to identify. I have read the whole of the article, and neither sources supporting this as fact, nor a statement of it as fact appear. Editors are invited to provide details of any sources which they believe support the statement as fact.

I note that

'c.s.n.s.'

06:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. Coming back to the proposed wording. I again thank you for having put something together; greatly appreciated.

Looking at the text, 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.

1. I conceive that there's a difference between the "culture war" aspect and the others; in that the others are viewed as parts of the controversy, but the controversy is viewed as part of a culture war. Suggest: moving the "culture war" aspect to either the start or the end.
2. I am not sure that we need the double hedge of "what some perceive". Both the "sexism in video game culture" and the "ethics" aspects are strictly perceived - to hedge one (doubly so) but not the other may be POV-sided. Suggest: either simply "perceived ethical violations..." or some combination from [perceptions|questions|claims|allegations] of [ethics|ethical violations] in the gaming press.

If I were to attempt a "minimal change" version from your latest, perhaps:

A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture, social criticism of video games and perceived ethical violations in the gaming press; often viewed as part of a wider culture war.

Hope this helps, and thanks again. -

'c.s.n.s.'

13:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is progress. In attempt to fly close to the RS views, perhaps we should phrase as: A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture and claims that the gaming press engaging in social criticism are committing ethical violations; often viewed as part of a wider culture war. Although: I'm not really sure we can put in often in viewed as part of a wider culture war- not sure it's that common in RS, wouldn't mind being shown the RS which do echo this view though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, I agree with you on the often for the "culture war" aspect. Per Bilby, above, the lede of the article contains 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.

Unfortunately, I can't support the claims that the gaming press engaging in social criticism are committing ethical violations wording. It appears a POV-sided "straw man", which isn't supported by reliable sources. (See:

WP:SYNTH

)).

Of course, as before, if editors have reliable sources to support this as fact, they are invited to provide them. -

'c.s.n.s.'

13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on dropping the culture war angle- it's definitely not fringe, but it's a bit more of an indepth analysis of the controversy than a summary should hold. Re: sources, CJR states that "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked." Vox states "Every single question of journalistic ethics #GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with". The Verge states "You might have heard that it’s a movement about ethics in video game journalism, but in practice it’s a months-long campaign of harassment against women and progressive voices". New York Magazine states "But you’re in a bind, because other than that, the ethics charges are all you’ve got and they happen to be (1) 98 percent false; (2) complicated to follow for the layperson; and (3) pretty clearly a ruse given the underlying ideology of the folks pushing this line forward." I'll admit to being loath to actually drag myself through all the sources in the article itself- I was being a bit lazy. Hopefully this can settle the issue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, Many thanks for your response. I am happy either way on the "culture war" aspect, and included it only as part of a minimal change version from Bilby's previous proposed wording.

I also thank you for having provided some sources w.r.t the other wording; greatly appreciated.

However, having read through each of these sources, they are all opinion pieces; consequently, we cannot use them to support statement of facts (

WP:UNDUE

. We also need to be particularly wary of words like "debunked", which is a success verb.

Additionally, a number of these sources provide these opinions only on limited or narrowly defined cases - we need to be wary of

WP:SYNTHesising these into an opinion of the whole. (See also: Fallacy of composition

).

If I had to "put it in a nutshell", I could do no better than that already at

WP:NPOV

:

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.

We should be explaining the controversy, not taking either side in it. -

'c.s.n.s.'

02:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you please explain your assertion that all of the sources I've linked are opinion pieces? Perhaps go through them one by one. I don't really understand how they are. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia articles:

WP:YESPOV

is clear that we should attribute any opinions, especially when controversial.

It is not my intent to perform an analysis through these articles to support this. Nor is it my

'c.s.n.s.'

11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside- NPOV means only reflecting what the reliable sources say. Explicitly excluding them because you think they take a side is the opposite of NPOV. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that "NPOV means only reflecting what the reliable sources say" is supported by policy.

From the lede of

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.

These are what NPOV means.

I also note that "excluding them because you think they take a side" is a straw man, which does not describe the reasoning articulated. I do not propose that we should exclude these opinions. I firmly believe that we should include them, and any other verifiable points of view, as attributed opinions, at the article itself, which is the appropriate place for them to be documented. (

'c.s.n.s.'

11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to disprove your assertion that all the sources I've presented are opinion blogs- it is on you to prove your assertion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I felt that I should perhaps have expanded on this point above and explained why the burden of proof lies with editors asserting that sources are factual. I apologise for not having done so earlier.

In Common English we generally regard facts & opinions as binary, and the Common English statement that "these statements are opinions" is here in logical terms a statement that "it has not been shown that these statements are facts".

This is an important distinction because the policy at

WP:YESPOV

places the burden on demonstrating that assertions are uncontested facts, not on showing that they are not. This policy is clear, and threefold: Avoid stating opinions as facts requires opinions opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts requires us to treat conflicting assertions as opinions & Avoid stating facts as opinions allows us to (sometimes) state uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions ... in Wikipedia's voice.

The third policy point is full:

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.

The assertions which are presented from the sources provided are not clearly "uncontested and uncontroversial", and the topic clearly deals with a disagreement over these assertions - the contest, controversy and disagreement over these assertions are a core component of the subject.

Consequently, it is incumbent upon editors wishing to include this material as facts in Wikipedia's voice to demonstrate that they are indeed uncontested and uncontroversial facts. I hope this helps better explain the points above. The invitation to demonstrate that the information is factual remains, as ever, open.

Notwithstanding this, of course, the issues of

'c.s.n.s.'

11:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're inviting me to go beyond the reliable sources to find proof of their claims? That seems like it would be

original research. I'd rather just stick to what they say and not try to prove or disprove what they state factually. PeterTheFourth (talk

) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not suggest that editors attempt to prove sources' assertions through

policy

, that inclusion of material as fact requires that it be 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.

To do so in the main article, as we do, is clearly appropriate; to do so here in this summary is undue.

I further suggest that there are issues with the wording proposed, in that it is a

'c.s.n.s.'

13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have for the assertion that this fact is controversial? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)