Talk:List of -gate scandals and controversies/Archive 2

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've restored the summary of "Gamergate" based on the existing (seemingly high-quality) source. The argument made by Dumuzid here and again here is invalid - wiki articles are not citeable. If a higher-quality source exists, present it here and we can discuss updating the summary to reflect it. As it stands the current text is a more accurate summary of the source. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

My argument is quite merely that the description here should follow that of the main article,

Gamergate controversy, not that we should cite it as a source. This is really an argument for that page rather than here, as I see it. Dumuzid (talk

) 20:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That applies to the LEAD of the article (see

WP:LEAD.) No policy requires "internal consistency" among WP articles. By policy: summaries reflect sources. Nothing wrong with improving the sourcing here if possible but that's the path we have to follow. The content of other articles on-wiki is irrelevant. James J. Lambden (talk

) 20:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Going merely from the New York Times article, there is nothing that says the sexism is somehow "alleged." Indeed, the title of the article, "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign," rather belies the notion that such a thing is in doubt. As such, I think at the very least that word should be stricken from the description. Dumuzid (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Further upon my above point, using this New York Times article as our source really demands inclusion of 'threats' (per the article title) and probably 'harassment' from such statements as "...harassment of Ms. Sarkeesian and other women in the video game business has been an issue for years...." Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I read it as not that the sexism is alleged but the connection between Gamergate and sexism (or harassment, threats, etc.) is alleged. From the article: "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. 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. The article distinguishes between the group supporting Gamergate and those promoting sexism and harassment. Re: "inclusion of threats", the summary here reflects the source's comments on Gamergate, not the article as a whole. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But Gamergate the hashtag is nonidentical with Gamergate the controversy. The notable part of what is discussed are the threats and harassment; without them the hashtag would not merit its own article (at least based on this source). To ignore the main thrust of the article for an aside would seem to me to be

WP:UNDUE. I think it almost axiomatic that the "Gamergate scandal" includes things that happened before the hashtag was coined and with which the hashtag was not directly associated. As such, I believe the wording should be adapted to represent the source as a whole. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 21:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, are you also the IP 86.136.26.228? Given that there are concerns about the sourcing here, I've introduced more sources and rewritten the summary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fellow editors, This version
  'c.s.n.s.'
  23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• @
  weasely. Otherwise this seems like a reasonable course. We don't need a bunch of sources - one high-quality source, accurately summarized. It seems to me we have that now but some disagree and I'm not opposed to better sourcing. James J. Lambden (talk
  ) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

'c.s.n.s.'

23:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a lot to read through. So it looks like what's there now is based on previous consensus, which I'm fine with, except for the "failure to English" (ha!) as you put it. Does anyone here want to argue in support of the phrase "alleged questions" and if so could you provide a translation distinct from allegations or questions ? James J. Lambden (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The above comment is off-topic for this Talk page. In accordance with

'c.s.n.s.'

23:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:NPA and explain and/or retract. Thanks. James J. Lambden (talk

) 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This article doesn't fit the definition of POVFORK on the linked page:

In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

The closest it comes is a "daughter article", the policy in that case is:

Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

which is significantly different than the policy you're representing. Can you find a higher-quality source that would maybe address the content complaints? I've searched and the current one seems to be up there in terms of quality. I also found this: How do we know what we know about #Gamergate? which is interesting but maybe more philosophical than we need. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether we call this a daughter article, a fork, or what have you, it seems to me that the providential policy of treating all facts and major points of view in one article applies. That sentence is not restricted merely to POV forks, and it makes good sense to me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It-seems-like-a-good-idea-to-me does not a policy make! as much as I'd like it to :) I think we're chasing our tails with this POVFORK tangent, lets focus on improving the sourcing then appropriate summarizing and phrasing. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that I am not the arbiter here, but the policy is right there in black and white! As such, I think it is a good idea to try to conform the articles. While this article is certainly not a POV fork, and I am not claiming that is what is happening, it's certainly possible to imagine someone turning a list entry like this in to a POV battleground. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a POV fork, you don't think it's a POV fork - so then we're agreed POV fork policy doesn't apply, settled. Has anyone found a preferable source? Meantime I'm going to remove "alleged" from "alleged questions" since no can explain what it means. My best attempt is that it's saying questions may not have been asked - it's only alleged they were - but that's definitely not supported by the source. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, but I am saying that "[t]he generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article" is, in fact, a generally accepted policy. If I say "It is generally accepted policy that crimes should be prosecuted," and follow that with "murder is a particularly awful crime," it does not follow that burglary should not be prosecuted. I think we're on the right track, but I can't resist a good syntactical tilt! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting. Are you saying it's generally accepted based on the POV fork policy which (I thought?) we agreed didn't apply or another policy and if so which one? I'm not sure this even violates that policy, assuming it applied - what's the major point of view or fact present here that's not present in the main article? I don't think we can really get into questions of

due with a 1 sentence summary. James J. Lambden (talk

) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that sure it's a violation either! At this point my major substantive point is that we really should include some kind of threat/harassment language, since that appears to me to be the source of notability. As to content guideline interpretation, I am saying that the

WP:POVFORK page in that instance is stating a generally applicable, wider principal. That's all! Dumuzid (talk

) 21:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the source has to say about harassment

The instigators of the campaign [to discredit feminists] 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. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women

As you can clearly see, the article makes it clear that the harassment is being perpetrated by a "much smaller faction" within those trying to discredit feminists. It also makes it clear that those harassers attatched themselves to, instead of being part of, those proponents of gamergate. In any case, this does not constitute

WP:POVFORK because this is not its own article, this is at most a perripherally affiliated piece (like the articles on various years denoting events), and not even a daughter article and for a one sentance summary, does a good job at not representing any major deviation from any sources used for the sake of brevity. Second, Wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia, so unless you have a more reliable, in your opinion, source than NYT, what we got is a source that implies that those doing the threats were members of an entirely thrid faction, or at the most generous interpretation part of the "allied" group tyring to discredit feminist critics. And the discrediting critics can be considered "progressive social criticism", and thus is already included in the description, no reason to go any further.Granarkadis (talk

) 23:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC

Again, Granarkadis, I think you are conflating the hashtag #gamergate with the gamergate scandal, which is by definition a larger category. For instance, the initial brouhaha surrounding Ms. Quinn is pretty generally agreed to be part of the "gamergate" controversy, but it predates and is not entirely covered by the hashtag. I did not and do not think Wikipedia should be a source for Wikipedia. I think the New York Times article is good, and should be included and fairly represented. Again, I say, looking at the article--and in fact, its title--what makes the controversy notable is the harassment. Without the harassment, would that article exist? I think it obviously would not. I do not think Wikipedia should say "all gamergaters are harassers." You say that harassers 'attached themselves to gamergate.' I do not see that in the article. There is nothing about the 'smaller faction' attaching itself; indeed, from the wording of the article, it seems to me the Times is saying they are an endemic part of the whole. I am saying we should be reporting what made gamergate notable, that's all. Once more, for clarity, my position is that the gamergate scandal is not synonymous with the gamergate hashtag, much as one might say the Watergate scandal was not synonymous with the Watergate break-in. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling it a "scandal" or "controversy" implies that something scandalous or contraversial had occured. The watergate scandal occured because the government covered up the breakins, and then lied (lapse of ethical judgement), inflategate happened when tom brady "cheated" --lapse of ethical judgement--and lied about deflating footballs. In that context, calling gamergate a "controversy" only makes sense in the context of journalism. What controversy was there surrounding harassement? It was roundly condemned...By Everyone... Fullstop. No controversy surrounding that point whatsoever, unless somehow you find a source where people actively disputed any threats had occured. Being harassed or threatened is not a scandal, its a criminal matter, scandals and controversies happen when somebody (or somebodies) lapse in their ethical judgement, which is what is alleged to have happened to games journalists. Either way, many of these "scandals" on this list aren't even scandals at all, but events that shocked people so they decided to add the suffix (a la Indygate), however the event or object is associated with the -gate suffix, such as in gamergate. In many cases, if not all, people associate it with the hashtag, not with some elusive controversy. Also, that exerpt I quoted was directly from the article, and occured at the begining, setting the context for the rest of the piece. IT makes it clear that in the writer's opinion at least, those trying to discredit feminists are "allied" with gamergate, and those sending threats are a "seperate faction" which is much smaller than both of them. Allies and fellow travelers are not part of a same whole. Canada is the ally of the USA, however it is not a state, it is its own independant country, however they share some strategic goals, thus they are allied in trade and in NATO. However they remain independent entities. Full Stop.Granarkadis (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be drifting from talking about the sources to talking about your own personal interpretation of how things occurred. Please stick to discussing the sources, Granarkadis. The excerpt you quoted was from the article, however, it must be considered in relation to the rest of the article and what the sum of the piece meant. What you see as 'clear' from the excerpt is not clear to me, nor do I believe that it is easy to see what you see in that excerpt. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Granarkadis, I see "smaller faction," but that does not mean (to me at least!) a "separate faction." It is possible to say, for instance, that Republicans and Democrats are competing factions within United States society, but that does not mean they are separate therefrom. Again, I would ask you what is notable about gamergate in this article? The hashtag and presumable upstanding users associated with it are not the focus of what the Times is reporting. If you would like to create an article about the hashtag and its adherents, by all means, do so (though I am not sure it would be notable per Wikipedia). I agree that the excerpt you quoted is an important part of the article, but I think it supports my view inasmuch as it talks about harassment perpetrated by a gamergate faction (making it the most notable faction). I understand your point, but as PeterTheFourth says, it seems like you're going beyond the boundaries of the source to make it. Do you see where I am coming from at all? Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dumuzid agreed - a summary wouldn't be complete without mentioning harassment. I hoped to settle on a source before word-smithing but I gave it a shot: added harassment and phrased it more directly. Also swapped "progressive politics" for "political correctness" to follow the source. I won't take it personally if one of you reverts though. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden -- Thanks. I think that's a marked improvement in both ways. Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bit about online harassment- it's a fairly major part of the Gamergate thing. I'm not sure "political correctness" is more descriptive than "reactions against progressive social criticism". Do you have any other suggestions than "political correctness", and would you be okay with me editing back to the more descriptive phrasing? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I did a bit of a style edit, but didn't really change anything -- I personally think 'political correctness' might be better here, but it's a bit colloquial, I suppose. Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the updated wording - if we include "breaches" or anything suggesting impropriety we have to qualify it with "alleged" or "questions." PeterTheFourth, "reactions against progressive social criticism" seems supportable (not sure it's more accurate) but it wasn't in the source where the current wording is, that's why I changed it. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to vacillate but I'm thinking "journalistic ethics" alone may be better than "alleged breaches of journalistic ethics." The way I see it the debate wasn't about whether people broke the rules but what the rules should be. So, the one who wrote about her (or his?) roommate's game - both sides agree the writer wrote about the roommate. The question is whether that was ethically okay - what constitutes ethical journalism. It's more fundamental than just alleged rule violations. Does that make sense/anyone agree? I think both wordings are supportable with the current source (although my reasoning here isn't but that's okay.) James J. Lambden (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Lambden, while I don't disagree there is some sense of that, the scandal/controversy part is, to me, inexorably tied into the allegation that those were breaches. Whether you think it scandalous that a roommate wrote about a game, or scandalous that a person was targeted for that, the philosophical meta-narrative is not really what anyone noticed about gamergate. Again to relapse to Watergate analogies, there were legitimate debates about the limits of Nixon's executive power. But would those make it in to a one or two sentence precis about the Watergate scandal? It would seem to me they would not. I'm not dead set on my wording, but I think it better encapsulates the nucleus of notability (to coin an Agnew-esque term). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, alleged seems at home in that piece, mostly because as soon as somebody denies an allegation, unless there is a judicial ruling, it technically remains an allegation. Some people said that the GJP list was unethical, others denied that fact, thus it became an allegation. And after thinking it over, even if there was nothing "controversial" about the harassment, it was often at least peripherally linked to some aspect of GG or its critics, thus good for a one-sentance inclusion. also good since how it is worded now does not pass judgement on which groups perpetrating harassment, which is good for a one-sentence summary.Granarkadis (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Should IP user 80.229.188.196 happen to stop by, I would invite him or her to have a look at this link to the Reliable Sources noticeboard [1] -- Forbes.com is a tricky source to use, and as such, I think it better to go with the more straightforward cites. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted in your link, in this case Forbes would be a reliable source as the contributor is knowledgeable in the subject area. Additionally if you/Wikipedia aren't accepting WP:NEWSORG or WP:NEWSBLOG as reliable sources for anything GamerGate related ... that eliminates almost the entirety of the sources in the GamerGate Controversy article. Either you allow all POVs or none. Additionally you have violated 3RR on this article 80.229.188.196 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

80.229.188.196 -- I don't think I've violated 3RR? I'll certainly admit I've come close here. Can you show me where I did? I will self-revert if it's a current issue. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Over a 24 hour period spanning Feb 26-27 2016 you reverted this article 3 times. 80.229.188.196 (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The

WP:3RR rule prohibits more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, as such, I don't think I've broken it. Even if I had, it would not be a legitimate reason for continually editing in your preferred version days later with intervening edits by others. I'd ask that you give substantive reasons for doing so. That being said, now that we're all engaged here, hopefully we can work towards consensus. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 13:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The version I produced is not my preferred version - it's one which includes all POVs on the issue, with "allegedly" used as nothing has been proven in any of this. I tried being WP:BOLD, I jumped though the necessary hoops learning the backwards way Wikipedia 'works', I'm not going to try any more. I came here to help create an encylopedia, not right great wrongs which it seems every user connected to this GamerGate article on Wikipedia is trying to do. WP:DRN is my last attempt to try and get someone to write something vaguely relating to both the truth and NPOV. I shall not be using Wikipedia any more, so no need to worry about me fixing any of your (used to mean general "you" not you in particular Dumuzid) POV edits. 80.229.188.196 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I would encourage you to stick around, IP. Just by showing up here and discussing you've engaged more than most non-registered users tend to, in my experience. Being bold is absolutely part of Wikipedia, but when you get right down to it, this is a collaborative project. And you have to realize that NPOV is, to some extent, in the eyes of the beholder. There will always be differences in interpreting texts, in our case, the reliable sources. I still think (if you'll forgive me) that this is just the wrong venue for this argument -- it really belongs at the main

Gamergate controversy article. That being said, I'd say you should stay on and consider registering, even if we did both skirt the 3RR rule! At least we have that in common! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece can be used as a source for the opinions of the author (although the Forbes contributor system, which that piece is from, consists of bloggers with no editorial oversight, so they wouldn't usually be usable as sources even like that unless the author was a particularly well-known authority -- which I definitely don't think is the case here.) Either way, they can't (generally) be cited for statements of fact -- you can cite them to say "X said this would ruin such-and-such politician's campaign", but you can't use them as a source for "the politician's campaign was ruined" as if it's a fact. Here, you're trying to cite an opinion piece about the topic to support something you're presenting as a factual summary rather than the opinions of the author, which is a definite violation of

WP:RS. It's definitely inappropriate to use an opinion piece from a Forbes blogger to source the summary here when higher-quality sources (eg. an in-depth overview from the NYT) exist. --Aquillion (talk

) 09:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As the cited article actually makes no mention of the "-gate" scandal by name, I've taken the liberty to add the aliases "unpublishgate" and "leftpadgate" as these were also hashtags used to talk about "npmgate" and I have no idea which of the three should be considered canonical. Google search shows article matches for each of them though npmgate seems to have a few more results (maybe because it's shorter?). Someone with more time to spare should pick a proper source that actually uses the term and clean that up. -- 80.152.136.67 (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Man, Bananagate was huge back in 2011 it should make the list. Whose with me!

References

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu1EmF-nsBA (2) http://www.dailydot.com/upstream/banana-video-amazing-atheist-bananagate/ (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pULbmQSh4x8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.153.254 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't lie; I was really intrigued by "Bannagate." Dumuzid (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under "Journalism and academics" instead of "Technology"? The controversy surrounded gaming journalists' conflicts of interest, not the technology of games itself. Ranze (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, nearly all of the sources and coverage was about online harassment and video games. —

Strongjam (talk

) 12:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's about harassment in the video game industry, which fits more accurately under 'Technology' than 'Journalism and academics'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed, that #scratchgate as missing. Isn't there no such gate, I notid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.111.19 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice the list doesn't include two Canadian scandals that were suffixed - Coalgate (a Canadian namesake of New Zealand), and Mountie-gate, though this many years later, I unfortunately do not recall the details. GBC (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Something in football; see Battle_of_the_Buffet#Pizzagate. 2. A recent (2016) Internet controversy, something to do with the alt-right and paedophilia. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dick Cheney hunting incident) was quite a widely-used term in the media too. Equinox ◑

10:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How is this list at all relevant or useful? It's a curious footnote to the Watergate scandal at most. 76.14.125.176 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been chided for adding my own POV by saying that pizzagate is "false." Suffice it to say I believe I am neutrally representing the cited source, which says, and I quote, "[n]one of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims." Not representing that in our (properly) terse precis seems to me both a disservice to the reader, and a non-neutral summary of the source. As such, I think we should explicitly refer to the falsity of "pizzagate." Thanks to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@

'c.s.n.s.'

09:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@

Ryk72 and Dumuzid: That sounds like an excellent replacement. That solution qualifies as neutral and encyclopedic language. I'm editing here in America, and I would agree with the description of "discordant" for "false allegation" or "falsely alleging", so I would say that feeling extends beyond individual ENGVARs. I would also agree 100% about choosing "debunked or discredited, not both". I appreciate the ping, but no need to ping me in the future. I'll leave this up to editors that are more invested in this topic. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯

09:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just coming back because there is a new IP editor who wishes to remove "debunked" from the Pizzagate description. Again, as I think "none of it was true" is a fair synonym for "debunking," I would argue it should remain. Happy to hear any other perspectives. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be me. There is nothing offered to debunk it except the unsubstantiated claim "none of it was true". There have been no official investigations of any kind therefor no findings that could lead one to honestly claim the theory as "debunked". 88.110.108.254 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)-new IP editor guy

But the fact is, the reliable sources treat it as debunked and the Times article says as much. "Debunked" is not a legal status and does not require a formal investigation or declaration from anyone. I think that given

WP:3RR. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It may not be a legal status, but it's a word that has a commonly understood meaning, which does not apply in this case. Nor would any "similar wording" implying it has been shown to be untrue when it simply has not. That would create a false impression on a site that is purportedly about providing people with facts. 88.110.108.254 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree with me that debunked generally means "has been shown to be untrue?" If so, I think it quite apt. Moreover, this whole discussion has a bit of a funhouse mirror aspect to it insofar as I am unaware of any evidence whatsoever tending to show the actual existence of the conspiracy. It's something akin to averring that Carnegie Hall was built by jellyfish from Saturn, and when challenged on the assertion, shouting "prove me wrong!" But, let me back up a bit insofar as Wikipedia is not about providing people with "facts," as such. Rather, we summarize reliable sources on the issues we cover. That may or may not be factual, but it's the mandate for this particular online encyclopedia. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that is what the word means and is precisely why it is absolutely not "apt" at all. At no point has it been shown to be untrue, the seeming outlandishness of the theory is irrelevant in this regard. I would also point out this article is not here for the purpose of proving or disproving the validity of the theory, so arguing its merits in this instance seems foolish. My only purpose here was to achieve accuracy in a section that bore a blatant inaccuracy. But it's an inaccuracy (or outright falsehood) you seem determined to hang on to. 88.110.108.254 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is discredited mutually acceptable? -

'c.s.n.s.'

19:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That term is fine by me! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Carrying pretty much the same connotation, not really. My question would be; why does it need any spin put on it at all? What's wrong with simply calling it a "conspiracy theory" and, y'know, not pushing an unnecessary and unwarranted status upon it? We talk of neutrality but this is conveying a clear bias if we have to implant the explicit falsehood that anything has been debunked or discredited. I don't even believe the theory but I'm damn sure determined to be fair toward it regardless of my personal opinions 88.110.108.254 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean we strive for some sort of perfect epistemic neutrality, it means we represent, fairly and proportionately, the reliable sources on a given topic. On this one, the view seems fairly clear to me. But maybe I'm wrong! Just show me the reliable sources. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that have debunked the theory with offerings of actual evidence, simply articles like your chosen one that says "of course it's not true" whilst offering absolutely nothing to back such a statement up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A - this is an unbiased introduction to the theory from a reliable source which confirms there has been no investigation or debunking of any kind, whilst also indirectly criticising those who dismiss it out of hand, funnily enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.108.254 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll just outsource my response to that to this website: [2]. I'd ask you to read and reflect upon

WP:VNT. Other than that, I think we're done here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk

) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted again, first because it represents the last stable version, but more importantly, because this is the wording of our article at Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which I believe should be reflected here. If the IP can convince that page to go with his/her approach, then certainly it should follow here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Russiagate deserve it's own article?--I'm on day 4 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the BOLD insertion of material into this article which suggests that the Gamergate debacle had anything to do with "breaches of journalism ethics." At best, the cited source supports a statement that some Gamergate proponents are said to be interested in journalism ethics. The cited source does not in any way support the claim that there actually were any breaches of journalism ethics identified here, so the only thing we could say based on that source is that some proponents states that they were interested in "ethics in gaming journalism." Moreover, links and discussions of articles should reflect the main article, and our main article is clear that the "journalism ethics" claim was a fig leaf. For that reason, I am opposed to its inclusion here in a brief summary. I invite other editors to chime in and discuss the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no bold insertion - the last consensus version mentioned the ethics angle. The controversy involved everything discussed above. And the main article is in no way "clear" that the ethics angle was a "fig leaf". Moreover, the source cited specifically mentions the interest of Gamergate proponents in journalistic ethics. Not sure what the issue is here. No one is saying Gamergate is about one specific thing. This article defines the controversy and what it involves. Id be happy to hear from other editors who are uninvolved in the original gamergate article fiasco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:59C7:7ACD:CA31:5321 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see any reliable sources cited that state that the gamergate controversy concerns breaches of journalistic ethics, so I'm removing said mention from the summary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello there! Here Kotaku says they addressed Gamergate ethics concerns. If there was no journalism ethics component, what needed to be addressed? Even the Journalists have acknowledged that component. They are not mutually exclusive topics. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've restored what was the stable version before the recent edit-warring. Bold changes like this require consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The source cited does not support the claim that there were any actual "breaches" of journalistic ethics, so at best a stable version could state that it "involved" ethics in video game journalism. Whether that much even belongs in a one-line blurb, when it doesn't feature in the first line of the article itself, is still disputed, but this is at least supported by the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There are as you know more than 200 sources in the main article, which is linked from this entry. Much like the lede of an article does not require direct sourcing, neither does its summary. I hope the moderated text is agreeable. If not we can return to what was the stable version. James J. Lambden (talk)

Now you've inserted a source which supports the claim that there were allegations of ethics breaches, but also in the same breath states that those allegations are false. Given that the source you cited refers to a specific named individual, this is very much a BLP issue as relates to that person. If you're going to cite that source, we must, and will, include that source's statement that the allegations are untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The source cited in this article for the statement that there were "allegations of breaches of journalistic ethics" refers to allegations made against a named living person, and goes on to state about those allegations, Having spoken to Nathan several times, having looked closely at the numerous messages sent our way by concerned readers and, having compared published timelines, our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true. We cannot state, based upon this source, that there were allegations of ethical wrongdoing made against a living person and not immediately state that those allegations were found to be untrue. That's simply basic editorial fairness, not to mention

required by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 06:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't specify any source that indicated specific breaches of ethics. That would be akin to saying only Quinn was subjected to harassment. Kotaku uses the words "addressed" when speaking broadly about ethics brought to light at the beginning of GG. They acknowledged things like patreon funding and relationship disclosure needed to have policies. They implemented them and acknowledge that GG was the impetus. Again, they used the word addressed, not false. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:WEIGHT, that the gamergate controversy regards issues of TotalBiscuit being very upset on youtube? PeterTheFourth (talk

) 10:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of TotalBiscuit. Is this where we're supposed say "shut the fuck up, donny?" --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: To rephrase more simply: What you may see as important about the controversy (female game journalists coming to take away our anime pornography?) or what I may see important about it (loud, emotional reactionaries) isn't the important thing. What's important is the proportion of coverage any issue may receive in reliable sources, and the 'unspecified breaches of an unspecified ethical code' story didn't get enough play. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WTF is anime porn and who are you blaming for taking it away from you? I am not aware of GG hitting so close to home for you but this sounds very tangential to everyone else. You're out of element, here Donny. --DHeyward (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is, like many of the gamergate controversy things, controversial. Could people please let me know here if they don't like my proposed description (lifted from the main gamergate controversy page) so we can run an RfC? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about "liking" it. The previous version was stable and the result of consensus. You still have not explained why you changed it from a stable, accurate version that had consensus. I think that's where the confusion lies. 2602:301:772D:62D0:F857:1A1D:142A:84B9 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not place enough weight on the 'unspecified ethical breaches' story for it to feature in a short, cut down summary of the controversy. To include it would be inaccurate. I believe I've explained this before, but I'm nothing if not gracious. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. You still have not addressed what I said. There was a stable version that had consensus and agreement - including you. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix/Archive_1#Description_of_Gamergate_.28redux.29. So I dont understand why you switched an edit that everyone had agreed with before it was switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F857:1A1D:142A:84B9 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Switched" an edit? Who's 'everyone'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you see the link I posted? There was a stable version. It had consensus. You agreed with that consensus. Well over a year later you switched the edit without doing consensus on the talk page. YOu could have at least disucssed it.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize this. If you don't understand the wikipedia editing process or policy, you probably should stop editing and do some reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F857:1A1D:142A:84B9 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that no one has addressed IP's query. He/she made the point there was a stable version that had gained consesnus through extensive discussion and was then BOLDly changed. I think the question as to why is a fair one. 97.33.194.192 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no great mystery here. The summary matches the lead of the linked article. Articles change, consensus changes, and new sources have been published. Several of the sources used are more recent than that October 2015 discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can the Country field "United States" be changed to Worldwide or Global for the Volkswagen emissions scandal (dieselgate, emissiongate)? The article lists government actions in 22 countries, not just the US. Thanks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We need to add Whitewater controversy (sometimes called "Whitewatergate") to the list, but I'm not sure of the dates to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.79.247 (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Start at Talk:Whitewater controversy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Beachgate should be added. One source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-chris-christie-beach-20170703-story.html. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I added it in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This page has enough substance preceding the list that I believe it is ready to be considered as more than just a list. It's an article that includes a useful list, and it should have a page title that indicates its status as an article. Recent discussion about this page's AFD nomination, as well as an earlier talk page discussion (archived here) seem to indicate that this page is recognized as useful and valuable enough for the page move; perhaps enough to make the move uncontroversial. Thoughts?

At the same time, we might also want to merge in content from Snowclone#X-gate. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Monkeygate scandal (Ind vs Aus at the SCG, 2007) is another that ought to be included due to the racial abuse scandal involving Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds, as well as the poor umpiring. Though I feel Monkeygate should be mentioned, I want to know the community consensus before adding it. Yogeeta4 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RS. What news sources would you cite for "Monkeygate"? Lwarrenwiki (talk

) 19:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki:[4], [5]. --Yogeeta4 (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Obama-gate
• Spy-gate
• Sharpiegate II (2020 Election conspiracy theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.140.253 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no substance to either, just tweets and innuendo. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Then, why is there both (a) a Wikipedia article ... and (b) a redirect page? If neither has any "substance" beyond tweets and innuendo? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Article here:

Obamagate. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk

) 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Right. I second Margi. Also, the article’s page name reads “List of […] scandals.” Unless it’s become an actual scandal, this ridiculous notion of “Obamagate” has no place in this list. It may become a candidate for § “In popular culture”, though, particularly subsection “Conspiracy theories”, but there’s still no “consolidated knowledge” about that (which for the subject in question will always remain volatile). -- K (T | C) 08:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fine that you agree with that other editor, But, my question still remains: Then, why is there both (a) a Wikipedia article ... and (b) a redirect page? If neither has any "substance" beyond tweets and innuendo?. Still a valid question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason there is an article about Hot Dog, but it won't be mentioned on a List of Dogs. A conspiracy theory is not a scandal in the same way street food is not a pet. For Obamagate, it is totally unclear (at least currently, probably forever) if any redirect (or a legit article with, you know, content) could be justified. Apparently a discussion in that respect has meanwhile been started).--Hagman (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stay focused and on topic. Your example about hot dogs is, to be "diplomatic", silly. I gather that it is your contention that we have articles and redirects based on "no substance beyond tweets and innuendo"? Because we have both the article and the redirect, as I listed above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hagman's reply is on target. You're comparing apples and oranges, which is his valid point. The fact that there is an article about something called Obamagate does not render it a scandal, and thereby does not belong on this list. Obamagate is the latest in a series of failed attempts by the Trump campaign to sully either President Obama or Vice President Biden's reputation in response to Trump's falling poll numbers, as well as to distract from his own failures with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. None of that makes it a scandal. There's no substance to it; even Trump can't articulate what it is President Obama supposedly did that is so illegal and the "evidence" he provides makes it clear Obama's actions were "by the book." There is no substance, much less a scandal. Therefore, Obamagate has no place on this list. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose adding vague conspiracy theories here, as they are manufactured "scandals", if they even are scandals at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a conspiracy theory manufactured by Trump and his henchmen that they're trying and failing to dress up as a scandal. It doesn't belong on the list. If anyone is looking for a scandal in the making, Trump's attempts at voter tampering today should bubble up into one pretty quickly. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with other commentators. A redirect and such is about all that’s needed for this silly thing here. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Obamagate is listed at List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, which is a much more appropriate location for it.--Auric talk 11:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a new section with two recent conspiracy theories that snuck into the article in recent days; I've removed that section since it does not fit the article, particularly given this discussion. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories under popular fiction

Seems that the discussion above has neglected to take into account that scandals do not have to be real in order to be listed. They just have to be notable. None of the scandals listed in the popular culture section are real. Banana Republic (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who have already edited this talk page section, as BR is edit warring to reinsert the content. @Volunteer Marek, Drmargi, Auric, Joseph A. Spadaro, Hagman, and Kai Burghardt: – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I just removed the Pizzagate, etc. again, and would remind Banana Republic to gain consensus before restoring the edit. The argument regarding real scandals does not support inclusion of conspiracy theories. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no "argument regarding real scandals". The article already lists fictional scandals. Banana Republic (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Banana Republic, there is no consensus for adding this material. Stop edit warring over it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about the suffix, no? Isn’t it notable to see how this suffix gets used when people are naming conspiracy theories? Umimmak (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it’s a list about scandals. Scandals whose name end in ‑gate. Conspiracy theories aren’t scandals. -- K (T | C) 15:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Scandals was meant to be a catch all, we already have fictional scandals. Even if it’s an imagined scandal which is part of a fake conspiracy theory, the -gate suffix is still the same -gate suffix used to mark scandals. Umimmak (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The idea of the list is to show all the scandals ending in "gate", regardless if the scandal is real or fictionalized. The list just needs to properly indicate which scandals are fictionalized and which ones are real. Banana Republic (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently from the Wall Street Journal, June 14, 1973:

"Saigon-- An international architectural firm is displaying a scale model of a Saigon Hilton. Saigonese teen-agers are all wrapped up in the latest local fad-- roller skating. The city's newspapers are full of stories about local scandals called Taxgate, Laborgate, Autogate and Bankgate."

https://books.google.com/books?id=RmbQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22south+vietnam%22+%22autogate%22&source=bl&ots=_qAE4yaPs1&sig=ACfU3U0S9tn8cin4ZOg_4BJqHmmtUUPcjg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOxsm1oP7uAhVmmeAKHZYNAxEQ6AEwAnoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=%22south%20vietnam%22%20%22autogate%22&f=false

68.196.186.129 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add sofagate. 94.145.192.53 (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For context, I removed

-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense for the list to include controversies that aren't specifically scandals, as that line is not always clear-cut. It would not make sense, imo, for

GamerGate, it makes sense to include - this list is more about etymology than scandals. Elli (talk | contribs

) 01:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm relatively agnostic, but I guess the question is, can we come up with any coherent and well-sourced dividing line between "scandal" and "controversy"? Otherwise we ought to be prepared for endless wars over which is which. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert the undiscussed move. The "solution" is worse than the "problem." UW Dawgs (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the move makes sense here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

This seems like

talk

) 18:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The hashtag is pretty clearly a term. It probably merits inclusion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I added "

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

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)

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

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

Literally

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)

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)

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)

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

 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I imagine it will appear in both articles eventually. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)