Talk:List of -gate scandals and controversies

Inclusion criteria needs to be settled

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

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

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

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

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#Inclusion_criteria
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#Scandal_or_controversy?
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#Inclusion_in_the_list
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#Criterion_for_listing_1
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#Criterion_for_listing_2
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#recent_reorganization
• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies/Archive_1#%22slutgate%22

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

I agree that this is a problem. I just removed "fingergate", as the article of the subject of this alleged "controversy" makes no mention of it. I do believe this page has an WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. Just because some Internet commentor slaps a "gate" suffix on something doesn't make it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, I did some cleanup recently, but there is more to do. There has to be enough use of the "gate" term to qualify for a successful, existing, article, not just a few mentions in some reliable sources.

This list contains promotional and sneaky stuff, sometimes using redirects to point to places where "whatevergate" isn't even mentioned, or to real scandals that were not called "gate" enough to qualify as a WP:Common name. Feel free to delete with hard hand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Some event may meet the definition of a scandal, but that is not the only inclusion criteria here. How big a scandal? It has to be really BIG, as in many RS and public recognizability. Lists like this have their own notability criteria, and that is enough notability using that term to have an article with that name. So ask yourself these questions: Is use of the term "Whatevergate" so ubiquitous that WP:Common name allows us to use it as the title of the article or a good section in another article about the incident with many RS? If you said "Whatevergate", would the average person know what you were referring to?

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

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

Requested move 1 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of -gate scandals and controversies. Consensus developed around LaundryPizza03's suggested alternative title, List of -gate scandals and controversies. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

---

List of "-gate" scandals and controversies → List of scandals and controversies ending in -gate – This seems to make the most sense, and is somewhat consistent with List of words ending in ology (which I also propose to be moved to List of words ending in -ology). The suffix in the title should be formatted in italics too, so that it shows as List of scandals and controversies ending in -gate and List of words ending in -ology respectively. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 10:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The ending of the names of these scandals and controversies does not include a hyphen, and it doesn't seem like the suggested change makes much of a difference, and the quote marks seem to make the description more clear. On the other hand, please see the opening sentence of Oxford spelling, which talks about "the suffix -ize" and "use of -ise endings". Perhaps it would be better to use List of scandals and controversies with names suffixed by -gate. Also please note that some opposition has been expressed in the parallel RM under discussion at Talk:List of words ending in ology#Requested move 1 August 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Or perhaps List of scandals and controversies suffixed by -gate if there is a desire for some move and the inclusion of "with names" seems too verbose and pedantic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, the present name is clearer (and per BarrelProof). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to List of -gate scandals and controversies with DISPLAYTITLE List of -gate scandals and controversies per MOS:WAW, under which words referred to as words are to be italicized, not quotation-marked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Remove quotation marks – I'm not sure what the correct title is, but whatever it is, it should have -gate in italics per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.

@QueenofBithynia: Just to aid the closer, if there isn't consensus for your proposal, am I correct in assuming that you would prefer LaundryPizza03's proposed alternative over the status quo? Graham (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would indeed, although I would prefer a move to my proposal or List of scandals and controversies with names suffixed by -gate, as suggested by BarrelProof. - QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, the proposed title would be longer and less clear than the current one. I'd be fine with LaundryPizza03's proposal, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aquariumgate

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

Minkgate

Are these three sources (which include The New York Times and Forbes), sufficient to show that the unlawful slaughter of all mink in Denmark, an event which led to snap elections, has been called "Minkgate"? At least one editor does not seem to think so. Here are some additional sources.

References

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It may well be referred to as Minkgate in WP:RS. However, that is not the article's title, nor is the word used anywhere in the article. Until that changes, it probably shouldn't be on this list. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That is easily changed, of course, and the -gate name has been suggested in the ongoing RM about that subject. However, Wikipedia should not be used as a source for itself; independent reliable sources should be used. And this is not a navbox or a disambiguation page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a list of articles that have -gate in their titles or, at the very least, refer to the incident as something-gate in the body. Neither is the case with this article. If that changes as a result of the ongoing discussions, it could then be added. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a question worth asking: What is the WP:purpose of the list? Is this a list of articles or a list of notable topics along with some information about those topics? A WP:disambiguation page or a WP:navbox is merely an aid to navigation, so for example we have a guideline called WP:DABMENTION, which basically says that if a term is not mentioned in some article, that article should not ordinarily be listed in the disambiguation page for that term. Disambiguation pages and navboxes do not cite sources – they only link to articles. However, the purpose of this list article is very different. Its purpose is to provide information, not merely navigation. Unlike a disambiguation page, this list cites its own off-Wikipedia sources (nearly 500 of them). This is a WP:Stand-alone list. Its content stands alone, "subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources", per WP:LISTVERIFY. Of course, I could just add a mention of the term "Minkgate" to the most relevant article – after all, in its ongoing article title discussion the term "Minkgate" has already been suggested as a possible title for the article. But that should not be necessary as a matter of Wikipedia guidelines, since this is a stand-alone list article. By the way, here https://cphpost.dk/?p=129957 is a seventh such independent reliable source that verifies the -gate term usage, in The Copenhagen Post – "the only English-language newspaper printed regularly in Denmark" (quoting the Wikipedia article on that subject). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Qatargate

Got to admit that I've never seen WP:HEADLINES prior to being cited in this editor's 3rd revert of the day (4th revert overall), but there are at least two WP:RS that can be found in which Qatargate is explicitly mentioned within the body of the article: Politico and The Atlantic. Banana Republic (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Banana Republic, I've raised the issue on WP:BLPN as you have restored it again (for at least the 4th time overall). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Good move. Better than a 5th revert. Banana Republic (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oceangate?

I know it's the actual name of the company, but I think it might be qualified to be added to this list. Pewtercupcakes (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. It's not a -gate scandal. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)