Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

Courtgate

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)

Criterion for listing

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: [1]
• Baftagate, likewise sourced to a single sentence: [2]
• Flakegate, sourced to a tabloid, dead link
• Hot Coffeegate, sourced to a single sentence in a tabloid: [3]

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 ([4]) and in the guardian ([5]) 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)

recent reorganization

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)