Category talk:Political scandals in the United States
|This category is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I have boldly added some inclusion criteria for this category; I am worried that this category may become a method for casting aspersions on people peripherally involved in political scandals, or for whom involvement in scandals is not the principal source of their notability. I realize this would throw a lot of articles out of this category, but I believe it is appropriate as per Wikipedia:Categorisation of people, and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization, in particular:
Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
I'll leave this up for a few days for comment; if people agree with me, I'll start tentatively removing certain articles from this category (for instance, I don't think Bill Clinton belongs here). RayAYang (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I partially agree. That is; I agree with removing people "peripherally involved" in scandals. However Clinton's political career was full of political scandal. DiggyG (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but he's not notable for *being* a scandal, nor does his notability derive from being in them (quite the reverse). I'd support the inclusion of his biography in a category of figures featuring prominently in particular scandals (in fact, he is a member of "Lewinsky scandal figures"). This goes to the whole "best characterizes" the person's importance aspect. I think this distinction would be useful to keep the category from becoming a haphazard of list of politicians who have not been altogether clean, which would be most of them ;-) RayAYang (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above constitutes the most objective discussion I have seen on this topic. Having observed that, I almost hate to add this! I believe the category (and word) is primarily subjective in application. Example: "Your candidate is a scandal. Mine is not!" Far from being opposed to removing anybody, I am in favor of removing everybody from this term in category and in article title. There must be some other way of characterizing people's occasional actions however their supporters don't want to hear them or their detractors do! I was just suddenly struck with the inspiration that madams of famous bordellos are probably in a "sex workers" category rather than scandal; the latter much closer to their permanent employment. Why do they get off so easy while politicians and casual offenders do not?
- How about this: If there is a separate "scandal page" for every scandal a person is involved in, then I think it would be ok to remove an individual from this category (so long as they have other notability not derived from scandal).DiggyG (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a need for this category. For one thing, it clearly shows the increase in scandals (mudslinging) from the past to the present. A single scandal involving Harding cost him an election, while 'scandals' and charges about George W. and the Clintons are so numerous its hard to keep track of them. Further, there should be a place to compare and contrast the type of accusations being thrown. For instance, readers may have noticed the large number of Republican executive branch scandals versus the large number of Democratic legislative branch scandals. I have no explanation for that. Does anyone else? On editing this site I have tried to make clear the ultimate outcome of the scandal. That is, were they actually guilty or innocent? A great number of people think Bill Clinton actually broke a law of some kind, but he was in fact, found innocent by the Senate. Same thing for Oliver North, who was convicted, but since the ruling was overturned is actually innocent. The chief purpose of this category is just that, a quick overview of what is a scandal and what isn't. I would argue that the recent addition of Washintonienne isn't necessary, since Cutler herself is a minor political figure and she isn't telling who the major political figures are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This entire category is an unnecessary collection of unrelated articles. Its potential for political abuse is rife and its value if nil. Get rid of it. WildGooseWest (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- That discussion is properly for CfD. I personally do not think potential for abuse is a reason to delete the category, although I am open to amending the current criteria for inclusion. RayAYang (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What constitutes "scandal"
What is an objective definition of scandal? I doubt that there is one. My definition (repeating above): it is one your candidate is involved in and one that my candidate wasn't. The bottom line is that it is subjective.
If "News at 11" calls it a "scandal" once, then it is "forever" defined that way. But "News at 11" is simply trying to get you to watch in order to sell ad time. Their use of outlandish superlatives and attention-getting devices is legendary. Seldom sheds light on the truth, however. which is that the stuff politicians are involved in are mostly boring, sometimes felonious, but seldom "scandalous." Student7 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- True, there is no real definition of scandal, but a good quideline is if the action taken is illegal. In my book, that's definately a scandal. And given the way these things drag through the courts, it's good that someone is keeping track. Remember how the Clintons were accused of stealing furniture? Hypocrisy is another indicator. It's one thing for Gay congressman Barney Frank to sleep with a man. It's quite another when a staunch defender of family values does the same. richrakh````