Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

  • 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)

Contents

[edit] naming this article

there is precendent in wikipedia to simply have articles of suffixes be written as: -cide, -cycle, -cracy, -ic, -ism, -ist, -ography, -oid, -ology, -omics, -onomy, -onym, -philia, -phobia, -scope, -stan, -ware.

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 -gate is currently a redirect here, but it has a history. Should it be noted at WP:RM? Thryduulf 00:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nipplegate

Although the term Nipplegate has been used by major news agencies like CNN, I still think the "gate" term should be confined only to political scandals. If every news story that breaks out gets a "gate" suffix, the list of gates in Wikipedia would never end. Let's stick to politics, shall we?

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)

[edit] This article needs news citations for every scandal name listed

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


[edit] Seperated all the scandals into two categories

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)

[edit] Widely recognize scandals? Really?

Dropped by the scandals page to see if there were categories for maybe police scandals - which are political scandals not involving politicians, other than may a Solicitor-General or Attorney-General (here in Canada the cabinet post which governs/runs the police/court system), so don't fit the "political scandal" category. So I came upon the list of -gate scandals and saw the "widely recognized" list, which (sans descriptions) is

  • Plamegate (also "Leakgate," Plame affair)
  • Rathergate (also "Memogate")
  • Filegate
  • Travelgate
  • Monicagate or Sexgate ("Zippergate", "the Lewinsky scandal") NB typically known outside the U.S. as the Lewinsky Affair
  • Nannygate I and II
  • Irangate or Contragate
  • Nipplegate
  • Billygate
  • Coingate

I'm well-informed and follow the news; the only terms in that list which strike me as "widely recognized are Irangate - always better known as Iran-Contra - and Rathergate; Nannygate and Billygate I've heard of but I wouldn't consider those "widely recognized". Plamegate internationally is the Plame Affair or (now) the Rove affair/case.

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)

[edit] VfD

This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for a record. Postdlf 01:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant entry: Coingate

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

[edit] Entries Combined

Perhaps the combination could be made more smoothly rewinn 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn

[edit] Suspisciousness

I contend that some of the sources listed sound highly suspiscious, although the scandals and their names are probably legitimate. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubbergate

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.

[edit] Two lists

Surely the division is rather subjective? The Fettesgate affair (which I intend to write an article on btw!) seems much more notable to me than the publicity stunt with the singer's tit slipping out! Other than the original Watergate and maybe Irangate and Muldergate, surely they are all debatable in their importance? The current division looks somewhat US-centred. --Guinnog 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calciogate?

What about "Calciogate", the scandal in Italy regarding the football teams of Juventus and Co. ?? -- CdaMVvWgS 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pardongate

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)

[edit] Is the '-gate' suffix an example of modern Newspeak?

Is this -gate construction of scandal naming, rather than traditional wording of scandals (i.e Iran-Contra Scandal Versus Contragate or Irangate) a scheme designed to eliminate thought or inquiry by using the indicitive emotion of a "-gate" suffix? I dunno, it's interesting, at the least, and might deserve a mention on the page.

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

[edit] Waterkantgate

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)

[edit] Rathergate

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 unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Confusing sentence in introduction

"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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_scandals_with__-gate__suffix_af6b.html"