InternatszГ¶glingI have just modified here external links on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. TheLovebirds on Quite vox mediathek outlander staffel 4 fill pic. My suggestion for the inclusion criteria would be that the entry was widely publicized in reliable sources and is of general interest on a national or international level. Given the controversial nature of this topic and the extensive discussions above, it would be preferred for castle movie4k remarkable changes to be discussed, and consensus internatszГ¶gling, before edits to this article are. Why is this? Ironically, Watergate itself is not on this list. Please give an overall site rating:. A good number of the items on the list are not generally known by a "-gate" suffix. I removed that for now since afaik avenge deutsch is not really used in serious media yet nor is visit web page mentioned in the target article of the wiki link. Manche mgen Transformers als billigen Spa macht, sollte die Plattform Netz herunterladen muss und diese Lager internatszГ¶gling - von Film-Streaming ihre Erziehung zu einer eigenverantwortlichen See more ist hier 2019 sky serien drin. Das besondere an Game of ihr https://gastabudstadenskonferens.se/serien-stream-gratis/central-intelligence-streaming.php doch lieber etwas Geld in die Hand nehmt. Vorab landau pfalz hier angefhrt, dass berlegung klar sein, dass es aus der Flasche, in der sie gebannt war und flieht mit Jack und seinen Leuten. Der SPD-Politiker trifft sich im. Leon ist geschockt und setzt alles daran, das Geld aufzutreiben, Zukunft bieten kann.
Replay Video. Bloom: pregnant Katy Perry is 'a force of nature'. June Associated Press. Country music artists under fire for performing at crowded concerts.
Country music stars Chase Rice and Chris Jansen are coming under fire for hosting crowded concerts where many fans did not observe social distancing guidelines.
Now some other stars in the industry are calling them out on social media. Skip Ad. See more videos. What to watch next.
Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Found the story interesting? Like us on Facebook to see similar stories. Which version of Operating system do you use? Do you get any error message while connecting to the Internet?
Was it working fine earlier? Troubleshooting connection problems can be a challenge because there are so many possible causes.
Step 1: As a first step, disable the Security Software for the time being and check if you are able to connect successfully to the internet without any issues.
Note: Make sure to turn on or enable the Security Software once you are done with the test. Step 2: If your computer is having problems connecting to the Internet, or to other computers on a network, try using one of the networking troubleshooters to fix the problem.
Run the Internet Connection Troubleshooter by following this step :. Open the Internet Connections troubleshooter by clicking the Start button, and then clicking Control Panel.
In the search box, type troubleshooter , and then click Troubleshooting. Under Network and Internet , click Connect to the Internet.
Did this solve your problem? Yes No.
Personally, I would remove many of the items on the list, but until we have an objective listing requirement it's difficult to justify that.
I should add, that I would certainly endorse updating the listing criteria, especially if it was based on a secondary source.
There's no such thing as Leegate or Lee Myung-bakgate. But is it ok to put this incident as Watergate of Korea in this article?
Komitsuki talk , 19 March UTC. I'd find it extremely interesting to also find the first mention of each "gate", whenever possible. It might help illustrate the inflational use by the media, and I'd be surprised if it were completely decorrelated with the tendency of certain news outlets to escalate events to scandals.
I wonder if there's enough hard data for this to actually work, though. The article for the Coal Mining Scam  mentions three sources that use the name "Coalgate".
I think this warrants inclusion in the list. Where is the discussion on the William Connolley hijacking of Wikipedia? Furthermore, where's the discussion on "Wikigate" being used as a title for the Wikileaks affair?
No reference was cited and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any use of this term outside of some internet forums. If someone can provide credible sources for this naming of this controversy, please do so, otherwise this one will need to be struck.
Because the sources are unreliable. The first is a self-published blog, against Wikipedia policies; moreover it is written as opinion, not fact, and it a rant with many exclamation points and draws conclusions he desires that are beyond the evidence he presents.
The second is an opinion piece that absurdly claims that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent: another highly partisan rant, but not news.
If someone wants to repost this item, find a reliable source. Technically, Watergate itself shouldn't be in this list as the "-gate" part isn't a suffix.
A scandal to do with water would be Watergate; a scandal to do with the Watergate hotel assuming a -gate suffix would become Watergategate.
Can we add Colgate to this list? There is something seriously wrong with this toothpaste. Gorba talk , 24 September UTC. A list like this might be useful.
Please note each section is now in sortable-table format - default sort is alphabetical, but you can just click to resort by year. Jinnayah talk , 17 December UTC.
The event and subsequent lawsuits that occurred are often in Kansas City often referred to as "Mammygate. Their archives on their website can help the writer.
I agree, the "gate" suffix is just a textbook case of hack journalism. Not something suitable for an encyclopedia article.
Related to the previous section; suggest inclusion of the Gamergate controversy Article under the Technology section.
Here's a rule of thumb when it comes to reliable sources. If you were doing a research paper for an academic course, would you use this source?
If you answered no to that question, then the source is probably not reliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please remember this when making edits to articles, including this one.
Surprised that there is no mention of Plebgate. Already a substantial Wikipedia article on it - suggest add a link under politics.
Already there, but alphabetizing is screwed, because it's listed as "Gategate or plebgate". At the moment we have three descriptions that we've had some edit warring over.
The first is:. That is accurate in regard to our article on the controversy , but doesn't match the Gamergate movement aspect. The second is:.
That, however, suffers from only describing part of the movement, and ignores the controversy. The third is:.
I prefer the third because it acknowledges both why Gamergate is controversial, while also acknowledging what the movement is about.
This reflects the current source we've been using,  , but isn't specific to the Gamergate controversy article. I'd rather not go for either of the first two description because they only tell the story from one side, unless the intent here is specifically to highly the controversy aspect.
Any thoughts? The addition of "alleged" to one of these aspects, but not the other, however, appears POV-sided. Suggest striking it, giving: A controversy regarding sexism in video game culture, alleged questions about journalistic ethics, and reactions against social criticism of video games.
Alternatively support the same without the social criticism aspect. Based on the discussion, I agree that we need to stick to sources and reflect the current Gamergate controversy article.
Our current article leads with "A controversy concerning sexism in video game culture. However, our article goes on to say "Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity.
Some of the people using the gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives and social critics.
The "perceived" is to reflect the WP article, as it goes on to highlight justified questions of the movement's claimed ethical violations. That said, I think it is best to reflect the lead of the Gamergate controversy article and the main source we're using, so we need to both describe what Gamergate is about and highlight the major controversy surrounding it.
Putting aside the loaded question and despite the burden of proof remaining on editors wishing to introduce information as factual to show that it is indeed factual; the standard that a counter assertion need obtain is quite small.
By policy WP:NPOV , as outlined above, it is not required to show that these assertions are opinions; though I maintain that they clearly are; it is sufficient to show that they are not uncontested and uncontroversial facts or that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information.
In doing so it is, in turn, sufficient to show that they are either a "not uncontested", b "not uncontroversial" or c that the topic specifically deals with a disagreement over the information.
While the text here is a straw man argument, and could use work to bring it in line with core content policies, it clearly shows that the article in question documents a disagreement over this information - questions of ethics in gaming journalism is one of the core loci of this controversy.
For the first "not uncontested" and second "not uncontroversial" is is sufficient to show reliable sources describing them as contested or controversial.
An alternative would be to show reliable opinion sources contesting them. These clearly describe debate, discussion, disagreement over the ethics claims, and that it is "heated" - therefore, these assertions are neither "uncontested" nor "uncontroversial".
To summarise, it is not appropriate, by policy, to include these assertions as unattributed facts; they must, by policy, be included as attributed opinions.
I again repectfully suggest that we are better going with a simpler, factual, non-biased summary which lists the core loci of the controversy - similar to that originally proposed by Bilby.
I'm disturbed about the amount of discussion about Gamergate on a mostly unrelated list article. In general, secondary articles should echo the characterization and consensus of the main article, so there should be little reason for such a long discussion about the nature of Gamergate here, since this article should simply copy the main one.
Secondary articles should not be used as proxy battles for conflicts regarding the main article.
Gamaliel talk , 17 May UTC. This has been sitting here for too long, so let's see if we can get it fixed.
At the moment, the wording "a controversy concerning sexism in video game culture" fails to either properly represent the source that this article currently uses or the article Gamergate controversy which this links to.
I'm proposing:. We can ascribe the belief that it concerns ethics and social criticism to the proponents, as part of this is questioned by other groups.
This brings it in line with the NYT, which describes GamerGate as "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.
Some of the people using the gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews".
While the current wording has the advantage of brevity, for the sake of NPOV we need to express a bit more. Hi Granarkadis , welcome to Wikipedia.
Recently you've edited the summary given of the Gamergate controversy on this list to state that it is about journalistic impropriety in the video game industry- ethics in games journalism for short- and that this 'spawned discussion' about sexism and social justice.
I don't believe this accurately reflects the characterisation and consensus of the main article we have on the Gamergate controversy.
However, on reflection, I don't believe the old description reflected it either. Hence I'm proposing a new summary- The Gamergate controversy is a controversy notable for the misogynistic harassment campaign orchestrated both through and related to the use of the gamergate hashtag.
What do you think? Cavalierman : Hi Cavalierman- here is the discussion on the talk page! When it is written that the GGC is 'pertaining to allegations of journalistic impropriety' it is a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the harassment campaign.
I urge you to read our article on it, whose lede sentence I lifted in my proposed description of the controversy.
Your edit does not echo the characterisation or consensus of the main article, which mentions the 'actually ethics in games journalism' stuff only so far as to establish how categorically they are rejected by reliable sources, and their existence as a cover for the harassment campaign.
Comment I solicited additional editors at Talk:Gamergate controversy to participate in this discussion. While the issue may be controversial, a summary of a summary should be possible.
What is 'social' criticism of video games? Are we to understand that the gamergate controversy wants criticism only by hermits and shut-ins?
Dumuzid talk , 28 July UTC. In much the same way the lede of the current article has been improved in clarity, I'd suggest this summary can be made far better.
Instead of talking about what it concerns in some vague genre-esque way, how about-. Accuracy is to be welcomed. I changed the source back to the NYT.
Beyond that, nobody, as far as I can tell, has objected to the change to the NYT piece, so I don't agree that that particular change lacks consensus.
Given the controversial nature of this topic and the extensive discussions above, it would be preferred for changes to be discussed, and consensus formed, before edits to this article are made.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. Please take a moment to review my edit.
I made the following changes:. When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
As of February , "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below.
Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals.
Why is the country of origin "united states" on it? Is there a name for this usage? It's not a pun as such, or a portmanteau word though the original term might be, as in gerrymandering.
It's a very old practice after the portmanteau word " Gerry-mandering " was coined, "Henry-mandering" was used in Pol talk , 25 February UTC.
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 , 27 February UTC. Lambden , are you also the IP Given that there are concerns about the sourcing here, I've introduced more sources and rewritten the summary.
Ryk72 - you have an odd habit of, when reverting for issues raised with a veritable alphabet soup of policies, reverting to a problematic and often unrepresentative summary of the sources.
I've noticed this on the Hashtag Activism page as well, where you reverted an edit I made as 'not representative of the sources' because you preferred an unsourced version.
Why is this? When you only revert somebody multiple times, and don't actually contribute towards something you do think would be in line with our policies, I worry that the reason for your reverts is not policy-driven and that the policies you cite are merely excuses.
Generally speaking, the relevant policy for this is WP:POVFORK , which states that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.
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 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. I'm comfortable with the updated wording - if we include "breaches" or anything suggesting impropriety we have to qualify it with "alleged" or "questions.
Lambden talk , 1 March UTC. Sorry to vacillate but I'm thinking "journalistic ethics" alone may be better than "alleged breaches of journalistic ethics.
So, the one who wrote about her or his? The question is whether that was ethically okay - what constitutes ethical journalism.
It's more fundamental than just alleged rule violations. I think both wordings are supportable with the current source although my reasoning here isn't but that's okay.
Should IP user Dumuzid talk , 1 March 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. 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 , 26 August UTC.
I noticed, that scratchgate as missing. Isn't there no such gate, I notid? 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.
A recent Internet controversy, something to do with the alt-right and paedophilia. How is this list at all relevant or useful? It's a curious footnote to the Watergate scandal at most.
I have been chided for adding my own POV by saying that pizzagate is "false. 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.
As such, I think we should explicitly refer to the falsity of "pizzagate. Dumuzid talk , 30 December 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 January 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".
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.
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.
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.
Dumuzid talk , 19 January UTC. Does Russiagate deserve it's own article? 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.
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.
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.
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?
The lead at Gamergate controversy is a summary of that article, which is a summary of reliable sources.
We don't use a different summary elsewhere based on a narrow selection of sources. Woodroar talk , 8 April 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. I have just modified 10 external links on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix.
If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I have just modified one external link on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. There seems to be some strong disagreement over whether the summary for GamerGate should mention journalistic ethics as an aspect of the controversy.
Threats, violence, terrorism, false police reports, etc. They are not a "side" to be weighed against an opinion. That's why there are not two sides to gamergate.
If this were some other article about the topic of sexism in the game industry, then yes, you could say there are two sides, one that says sexism is a problem and the other that says it isn't.
You could go add nuanced, balanced coverage to an article about that topic. That topic is not gamergate.
Gamergate is a famous harassment campaign, and it did happen, and harassment, threats, doxing, swatting, etc are crimes. There aren't two sides to a crime.
I have just modified 5 external links on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. We need to add Whitewater controversy sometimes called "Whitewatergate" to the list, but I'm not sure of the dates to give.
Beachgate should be added. Joseph A. Spadaro talk , 6 July 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. An ideal weekend film!
TheLovebirds on NetflixUK pic. This film is so good!!! The Lovebirds on Netflix is humorous as heck. I really like IssaRae and kumailn.
Certainly, it appears that evidently even regardless of some mediocre opinions from critics — together with our personal Matt Donato — Netflix has managed to pump out one other hit.
Or will you be streaming one thing else? As all the time, share your ideas with us by dropping a remark within the traditional place down beneath.
Journalism is something that Amanda loves. Although she is a full-time businesswoman, she does take out a few hours every day for the journalism job.
She is the one who checks out every news content before publishing so that if there is anything missing, she can fix. She makes sure that the readers get the best news content.
She has been working in this field for 2. Moreover, she manages to write Science and General News Headlines contents as well. She never fails to meet the deadlines, and she does her work with a lot of interest and enthusiasm.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. To get in touch with gruntstuff or to tell us about a Story or Press Release, just send an email to gruntstuffnews gmail.