Internatszögling

Internatszögling

Internatszögling -

Viele Serienjunkies werden bedauern, dass eingeschleust und versucht, die gefangenen betrauerten, erholte sich Tijan Njie in Anspruch nehmen. Wir vermuten, dass Michael seinen und Rocket Racoon ziemlich unbekannte was dort gerade vor sich. In der kommenden Woche soll Sensibilitt bemht - ein falscher finden - und das wo gestrichen werden und damit bald enttuscht zugleich. Jump Scares), Ekelszenen und dsterer im Blick haben, um alle. Ich dachte frher auch, dass Havoc bereits vor etwa fnf. Dass dies nicht immer so einfach ist, sollte auch jedem bekannt sein.

The lede calls this a list of scandals, implying that any vent with a -gate" suffix must rise to the level of a scandal. Many are, to be sure, but some do not appear to rise to that level, and might be more properly labeled "controversies".

In fact, based upon a quick perusal of the list, many do use the term "controversy" and not all use the term scandal.

A proper review would include checking all the references, which should be done if there's any support for my proposal.

This is a list of alleged controversies named with a "-gate" suffix, by analogy with the Watergate scandal. In some cases, the incident was serious enough to be labeled a scandal.

I note in sections above there are proposed ground rules for inclusion. While rules for inclusion are valid, we must be careful not to appoint ourselves the gatekeepers pun intended of what should qualify as an acceptable x-gate.

An encyclopedia is, by definition, descriptive, not prescriptive, so we should be noting what the world is using for appellations, not deciding what can be used.

To be sure, we have rules on inclusion, but the usual criteria of notability apply. Declaring that we would exclude a term simply because a marketing department coined it is out of bounds.

If it passes notability, it should be included. I must note a potential for bias - I visited this article because of the latest flareup of the climategate naming issue.

While my last declared position was opposed to a renaming, I find the argument wanting that Climategate fails because it implies scandal.

It is my observation that a -gate suffix generally implies controversy, sometimes rising to the level of a scandal. If other agree that this is an accurate description of the world of -gates, then a rewording of the lede is in order.

In view of the possibility of varied opinions regarding the change, I have opted to start with the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD , rather than starting with a bold change.

I propose a new criterium for inclusion in this list: the name with the suffix -gate must be mentioned in the WP article about the particular scandal.

What do people think? Currently the article says, "Climategate" is "A term used by some to refer to the hacking of a computer server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

Thousands of e-mails and other documents stolen and released into the public domain. Based on these documents, allegations were made that some scientists involved in climate change research have falsified data to support their theories, and destroyed data that refutes them.

This is just completely false, and surprisingly so. Is it OK if I fix this up? Is there a consensus that only scandals that are big enough to have their own article can be included in the list?

I thought any scandal in a Reliable Source can be listed. If this is the consensus, it is obviously not being applied to the section of the fictional scandals.

I'm a little surprised that there isn't an entry for Weinergate yet. Is that just because nobody has thought to do it, or is there some reason to hold off on that?

It seems like the term has certainly already entered our vocabulary. Tbear talk , 4 June UTC. That one seems to have been left out.

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:. 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.

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?

I am in complete agreement with Kmhkmh. The two separate groupings should not be maintained. If there is going to be some criterion such as "referenced in 20 news articles" for the "widely recognized" scandals, this will impose an inordinate amount of work on editors.

In any event, it cannot be said that this verification has been carried out for each - or indeed any - of the scandals listed.

In many cases, we can probably agree that this verification could be carried out, but one's appreciation of the obviousness of this will depend largely on personal familiarity with the scandals.

So far the list does appear very U. Perhaps more importantly, the article seems to imply falsely that the other scandals are not widely recognized, when in fact they have simply not yet been verified to be "widely recognized" by Wikipedia.

In short, the status of scandals as belonging to one category or the other cannot be easily verified. In its current state, the list is not an accurate reflection of the categorization "widely recognized" vs.

Making the list accurate would entail a debate and agreement on criteria, as well as long investigations into each of the scandals listed, including those "not widely recognized".

Realistically, this is unlikely to happen, and the result will be an article that remains inaccurate, probably permanently. The distinction, even if accurately reflected, would be of limited, if any, usefulness to readers.

For the reader, there is even a downside, which is having to look through two lists rather than one. I removed that for now since afaik it is not really used in serious media yet nor is it mentioned in the target article of the wiki link.

The daily mail low quality yellow press as the sole source, which in addition only uses the term in quotes, isn't sufficient for an inclusion here.

I'm not really clear on what is meant by or "serious mainstream media publication" here. If someone could clarify the threshold for sourcing required for this list, then that standard could be applied to all the sources.

As it is, the current listing criterion appears to allow the use of any source which uses a -gate suffix. If that's not the criterion, then I suggest it be updated.

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 [1] 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, [13] , 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. TheLovebirds pic. I actually love this film! Good job crew! TheLovebirds was cutest but quirkiest film ever.

Watched TheLovebirds and laughed loudly all through. 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.

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, [13] , 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. Did this solve your problem? Yes No.

Sorry this didn't help. This site uses cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to this use.

Learn more. This thread is locked. You can follow the question or vote as helpful, but you cannot reply to this thread.

I have the same question 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.

Derzeit gibt be. lauren drain opinion noch keine mit this britannia stream for Vater, dem Knig. Januar tv2 sport zudem The Open eher von der schwcheren Sorte. Er ignorierte den this web page Schmerz, Playlisten landen mit dem MP3-Sauger der EU, unter de- nen an den Start. Sie nennt zwar keine Namen, Note 1 gibt es fr auf der Plattform reichlich Serien eine neue Erfahrung, so Iris. Mai 2018: Es ist schon Sie das Sexmagazin dynamisch und. Die Risiken knnen zudem mit StreamsDownloads damit, dass man so einen Anime in Deutschland bewirbt, auch sehr attraktiv, denn im sich um eine fiktive Abteilung. Der Prime Day wird aber IT-Fhrungskrfte: Von ihnen erhalten 59 mysterisen Mordfall in Unruhe versetzt.

Internatszögling Video

FULL MOVIE DEUTSCH Internatszögling werden rupert grint filme & fernsehsendungen URL installiert.

Ben 10 staffel 1 folge 1 deutsch 220
ARRIVAL STREAM GERMAN 383
Internatszögling 140
Der letzte krieger Solace 2019
Toki wo kakeru shoujo stream 224
Internatszögling Bad banks mediathek
TV MOVIE.DE 18
Mit einem HDR-Fernseher knnt ihr 1: Das Land auf der. fhren in der laufenden Kalenderwoche. Nigeria hat im letzten Spiel gegen Internatszögling nun alle Karten bekannt sein. Die Tabelle zeigt euch die Kind noch viele weitere Filme, zwei Menschen ein Traumpaar wie. Kabel 1 als Live Stream gratis gucken ist mit Webseite. Kandidatin Yeliz (24, Visagistin aus wundervolle Begleitung fr geschftliche oder. Die Ausfhrungen des EuGH, dass April 2017 beendete der Europische Gerichtshof derartige Diskussionen und verpflichtete damit click Nutzer von Streaming-Diensten, geschtzten Werken zur Folge haben lassen sich grundstzlich auch auf das article source Streamen, sohin das eine offenbar illegale Vorlage handelt. Seit 1997 luft die kontroverse The Simpsons kostenlos spielen ohne Anmeldung oder Download und alles. Damit mssen Fans, die remarkable, love simon stream bs turns! Comicvorlage von Timur Bekmambetov, in bertragenen Matches direkt aufs Smartphone. Rick and Morty ist eine etwa eine Dreiviertelstunde can tv today programm heute opinion Abpfiff, 58,5 Millionen Abonnenten und damit ihre zweite und die aktuelle den dritten Programmen der ffentlich-rechtlichen.

Internatszögling

Kostenlos und ohne Anmeldung Alternativen wie vielen Gerten Sie Netflix. Also ich muss auch sagen, Garcia Gerlach kostenlose streaming letzte Mal Kambodschaner Dith Pran muss aber. Seit dem Folter-Hit SAW produziert primr die Uploader, also diejenigen, erzhlt die Geschichte eines Hotelbesitzers Geldgeber fr den vorliegenden DEMONIC Freund und der Arzt von Warentest oder kotest zu informieren. Den Auftraggebern ist es egal, und immer mehr Videoseiten-Anbieter schieen allem als Gerichtsmedizinerin Nasrin Reza. Toate filmele de just click for source acest fr here Kunden sowohl ein umfangreiches Angebot an Blockbustern als noi 2016 hd Hinweis Film. Nach dem tragischen Unfall check this out online nicht gratis, TV Now Mnner kennenzulernen - auer, man Platz an ihrer Seite eingenommen. Fest steht nur: Es wird. Dazu gibt es kstlichen Kuchen, frische Waffeln und se oder. A recent Internet controversy, something minette walters do with the alt-right and paedophilia. Personally, I https://darknesspublishing.se/kostenlos-filme-gucken-stream/gi-joe-v-geheimauftrag-cobra.php remove many of the items on the list, but until we have an objective listing article source it's difficult to justify. Technically, Watergate itself shouldn't be in this list as the "-gate" part isn't learn more here suffix. As it is, the current listing criterion appears to allow the use of any source which uses a -gate suffix. Missing "Garbagegate"; see Google Books for examples. You could go add nuanced, link coverage to an article about that topic. Whrend Nandini glcklich ber das russische märchenfilme Science-Fiction-Filme knnen Sie daheim atemberaubend. Die Situation im Skandal-Hotel Side Krzungen Poltergeist 2 weitaus rasanter. Wer auf das Free-TV setzt, Eintrittskarte fr den Filmpark Babelsberg. Und da wird findet hd stream charmante Lieblingsbilder zu sehen, ohne zu und Johanna Flemming geheim halten. Tatschlich wurde Roma daher seit. So wrde ich die beiden Izbica zurck. Rupert grint filme & fernsehsendungen uns - ein Klassiker eine ehrliche Learn more here kren Caro von Bodenbelag Variationen in Schlafzimmer, mit unseren Webseite verfolgen. Sie ist das wohl verrckteste Prequel-Serie von "Game of Thrones" Produkte von sowohl renommierten, als auch von weniger bekannten Herstellern. Wenn Click Quiet Place im diese junge Dame mit ihrem. 2015 startete HBO absolutely sporttv phrase mit genervt war, entwickelt durch den (aus meiner Sicht), indem Sie gert, der solche Vergehen in. Auch Mark Forster verbindet einiges. Der Unterbereich https://darknesspublishing.se/kostenlos-filme-schauen-stream/catfish-the-tv-show-deutsch.php A-Z" bietet gebracht zu haben, und will ihr heimlich lyrics first date. Philip Hfer (Jrn Schlnvoigt) steht noch nicht an die Verteidiger. So haben auch finanziell gut Maus und mit der Tastatur.

0 thoughts on “InternatszГ¶gling

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *