Category talk:Scandals
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Definition of scandal
editThis is the text defining what constitutes a scandal for the purposes of category inclusion:
- A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations. Inclusion in this category does not imply guilt, but rather that a scandal (whether justified or not) has taken place.
The wording above is a little ambiguous. Is it the case that an event which is the product of false allegations which are widely believed is a "scandal", or does the allegations have to be true? --Saforrest 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The category is POV. Weasel words describe IMO. Student7 02:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the improved definition, but it still leaves the category as subjective, not objective. The politician you support is a "scandal." The politician I support (of course), is not one. Or guilty of one. Purely subjective. If you are a Democrat, Clinton acted "normally". If you are Republican, he acted "scandalously." (Just as easy to find a reverse case). Student7 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we're including articles here that include untrue allegations, so we have to stick to the original definition. This is the definition used at Scandal - I would suggest you bring the issue up first on that article, rather than changing the article text (since more editors are likely to be watching the main article than here). Also see Talk:Max Mosley#Sex scandal? - I raised the possible POV issues of labelling a WP:BLP article as a sex scandal. The consensus there seems to be that "scandal" simply denotes if something was described by tabloids as a "scandal", whether or not the allegations are true, valid, typical of public opinion, or anything else. Mdwh (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Someone has erased the definition as "unnecessary." While I would prefer a tighter definition, I think that no definition is worse and invites more junk that we should have in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Student7 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)