Talk:Bush White House email controversy

message: Shouldn't it be noted that 20 million emails were recovered?  Footnote 5 notes this, but the article in wikipedia only uses this article to reference how many emails were claimed to be missing. Even if it did not resolve the issue, it is important that these emails were recovered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickkquinn (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This is an article about a domain name, which really is a minor footnote to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It's not at all unusual for organizations to have domain names that are used for email only. howcheng  {chat} 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you badly misunderstand what's going on here. See this article:  Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I get it. The use of an RNC-hosted email server is the significant thing, not the actual domain name of the email server itself. That's why gwb43.com doesn't deserve an article. howcheng  {chat} 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but it shouldn't be merged into an unrelated controversy. This article applies to Abramoff, too. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger into [[Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy]]

message: Perhaps some of the content from these can be incorporated here. -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for expanding on this article 

message: Also created redirects from:
Bush White House email controversy, 
George W. Bush White House e-mail controversy 
George W. Bush White House email controversy 
::Yellowdesk 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects:

message: * A real citation to source this statement is needed. A link to the domain is "original research." Is there a published source that acknowledges this? -- Yellowdesk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References improvement requests 

message: The WP:lede is supposed to summarise the article. However the lead claims the use of the private email accounts may have violated the Hatch Act but the article only says it was done to avoid violating the Hatch Act Nil Einne (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatch Act 

message: Should the article title be "Bush White House email controversy"?  Or should it be changed to "Bush White House email system"?  The former title had been in place for quite some time.  An editor moved the article to the new title (the latter title) very recently.  That editor thought it best to remove the word "controversy" from the article title.  I reverted the move.  I think such a move needs to be discussed via a Move Discussion or a Talk Page consensus.  I don't think it should be done unilaterally.  Any thoughts?   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For further (background) information, the idea of using the word "controversy" in an article title created its own controversy (here at this page: Hillary Clinton email system).  And it is/was being discussed at this Talk Page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015).  That is how this article itself came to be moved and renamed without including the word "controversy" in the title.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons explained at the corresponding Clinton article, and also explained at WP:CRITS, I oppose the word "controversy" in this article title.  Let's see what the verdict is at the Clinton article before pursuing the matter further here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   I still do not understand your position.  As I was reading this article and several other articles, I ran across a great deal of them that have the word "controversy" in their titles.  So, are you saying that no Wikipedia article should have that word in its title ("controversy") ever?  That is, we are never allowed to use the word "controversy" in an article title?  Or does that sentiment only apply to some articles and not others?  And, if the latter is the case, how do we decide which do and which do not get so named?   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which does not answer my question.  I mean, your reply is "except when it has become part of the common name for the event".  OK.  So that simply (semantically) changes my question to: "how do we know/decide when it has become part of the common name for the event?".  I am quite sure that we have reliable sources on, say, the Bush White House email controversy (for example).  But, I am also quite sure that no reliable source is going to flat out affirmatively state: "Oh, by the way, 'controversy' is the common name for this event".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books is usually helpful.  It gives only one hit for the current Wikipedia article title ("Bush White House email controversy").  So that is not a common name.  So we should not use "controversy" in the article title.  The title that we do decide to use does not necessarily have to be a common name unless, for example, it includes words like "controversy" or "scandal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I disagree with that method.  There are a lot of article titles that would not show up in Google Books. Wikipedia often has very "odd", specific, and/or esoteric article titles.  For example, Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 and such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediately before this comment of yours, I said "The title that we do decide to use does not necessarily have to be a common name unless, for example, it includes words like 'controversy' or 'scandal'".  Thus, there is usually no need for an article title to show up in google books, per WP:CRITS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, I do not follow you.  Are you saying: (A) if the common title does not use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we do use the common title; but (B) if the common title does use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we do not use the common title?  Is that what you are saying?  I am trying to follow your arguments/logic.   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying: (A) if a common title for the subject of this article does not exist or (if it exists) does not use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we should not use those words in the article title per WP:CRITS; and (B) if there is a common title for this article subject, and that common title does use the word "controversy" or "scandal", then we may use that common title, per WP:CRITS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes no sense.  You are saying, in effect, that no Wikipedia article can ever have the word "controversy" (or "scandal") in its title.  Makes no sense at all.  And, there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles that already do have the word ("controversy") in its title.  So, where are you getting that it is "common accepted practice" to not have articles so named?  And, on top of all that, we have many Wikipedia categories specifically entitled "controversy".  Your interpretation of WP:CRITS does not seem to harmonize with the rest of how Wikipedia works.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am running out of WP:AGF here.  The following statement of yours utterly and completely contradicts part "B" of my most recent comment: "You are saying, in effect, that no Wikipedia article can ever have the word "controversy" (or "scandal") in its title."  I do not understand how you could distort what I say to such a degree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yes, you are extremely unclear.  What constitutes a "common name"?  You do not seem to be satisfied when multiple heavy-hitter reliable sources call something a "controversy".  For some inexplicable reason, you do not think that that fact holds any weight.  (As evidenced in our conversation on the "Hillary Clinton email system" article.)  You will recall that that list of RS's included The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Reuters, etc.  So, if the multiple reliable sources call something a "controversy", that does not satisfy you.  You have some ambiguous (i.e., unclear) criteria.   You seem to want to "pick and choose" what is and what is not a "controversy" (for article title purposes).  Do you really believe that reliable sources are going to affirmatively state: "Oh, by the way, the common name for this incident is X, Y, Z" when they report on the incident?  So, again, yes, you are extremely unclear.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken this to Joseph A. Spadaro's user talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text:  Also, a "verdict" in the Clinton article does not translate to an "across the board" verdict for every article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No,,but perhaps one of us will find that discussion persuasive so we will not have to go through endless redundant argumentation at lots of different talk pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: And, by the way, an editor above keeps making reference to WP:CRITS as if it were Gospel.  WP:CRITS is not even a policy.  It's an essay.  Yes, an essay.  Let me repeat that: an essay.  If this so-called "rule" (to not name articles with the title "controversy") were so important – as it is being made out to be – I am sure that Wikipedia would have a policy about this sort of thing.  We would not be placing such a "critical" decision in the hands of a mere "essay" and relying on said essay.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The current article title is Bush White House email controversy. There were two presidents by the name of President Bush (George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush). So, I want to distinguish exactly which Bush the article is referring to. So, should we rename/move the article to George W. Bush White House email controversy?  Thanks.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Article_titles_#Deciding_on_an_article_title- Adding "George W." would be in violation of Precision - there being no George H. W. Bush White House email controversy  article or topic from which it needs to be distinguished,  and in violation of Conciseness  , with the extra words making it longer than necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

text: And all Google hits on "George H. W. Bush White House email controversy" are from Wikipedia while "Bush White House email controversy" has many other hits. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 2 

message: The article mixes two completely different problems with Bush era email without clearly differentiating them.  This leads to a confusing and unclear article. 
Specifically the end of the first paragraph includes a claim about 22 million missing emails being recovered, along with footnote citation #5.  However the next paragraph makes it seem as if the only problem with Bush era official emails was that some administration officals conducted government business on the RNC servers, when they should not have. 
That did happen, and was the center of the original email controversy that most of this article is about.  
But it's not what the article in ciatation #5 is about.  That is a about a later problem where the official white house email system (run on Microsoft software) was not archiving properly. 
These two completely separate events need to be pulled apart and clearly explained separately, and not conflated, if this article is going to be as good as it can be. 
ZeroXero (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think perhaps citation 5 and the line that talks about it should be moved from the lede and incorporated into the article, perhaps? Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Different Email Controversies are Confused in the Article 

message: Here is an updated list of potential sources and sources that have been removed.
*Washington Post, GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
*Stolberg, Sherl Gay  Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors  New York Times'  April 13, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
* Loven, Jennifer (Associated Press)   Bush aides' use of GOP e-mail probed The Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007. 
* BBS News Karl Rove RNC Emails Missing Prior to 2005  April 12, 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
* Hamburger, Tom Party-issued laptops now a White House headache Los Angeles Times April 9, 2007.  Retrieved April 13, 2007.
* Glenn Greenwald The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents Salon.com April 12, 2007.
* scoop.co.nz Renner: Millions of White House Emails Missing
* Washing post Countless White House E-Mails Deleted
Ill add more as i have time. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated source list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. 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. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502003342/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf to http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420212252/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/node/25822 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25822
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415034406/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com:80/archives/002993.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002993.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1362
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150306044559/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/legal-filings/entry/crew-writes-patrick-fitzgerald-asking-to-re-open-rove-case-in-light-of-miss to http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-writes-patrick-fitzgerald-asking-to-re-open-rove-case-in-light-of-miss
*Added  tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070413/pl_usnw/crew_writes_patrick_fitzgerald_asking_to_re_open_rove_case_in_light_of_missing_emails
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523032406/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/node/28382 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28382
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610033347/http://www.dominopower.com/directory/articles/1002/1074/1074.html to http://www.dominopower.com/directory/articles/1002/1074/1074.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. 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. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815183717/http://judiciary.house.gov:80/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813100722/http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHDocs.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHDocs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bush White House email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. 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. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/041207WithoutATraceFullReport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825125348/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/RExhibits_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520001454/http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm to http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone explain this, the last sentence of the intro:
 "... the Obama Administration reached a settlement with two watchdog groups who had sued to obtain the emails."
The wording above makes it sound like the Obama Administration and the watchdog groups were adversaries.  Why would that be?  I.e., what were the agendas of the various parties?
BMJ-pdx (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Obama Administration reached a settlement"?