Jump to content

Talk:Bush White House email controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joeldl (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 22 April 2007 (→Proposed move to "Bush Administration email controversy" or another name.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveoptions

Proposed merger into Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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)[reply]

I think you badly misunderstand what's going on here. See this article: [1] Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I think it's safe to call this proposed merger dead. -- Yellowdesk 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for expanding on this article

Perhaps some of the content from these can be incorporated here. -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of 2007 White House email controversy into Gwb43.com

  • Against A more general title would be better, something like: Bush administration email controversy, if it rises to "controversy."
    The domain gwb43 is merely one aspect of this story. Better would be to rename this article, and have a redirect pointing to the renamed version of gwb43.com. -- Yellowdesk 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I proprose the move/change in name below. -- Yellowdesk 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merger after gwb43.com has a better name. -- Yellowdesk 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of the merge, I agree with this. Quadpus 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to "Bush Administration email controversy" or another name.

Proposed new name: Bush administration email controversy. The result would cause gwb43.com to continue to live on, and redirect to the new name.

This method of operations at the White House and Administration seems not yet to be quite a controversy, but I cannot think of a better word.
A proposal for a better name is invited. Meanwhile, I'll start the conversation with this particular new name proposal.
The topic covered with this article is bigger than the domain name, "gwb43.com", since it touches on:

  1. several embarassing episodes or controversies,
  2. the inability of the Bush administration to provide requested documents and communications in response to Congressional subpeona or request
  3. potential violations of the Hatch Act and of the
  4. Presidential Records Act as well.
-- Yellowdesk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

  1. E-mail should be hyphenated in this request, to correspond with the title of the e-mail article. Dekimasuよ! 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can be handled with a redirect. I have not typed "E" "DASH" "MAIL" in years, and there are a lot of others that don't either. That article redirects from "email" as well. -- Yellowdesk 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I thought the controversy only had to do with people working at the White House, not for the rest of the Cabinet. If that's the case, then it should be "Bush White House" and not "Bush Administration". Joeldl 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as the proposer, for the reasons stated above. -- Yellowdesk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support it would seem the Bush administration has had trouble finding e-mails in several incidents.[2] A more detailed discussion is warranted and that should be in an anrticle with a relevant name. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. As I said above, the domain name in and of itself is unimportant. howcheng {chat} 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

References improvement requests

  • 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)[reply]

    Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com and rnchq.org, but unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it—it is used only for e-mail.[1]

  1. ^ http://www.gwb43.com/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_White_House_email_controversy&oldid=124809762"