Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Early Drunk Driving Arrests

Is this information really so importiant that it must be at the top of the article? It should be written into his biography or condenced into a criticism paragraph. Johnreyn19 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cheney

Is the information on Elizabeth Cheney really relevant to this article? Unless a citation can be found implying her sexual orientation has had some relation to her father's politics, I would strongly suggest confining such matters to her own article, where it is already discussed in greater detail. 206.248.128.132 23:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most Powerful Vice President"

I've heard many US news corporations and services decbribe Cheney as "The most powerful Vice President in US History" can someone explain why/how this is? SKC

Read this series; first part just published today: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/--68.49.95.99 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch this video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18751/1/TDS-Cheney-DickMove.wmv Billy Nair 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yale

the language says "he" flunked out of yale, but that is confusing because the prior sentence talks about his brother. it reads as if his brother flunked out of Yale. The pronoun use is lending itself to ambiguity. Just use the mans name. someone should change it. its poorly written. - unsigned.

He seems to have been in the class of 1963 at Yale, attending from September 1959 until January 1961 and from January to June 1962. Does anyone know which was his residential college (Berkeley, Branford, Calhoun, Davenport, Ezra Stiles, Jonathan Edwards, Morse, Pierson, Saybrook, Silliman, Timothy Dwight, Trumbull)? - Nunh-huh 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Early business career?

I read the article hoping to learn more about his history in the private sector, but all I see is a long career in politics, culminating as Bush 41's Secretary of Defense - and then suddenly, a few years later, he's CEO of Halliburton. OK, so maybe he never did much in the private sector (although what was he doing in the second half of the 1960s?). And after 1993, his resume in government would obviously make him an attractive hire for a military/energy contractor like Halliburton. But I still feel like I'm missing something. Mporter 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some info about his early-'70s career, including a private sector job. 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little more information about the company he worked for - I think private sector should be in quotes:

"Bradley Woods & Co. Ltd. provides timely insight and recommendations to institutional investors regarding the impact of the U.S. Federal Government decisions on securities portfolios. " -- from http://bradleywoods.com/ 71.215.222.75 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Plans for the future

Considering his credibility, stature and insider knowledge of the Bush administration, a notification of Bob Woodward's suspicions of a presidential run would be prudent in this section. Have a look: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920885

In the Plans for the future section of the article, it says: "There have...been rumors that Cheney may resign at some point during George W. Bush's second term, in order for Congress to appoint a new Vice President (via the 25th Amendment), who is interested in running for president, to smooth this leadership transititon for the Republican Party."
Does anyone have a link to substantiate this speculation? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic. It looks like wild-&-crazy rumor-mongering to me.--RattBoy 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been over ten daze and nobody's stepped up to support it, so I obliterated it.--RattBoy 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, bring this information back about the speculation of Dick Cheney's possible Presidential Run. These things are important, don't be so impatient to delete, thank you.--Mofomojo 08:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheney's ancestry

"One of his first known ancestors was Ralph de Chesney, Sire of Quesnay who fought on the side of William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings in 1066." I'm intrigued by this. Any sources? Fergananim 19 August 2005.

  • WARGS is your one-stop shopping place for politician's genealogies. On Cheney's page, you will find many interesting things (for example, his relationship to Lon Chaney, Sr.), but the earliest ancestor there in the Cheney line is William Cheney (d. 1667). Since he's a descendant of King Edward I via Percival Lowell, it wouldn't be surprising if Ralph de Chesney was an ancestor if it were traced more fully. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So what does this say about Cheney?? Doesn't belong in a bio (not to mention how ignorant of basic math regarding numbers of ancestors that it betrays on the part of whoever is ?proud of it - Cheney??)

I have removed this claim, which was added by an anon with no explaination[1], since there is no source given for it and I can't find any. Googling the names and excluding wikipedia pages an mirrors[2] only finds things which are dated after the claim was added to this article, and a few copies of the article which putting "-wikipedia" in the google search string doesn't exclude. -- AJR | Talk 01:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't he Irish-American? Everyone else in the US seems to be. ;o) 86.7.208.240 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
His most recent Irish ancestor seems to be Lila McIlhaney, b. Ireland 1709. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Contra Scandal

Communist Sandinista dictatorship??? Umm, the FSLN were freely elected in 1984 in elections verified by the U.N. Sorry that has to be changed!!! :)

Squint

I've noticed that the Vice-President always seems to bear a slight squint on the left side of his face (his left, not that of the of the observer). Is this a result of nerve damage, his oft discussed heart problems, something he does unconciously, &c.? I haven't been able to find any serious reference to it elsewhere, and I find it curious it hasn't been brought up. Have other people noticed this, or am I crazy? Perhaps I've missed something in the article? --Yossarian 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC

COULD be result of Pumphead syndrome. Take Care Will314159 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely, since the idea of said syndrome causing more than transient deficits is a belief of political flacks rather than doctors. And also unlikely in that the squint is already apparent in Cheney in the group photographs of the Yale Baseball and Football teams in which he participated long before he had any cardiac surgery. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization of links

I'm concerned about the way external links are currently organized. The subheading "critical views" seems to confuse the matter: does that mean that the parody page about the hunting accident is NOT critical, while a long and well-researched essay by Joan Didion is? It seems to me we should just organize the external links by topic and not by what we consider to be critical or not (b/c all of these links have some kind of partial position--whether official or oppositional, right?). Any thoughts about this? Thanks! Benzocane 20:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Parodies and Spoofs

I removed the 'parodies and spoofs' section. The article is already tagged as too long and, given the amount of substantial material to cover, I can't see why this entry needs to discuss SNL parodies of the VP. Any reason why this material should stay? It seems to me that it can be moved to entires on the comedians famous for the spoofs in question.

Secrecy section

It seems to me like a prominent enough feature of his Vice-Presidency to deserve a paragraph here. But not being particularly NPOV on this subject :-) I invite any comments to the contrary. Ribonucleic 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pumphead Syndrome

The medical literature shows that a large percentage of people that have bypasses suffer significant cognitive impairment. Vice with the help of his helper Scooter maneuvered us into the Iraq War and is all Gung Ho about getting us into an Iran War. It is very fit and proper to make this edit in the medical section.

  • An open question is whether Cheney has suffered any cognitive impairment from his bypasses due to pump-head syndrome, a condition where a significant percentage of bypass patients suffer cognitive impairment.[3]

Let me know what you all think. After 2,700 dead over 20,000 wounded, a trillion dollars blown and no exit in Iraq, it may be derelict to the readers not to let them know there are some medical issues out there. Best Wishes. Will314159 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference is about the syndrome and doesn't relate it in anyway to Dick Cheney. Doing so would be original research and inappropriate in this article. The only thing derelict would be inserting it into this article, as it is certainly not a neutral point of view . AuburnPilotTalk 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In Cheney's case the personality changes, the lessennng of inhibition, the increased agressiveness his former colleagues such as Powell and Scowcroft have noted is more important than congnitive effects. He is the leading proponent for war w/ Iran, the consequences be damned. Take Care! Will314159 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Original Research - AuburnPilotTalk 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He was doing the vetting for vice presidential candiates for Dubya. Then all of a sudden, he was THE vice presidential candidate. I just wonder if he vetted himself for postperfusion syndrome? Interesting question. Qui Custoded Custodiens? Cheers Will314159 14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

college degrees

It seems interesting that no mention of Cheney's college degrees or even college years. The White house page makes a small reference but it is not complete. Maybe someone who know what they are doing can add a sentence or two?

References Situation

The references for this article are a real mess. I thought I'd clean up the links which were causing horizontal scrolling and I'm finding all sorts of problems instead. Already I've found two links which point to articles which no longer exist. I removed the first but I'm calling it quits until I get a little more background on the situation here. Most of the references are done incorrectly, just slapping the ref tags around a link, so there's no way to know if the article the link leads to (when it does) is being made as a genuine reference or is an oblique method of vandalism. Check out reference 13 for an example. It points to a guest comment by a Stephen F. Hayes on the National Review Online website, which doesn't seem proper under these circumstances (at least to me).

The first ref points to a bio on whitehouse.gov for kids and then includes *in it* the text for the reference from the page, unless I'm mistaken. As far as I can tell, ref 2 points to a partial edition of the bio at ref 3. I finally gave up when just a random click (reference 24) in the ref list gave me another missing article.

So, what to do? Looks like they all need to be checked simply to see if the articles they point to still exist, and then figure out if the existing ones are valid or just intended to muck the article up. The fact that adding or deleting one makes the numbers for all the others change doesn't help much to boot. Thoughts? Richard G. Shewmaker 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I know exactly what you mean. I had this same exact problem on the George W. Bush article. People were just slapping <ref>[www.anything.com]</ref> everywhere, so I went through and swapped them all out for proper citations using this:
<ref>{{cite web
| url = 
| title = 
| accessdate = 
| date = 
| work = 
| publisher = 
}}</ref>
It took awhile at first, but now I only have to do a few links every couple weeks. I'll see if I can help out here when I get a chance. Good Luck! AuburnPilotTalk 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow! In my search through help regarding references I missed the full/proper citation set up. I'll use that from here on out. I guess as long as my intentions are good (and I'm not having a stupid moment) it's OK to rework things of this nature without starting a discussion for each one; and, obviously, if I mess something up because I didn't understand its context, that can easily be undone. Richard G. Shewmaker 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, no need to start a discussion for each one. Swapping the citations to a template like this improves the article tremendously by giving all relevant information about the citation. If the link stops working one day, an editor will still have all the information needed to find it again. You can see a full explanation of the template, as well as variations of it, here {{Cite_web}}. AuburnPilotTalk 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference 10 cites Slate, a very biased political web site. Other references to his draft deferments appear to be less biased sources. If you look at Reference 10, it appears to be hearsay --- it certainly is not substantiated. Jalanthomas 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add more on his enthusiasm for torture

This man is the most passionate advocate of torture in the developed world, but it is hardly mentioned. He is flushing America's moral authority down the toilet and arguably doing more even than Bush to ensure that the other side in the so-called War on Terror will not lose its enthusiam. This issue really needs more coverage in the article. Honbicot 22:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Unless you have reliable sources that are verifiable, nothing of the sort should be mentioned in the article. AuburnPilotTalk 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The best way to a NPOV on Cheney would include documenting what is and is not true about his involvement with death squads, kidnapping, torture, murder, holding without rendition, the preservation of Poindexters TIA, Halliburtons involvement in detention camps to be used under crisis situations requiring martial law,the continuation of government program, and other policies of the Project for a new American Century.
A just the facts ma'am approach should collect both charges and responses. Cheney is linked to an alleged act of treason in the outing of Valerie Plame. Scooter Wilson has been found guilty of perjury about it and then had his sentence commutted by Bush. Speculation about the truth of such incidents is natural. The solution is to link such references as exist to the charges so that a reader may see a good NPOV coverage in the article.
The same would apply to charges that he considers himself exempt from oversight by either the president or the Senate. There is much concern about his obsession with secrecy as regards such matters leading people to assume the worst, that might be relieved if the charges and responses were properly dealt with here. Maybe one section for each of the charges, or would that make the article too long?Rktect 11:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Move DWI info to the controversy section

While relevant, his DWI or DUI references are made too important by their placement in the article. They are mentioned even before his role in government. Agrimace 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)agrimaceAgrimace 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheney college

At one point in the article, it says Cheney went to Yale. This is not true. Bush went to Yale but not Cheney.

No, it's true:

This is from a White House transcript of a Cheney speech at Auburn U.: "I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Wyoming. My college experience, though, began at a place called Yale -- but I didn't finish there. Actually, instead, I dropped out after a few semesters. Actually, dropped out isn't quite accurate. (Laughter.) Was "asked to leave" would be more like it. (Laughter.) Twice. (Laughter.) And the second time around, they said, don't come back. (Laughter.)" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050513-1.html

This is from Yale Class of 1963 alumni page: Dick Cheney Yale '63 Dick Cheney has gone from Yale Class of '63 to the White House. Read more about it in the recent Yale Daily News article, then browse the Dick Cheney photo gallery on the Class of '63 website. http://www2.aya.yale.edu/classes/yc1963/ 4.153.11.169 16:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of going to Yale there were lots of people who went to Yale to protest the Panthers Trial May Day 1970. The campus was shut down and the protesters were invited to stay in the dorms and attend workshops on the war. Albeit their participation in classes and the duration of their stay was limited as was Cheney's but most of them don't go around claiming they went to Yale.Rktect 11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Butter Sculptor?

Just a heads up to those who monitor this article, Cheney was indeed mentioned on the NPR show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! today, in the segment where people have to guess which trivia question is correct. The purported butter sculpting career of Mr. Cheney was one of the joke questions. So be prepared for more vandalism as the segment reaches various NPR markets or is rerun. Katr67 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's where it came from; I was wondering why such a ridiculous claim was made. The good news is this article is semi-protected so anons and newbies can't vandalize. -- AuburnPilottalk 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing Cheney

I had heard that Cheney is actually pronounced CHEE-NEE and not CHAIN-EE. I found reference to it in the transcript of an old CNN interview where it seems he basically gave up on correcting people. Not sure how important that is, but I was disappointed when Wikipedia didn't have the answer to my query.AmericanRonin 06:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is exactly the piece of information I was hoping to learn more about by looking up this article today. I hope it will have more coverage soon.--AaronL 04:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How old was this CNN interview where he said he gave up on corrections? Frithjh 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also came here wanting to know. Here are three more links seeming to confirm that the original pronunciation, if not the one he uses today, is [tʃiːni]:

194.217.93.82 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Why do we need to know what stocks Cheney has in the Introduction section? "; he is still a major stockholder" is out of place. 2nd Piston Honda 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of Halliburton's role in the rebuilding (or destruction, depending on one's point of view) of Iraq and the Vice President's role as a principal advisor on Iraq war strategy, his financial stake in a company receiving large military contracts from his Administration is of very great significance.````Jeffrey Frawley````

Controversies Organization

Organization of controversies section, makes outline to show that most of his controversies fall under the DUI section. 68.171.2.144 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointed that out; I've demoted the heading so they all fall under the Controversies section. -- AuburnPilottalk 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


This morning on NPR I heard Dick Cheney - 1991 interview on tape - give the best reasons why attacking Iraq and removing Sadaam was not a good idea. Of course he was supporting Bush I's reason for not toppling Sadam, but his analysis was excellent and prophetic. My only question is why NPR, etc sat on this tape for 3 years.

Resignation Rumour

Should the resignation rumour (never more then a rumour), be removed? Cheney resigning (just to give the Republicans a front-runner in 2008), would seem very unintelligent on his part (during a War) & politically too risky for Republicans (with Nancy Pelosi becoming next-in-line), should something happen to Bush. note: It could take up to months before Bush's VP-nominee got Congressinal consent. My point is, this is no place for rumours. GoodDay 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheney-picture?

I find that the top picture does not represent Cheney the way he usually looks. I don't suggest the most hawkish or angry picture of him should be used, but rather something in between. For me, this picture is misleading, and one get the impression that it is added by a Cheney fan, not one of his opponents. Perhaps he looks more like this in family situations etc, but this article is about the public figure. A picture, just like a text, need to have a neutral point of view, right? Or should the "official" white house picture allways be used in situations like this? ... A better alternative may be to add one of the more "hawkish" pictures other places in the article.84.53.31.130 12:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So you think selecting an image to intentionally make someone look somewhat mean is a better thing to do than to use an "official" image from the place he works?
I think he is evil incarnate, but, like the above poster said (who didn't sign his name) we don't need an evil picture of him in that section. I too was surprised to see a picture where he looks human (PhotoShopped no doubt) but it is the "official" picture and since Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased, that picture is best for THIS PARTICULAR situation. Billy Nair 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Coming from a conservative, you could make the same case for Al Gore's pic, which doesn't even come close to what he looks like today. But, that being the official picture, it should stay. Just because you think Dick Cheney is the devil doesn't mean Wikipedia should reflect it.

Previous employment references

DaveAppendix 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was interested to note that Cheney was on the board of directors for Electronic Data Systems, but surprised there was no citation yet. Since I'm a new Wikipedia user, I can't edit the page directly, so here are some citations. I'll add more as I find them.

Electronic Data Systems

Die Hard III

I have just watched the scene, with the director's commentary on, where Dick Cheney is supposed to appear in Die Hard With a Vengeance. The man he points to as being Dick Cheney is almost certainly NOT him, and in fact looks more like Dave Thomas than the VP. I'll leave it in because I can't confirm otherwise, but I am pretty sure he does not have a cameo in the movie. PBP 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a journalist who has checked this out, including an inquiry to the VP's press people. Cheney is NOT in this movie. Really. McTiernan says he is, but McTiernan is mistaken. I have sent this correction already to imdb.com, which is cited as the source for the reference here. (Granted, imdb.com fixed it on the Die Hard With a Vengeance page but not in all references in its system.) Recommend it simply be eliminated here. MEJ 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)MEJ

Is there more available regarding?:

In June 1962, Cheney left Yale to return home to Casper, where he worked as a lineman for a power company.

Cheney said that he found himself, "working, building power lines, having been in a couple of scrapes with the law."[28] He said that the arrests made him, "think about where I was and where I was headed. I was headed down a bad road if I continued on that course."

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Time zones

Just noticed that the time listed in this article for when Cheney took the duties of Acting President is listed in UTC, but in the Bush Transfer of Power article, it's listed in Eastern Time. Is the wiki standard UTC? What if we don't want that, but want our local time or the local time of the event. Just a thought. Jazmatician 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

This section and its one piece of information need to be removed. It is useless information and if this page wasn't protected, I would remove it myself. 72.147.79.165 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I've removed it. Shanes 08:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

References in pop culture

I deleted this section from the article since the only content was about a band telling Cheney to "stop being a dick". I don't see the relevance to Cheney's bio, or how it in anyway helps better a reader's understanding of him. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Could someone please remove the penis pic, I'd do it, but the article is restricted.

Clean up

This article contains many missing citations and needs extensive clean up. The format of the notes needs to be fixed. I don't have time to do it, but I did add some updated information to the article today; in doing so, I noticed these problems with the missing citations and the inconsistencies in the notes format (formatting). I do not generally use citation templates but construct notes without them, so I am not adept at fixing the problems in the templates. Others who are good at using them may want to work on making the notes consistent throughout and altering the many external links to a notes format that is consistent with the dominant format for notes of the article. --NYScholar 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford, Cheney and Rumsfeld

The article states that Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated Gerald Ford into various actions. However this is completely contradicted by what President Ford said in an embargoed interview[4] published by the Washington Post after his death in December 2006.

In that interview, Ford unambiguously asserts that those decisions were taken on his own initiative, and not discussed in advance with Rumsfeld or Cheney; including even his appointment of Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Ford goes on to give his actual reasons for those shifts in personnel. For example, in the case of Henry Kissinger, President Ford stated that he always considered it odd for one person to be both Secrectary of State and at the same time chairman of the NSC, and that he could only account for it by Richard Nixon's boundless admiration for Kissinger. That, he says, is the real reason why he asked Kissinger to give up his NSC post while still retaining the office of Secretary of State. 71.58.91.213 10:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Health problems

Cheney has chronic heart failure, due to his many heart attacks. Reports have estimated Cheney's EF (a measure for the effectivness of the heart) to about 35% (normal EF s 65-70%). Chronic heart failure is treated with a lot of different drugs with a correspondingly broad spectrum of side effects that may or may not affect his performance as VP. It would be interesting to include a list of the drug classes that Cheney would be using, were he to receive state-of-the-art pharmacological treatment (as he certainly is) for his heart failure. Cheney's daily drugs probably include:

- ACE-inhibitors or ATII-antagonists (ie ramipiril or losartan etc) Lowering his blood pressure, protecting his heart (remodelling). - Platelet inhibitor(s) (low-dose aspirin (ASA) and possibly Plavix (clopidogrel) Popularly known as "blood-thinners - Cholesterol-lowering drugs; statins (ie simvastatin etc) Lowering his LDL and stabilizing his atherosclerotic plaques - Beta-blocker (metoprolol) Lowering his blood pressure and protecting his heart (remodelling). - Aldosterone antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenon) Has been shown to be effective in severe heart failure (ie NYHA classes 3 and 4). - Diuretic (thiazides or loop-diuretics) Lowering his blood pressure and keep him from accumulating water

As to his cognitive and mental state. Having suffered from coronary heart disease and popliteal aneurysms, there is no doubt Cheney has generalised atherosclerosis. The length of his heart problems (almost 30 years), serves as a surrogate parameter for determining the onset of his atherosclerosis. Due to the considerable time Cheney has suffered from atherosclerotic vessel disease, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this also as manifested itself in the arteries inside his brain, thus increasing the chance greatly that Cheney is suffering from some degree of cognitive impairment due to ischemic brain injury (ie small strokes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alkaselzer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Rebuilding of Iraq

Is it really necessary to include the section about Cheney's exchange with Sen Leahy? It seems like somebody just wants to take a shot at Cheney. Regardless of personal feelings, Wikipedia should remain neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.193.241.58 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Clearly, Leahy's cronyism accusation and Cheney's off-the-record curse has nothing to do with the building of Iraq. Leaving that piece in there just makes our Wiki efforts continue to look like liberal dribble and an neo-liberal mouthpiece at worst and vandalism at best. Please remove the entire paragraph.

It needs to remain in their if there is to be neutral. It happened and Cheney was invlovled. 24.107.66.62 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, talking about Iraq in a section called Iraq is inappropriate? Does D-Day need to come out of the World War II article? Does John Steinbeck need to come out of Cannery Row? The Beatles should be removed from the Ed Sullivan article. There should be no mention of an apple in the Newton article. WikiDon 00:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If Cheney said this:
On August 13, 2007, Editor and Publisher reported that a video of an April 15, 1994 interview of Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute — where he was working at the time — had surfaced on the Internet. In the video, Cheney explains that trying to take over Iraq would be a bad idea and lead to a "quagmire."[1]
It should be in there. IP4240207xx 01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


problem: that's not exactly a reliable reference. a magazine reports that there's this video. okay. where's the video? why not a direct link to it? 'video or it didn't happen', or words to that effect. Anastrophe 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


It was on C-SPAN. 4/15/1994. Here is the question and the response:
Interviewer: "Do you think that the U.S., or UN forces, should have moved into Baghdad?"
Cheney: "No."
Interviewer: "Why not?"
Cheney: "Because if we'd have gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone, there wouldn't have been anyone else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Ah, Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it, ah, the Syrians would like to have to the west. Ah, Part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you got the Kurds, if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. Its a, its a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other things was casualties. Ah, everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of weather or not we went on to Baghdad, and took additional casualties, in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was 'how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?' In our judgment, not very many, and I think we got it right."
Better sources:
the links to the actual video would seem the most reliable. a brief summary would be appropriate - but i'm not sure where in the article. the 'rebuilding iraq' section only relates tangentially, rather than directly. Anastrophe 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion about mentioning this 1994 interview in the article over two months ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dick_Cheney#can_this_be_added.3F
Linking directly to YouTube is a very bad journalistic practice, but the interview was widely reported in the news media at the time it surfaced (CNN played it repeatedly on-air). The Editor and Publisher news story contains the YouTube URL of the interview, although it is not a clickable hyperlink; you have to cut-and-paste it in your browser in order to view it. I put it back in the section dealing with the policy debate in the immediate aftermath of Desert Shield/Storm, which seems like a logical place for it. An unattributed source 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
i'm not sure i understand the 'very bad journalistic practice'. i understand that youtube is more of a 'fun' site rather than a news/information site. however, the actual video of mr. cheney uttering the words is an incontrovertible source, regardless of what website hosts it. are there any contraventions in WP policy/guidelines on youtube video as a source? (while poking around on this issue, ran across an interesting page relevant to this inquiry, might be of interest to others - Tangled State of Archived News Footage Online Anastrophe 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that An unattributed source might be trying to say that some YouTube video's have been faked. YouTube is also discouraged as a direct link per Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media. But, linking to most of the site references that I provided above, including the one that Anastrophe. parroted to PBS, link to the video. Since C-SPAN did the interview, they should be the first source cited, with backup cites provided, The PBS one again is good, because it has some depth to it. And there maybe more sites out there, including the C-SPAN site. It was late last night when I did this, and transcribed the video on my snail-slow-constipated-turtle-26.6k-dial-up. WikiDon 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
excellent, thanks for the policy reference. i'm embarrassed that i didn't notice you'd cited the same PBS link. i agree that C-SPAN should be the reference of first choice. Anastrophe 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
C-SPAN WikiDon 18:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed the citations for the 1994 Cheney interview and subsequent news stories about it to C-SPAN, PBS and The Washington Post. The Editor and Publisher story had become dated, and asked readers to register if they clicked on the link in the old footnote. An unattributed source 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheney's University Education

"[..]earned his bachelor's and master's of arts degrees from the University of Wyoming."

What subjects?

Which subjects did he take his bachelors and masters?

213.172.204.59 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

His bachelors and masters were both in political science, and I have added that to the article. I also added that he did some studying for his doctorate at the University of Wisconsin. However, I am unsure how to do the more complicated form of citations because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. It would be much appreciated if someone could clean that up. Thanks. Krobilla 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Cheney's early failures in education, are not mentioned. The bio states he left to return home. A more accurate description is as follows:

COLUMBIA, Missouri (CNN) -- Things don't always turn out as planned, but be thankful for second chances, Vice President Dick Cheney told University of Missouri students at a graduation ceremony Sunday.

Cheney delivered the commencement address to 250 students from the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

Recounting his own experiences with second chances, the vice president remembered the difficult times he faced as a student, being "asked to leave twice" from Yale University.

"I dropped out after a few semesters -- dropped out isn't accurate, asked to leave is more like it -- twice," the vice president said.

Wait, what?

How is his name Dick Cheney, at the top of the article it says Richard. D-hyo 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See Nickname. It's the same situation as Bill Clinton, whose full name is actually William Jefferson Clinton. auburnpilot talk 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Question: Why would he use a nickname like "Dick" instead of "Rich"? There must be some explanation of this, as it is very strange. As it is, this conundrum confuses the average reader. Livich 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
See Nickname. It's the same situation as Bill Clinton, whose full name is actually William Jefferson Clinton. I fail to see the "conundrum". You may also find List of United States Presidential names to be of interest; it seems Bill Clinton is the only US President to go by a nickname. There is no mention of VP's. auburnpilot talk 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is totally irrelevant, but Pres. Carter goes by "Jimmy" human 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Dick is a very common nickname for Richard. Dick Nixon comes to mind. Tomhormby 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic/National Heritage or Ancestry?

We have nothing on Chaney's ethnic/racial and/or national makeup? We have no clue where (any of?) his ancestors came from? This is strange considering we have this information for many lesser known figures. --172.132.153.245 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous Paragraph in Early Tenure

I deleted the text "as he was appointed Secretary of Defense (see below) to replace former Texas Sen.John G. Tower, whose nomination had been rejected by the Senate." from the section "House Minority Whip" because this text appears in the section "Early Tenure" under Secretary of Defense "President George H. W. Bush initially chose former Texas Sen. John G. Tower to be his secretary of defense. When the Senate, in March, 1989, rejected his nomination,"

My edit was reverted. Should I change it back to the way I had it? I guess it would be an edit war if it wasn't discussed on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomhormby (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the offending paragraph since there hasn't been any comments. Tomhormby 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article

I'd be interested in knowing who the author of the Rolling Stone article was. It's not exactly neccesary to the article, but adding it in wouldn't add to the length. I have a theory on who it was, but am not sure how to find out. Northernsky16 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the name easily enough. Wasn't who I thought it was (more recent). Northernsky16 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempted assassination

Maybe the page can include something about how Chencey was almost killed in a Taliban suicide bombing directed towards him? [5] 19 people were killed. =( Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sydney trip

I removed the section on Cheny's Sydney trip. Comments from Sydney police regarding how many resources they need to devote to security are entirely unnotable in the biography of a US Vice President. —Doug Bell talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(prophetic) Quote from 1991 about possible Iraq quagmire

This quote is attributed to Cheney in numerous places, including this article. "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?"

When I google this quote, the only original source I can find is a Hearst article by Helen Thomas called "What Planet Is Cheney Living On?" In order to verify the validity of this quote, I would like another source. Supposedly this was on ABC-TV. Can someone find an ABC source for this?

This page (www.aljazeerah.info/ ? Doesn't sound trustworthy) claims to have the transcript from ABCNEWS. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor/2004%20letters/May/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor,%20May%204,%202004.htm 128.252.107.160 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)-Todemo

Assassination attempt "controversial"?

Why is the assassination attempt listed under "controversies"? Shouldn't that be shifted to the section "First and second terms"? Or am I missing something?— Lenoxus 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it certainly doesn't belong under Controversies, ha ha ha... I moved it to its own section, but I'm not sure that's right either. Certainly it's better than where it was, though... --Jaysweet 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

IQ

Cheney is not a rocket surgeon. Any comments? --Jagz 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is no such thing as a rocket surgeon. :p
Plus that, uh... what's your point again? If you are proposing something about Cheney's intelligence be added to the article, then find a reliable source and add it. If you are just pointing out that the guy is a dingbat, well... yeah, I think a lot of us feel that way, heh. But this page is for discussing the Wikipedia article on Dick Cheney, not for discussing Dick himself. --Jaysweet 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that Cheney is a rocket surgeon? --Jagz 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is a point to this discussion, please get to it. Otherwise, it's going to be removed as having nothing to do with this article. This is the talk page for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. auburnpilot talk 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. Get to the point Jagz. Other than that, I don't think anyone's going to care and will remove any mention of it if it is not sourced and does not maintain a NPOV stance. ViriiK 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he's just being silly with the "rocket surgeon" joke. It's actually sort of a funny joke, the more I think of it.
But yeah, I don't think this is serious discussion. :D --Jaysweet 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On 6 April 2007, the Associated Press reported that, "Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group." This sounds like a typical Cheney logic defying statement. I think he got where he is because everyone liked his goofy smile.[6] --Jagz 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that says too much about Cheney's intelligence. I think it suggests that either he desperately wants to believe that Saddam and Osama were working together (or he has actually deluded himself into believing it) and he looking for any scrap of evidence in favour of that, or he is simply intending to mislead the U.S. public into believing it. Personally I think it's the latter. 217.38.66.40 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Goebbels

A quote from Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”[7]

--Jagz 07:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a sort of related quote from Herman Goring, the one about it being easy for governments to convince their people of the need for war, regardless of whether they are dictatorships or democracies. That's what they do, if you imply enough times that something may be the case, even without stating it plainly, people start to believe it. Like Rice saying about the mushroom cloud over New York, she didn't actually say Saddam had nuclear weapons and was about to attack America or even supply such weapons to terrorists, she just made a statement that she knew would make a lot of people believe that was the case. The U.S. government have always been effective propagandists but these guys have taken it to a whole new level, especially Cheney. Where others just kind of imply certain things in order to mislead, Cheney just flat out lies at times. Amazing when he said straight out that Saddam had aquired nuclear weapons, and Rumsfeld later denied that anyone from the administration had ever said that because he could'nt belive anyone would have been dumb enough to say it. I can't believe he's still pushing the Saddam-Osama line though. Actually, it might be worth putting that in the article, it's probably worth a mention that the Vice-President is still claiming publicly that Iraq had ties to Bin Laden. 217.38.66.40 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned in the article also. --Jagz 05:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree and will revert any attempts to include such total nonsense. This is a place for facts backed up by actual sources. WP:Reliable sources may be of interest. Under no circumstances can your opinion or interpretation of a situation be included in an article; see no original research. - auburnpilot talk 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The cite was included above. Here it is again.[8] --Jagz 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheney is an incredibly heinous piece of amoral excrement, but there's no need to say that in this article. In the long run the facts of his repugnant, genocidal, warmongering career will be apparent in and of themselves. TortureIsWrong 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, I think "Richard Bruce 'Dick' Cheney is currently the Vice-President of the United States and a heinous piece of moral excrement" sounds like a pretty good introductory paragraph to me. 217.38.66.40 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That citation allows you to add something to the article along the lines of "Although the Pentagon has released reports to the contrary, in April 2007, Cheney again asserted that Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Qaeda prior to the September 11th attacks". - auburnpilot talk 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
First we should make sure Cheney was saying that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq and not just that Al Qaeda was present in Iraq. Here is an assertions he made earlier.[9]. --Jagz 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there may have been some misunderstanding AuburnPilot, I wasn't suggesting that any 'interpretation' of Cheney's claims should be included in the article. The only thing I was proposing for inclusion was the apparent fact that the Vice-President is still, as of April 2007, claiming that the Iraqi regime had some kind of link with Al Qaeda, which is certainly notable, not to mention highly controversial. What you have suggested be included is no different to what I had in mind. It dosen't require any commentary or interpretation, and obviously I am well aware that Wikipedia does not allow for any, readers can make up their own minds as to what to think of Cheney's claims. 217.38.66.40 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it says, "While the vice president doesn't say directly that there was a tie between the two, his clear purpose is to blur the line between Al Qaeda — the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks — and the Iraqi dictator in order to justify the war in Iraq."[10] --Jagz 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There you go, the art of propaganda. You don't have to say something outright, you just have to imply it, although in this case I think relatively few people pay any attention to Cheney's spin now, people are wise to him. I'm not sure you can put that guy's arguments in the article though, although I think the infomation about Cheney still trying to push an Al-Qaeda/Saddam link should be in there. 217.38.66.40 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment movement

According to the article Dennis Kucinich, Kucinich won't introduce articles of impeachment until April 25, 2007. This article says April 24, 2007. GoodDay 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's April 24, 2007. I've corrected the Dennis Kucinich article. GoodDay 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Man behind the curtain

In the British press, and even in the U.S., example: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/columns/powergrid/14959/ Dick Cheney is frequently referred to as the "man behind the curtain." Would a cited section with this title be appropriate here? CApitol3 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

College education

The article says Cheney "transfered" to Wyoming from Yale. I was always under the impression that he flunked out of Yale, took a job with the phone company for a short while, then enrolled at Wyoming. The article makes it sound like it was just a casual decision to leave Yale for Wyoming. --BWD (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He mentions he was asked to leave Yale twice here.[11][12] --Jagz 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, "asked to leave". Nowhere does either source use the phrase "flunked out," which is why I reverted this and this. The truth is that Cheney flunked out, but until that is verified, we must use the wording of the source. I have no issue making the article clearer on the fact he didn't voluntarily leave. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Lead

Hi everyone. Looking at the article, the first thing that struck me that seemed unusual is the pronuciation of Cheney's name, which is interesting, but certainly doesn't belong in the lead. It's an interesting tidbit, but should go later in the article, if anywhere. Take a look at WP:LEAD for more info. Happyme22 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Much unsourced material - some POV puffery

This article has a number of sections which are almost completely unsourced, and contain some puff language. I removed a small amount of what I thought was egregious puffery, but would like to discuss some of the other parts. Here is an example from Early tenure: "He understood how Congress, and more particularly the legislative process, operated, and he used this knowledge and experience to get along well with Congress." - sounds like PR speak. no references to support this. The other sections from the Sec'y of Defense which also seem to be overly long include Budgetary practices,International situations,Iraq invasion of Kuwait andPolitical climate and agenda - all with minimal or no sourcing.--Boscobiscotti 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

<rant> This is a highly public figure, who has been in public service for over thirty years -- you can't tell me there aren't reliable sources for that much information! Please add citations when you add information. </rant> Mdotley 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification in Political career section

In the "Political career" section, "Congress" subsection, I am not sure what contrast is being made by the final sentence (beginning with the word "however"). Does anyone else find this unclear?Maegan Ashworth 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo

In "Political career", "Secretary of Defense", "Early tenure", several individuals are referred to by name and job-title. Some of these titles are capitalized, and others are not. If these are all official titles, not merely descriptions, they should all be capitalized. I'll capitalize them if I don't hear a reason not to.Maegan Ashworth 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is up with the bottom of the page?

Near the bottom of the page, the article looses all tag processing, and looks all hosed. (that great tech term).. I would fix it, and be bold and whatnot, but I tried, and I dont know how. Someone please fix it. This is an important article, about one of the most influential people in the western world... and it looks bad..

Ok, I fixed it - was a missing end double brace and close ref - but now I have a question: what's up with the major edit that was done? Looks to me on a quick look that legitimate stuff was removed, like the way he proomounces his name. Indeed, he pronounces it "ChEEny". And there's an awful lot of other stuff removed - too late at night for me to llok now, but someone might want to check into this major edit. Tvoz |talk 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

His Mother

The article doesnt mention what his mother did for a living. Does anybody know?

According to an interview with Lynne Cheney on Larry King Live, she was a softball star in the 1930s before marriage and family. Amazing - thanks for asking. I've added it. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sponsors of HR333 (Impeachment)

Being a newbie editor, I'm going to discuss before editing.

It seems to me that the line in the article, "The resolution has since acquired two co-sponsors.[29][30]" should simply be deleted, as just before it there's a wikipedia link to HR333 which is more current (listing 3 sponsors).

Thanks for bringing this up - I changed it to three and added a citation for Wynn. If many more sign on, we may want to re-think. For now, I think we can afford to be precise about this here as well as at HR333. Tvoz |talk 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI -- there are now seven co-sponsors to the resolution, as documented in the HR333 article. Article appears to be locked at the moment for editing, but when the lock is released, this should be updated.--68.54.18.57 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

I am going to rate this article bias because with the anti Bush/Chaney, you can't be sure if everything on here is true, or if it's bias!

I am open to debate on this matter. Please, any concerns, or questions, leave on my talk page!

Politics rule 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how the {{bias}} template works. It shouldn't be added to an article because you fear "anti Bush/Chaney" groups have added false information. If you have specific instances where you believe a bias is present, violating NPOV, then we have an issue. Simply stating "you can't be sure if everything on here is true" isn't a reason to add the bias tag. Maybe {{unreferenced}}. - auburnpilot talk 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that the tag be removed. Too often on Wikipedia people add tags without taking action prior. What I mean by this is here the "tagger" should have reviewed the text to find something that would be deemed bias instead of merely asuming it is inherent due to the subject. The greatest abuse of the tag comes from those singaling Trivia sections. It isn't at all difficult to incorporate most if not all of the information into an article.Light Bulb 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think (I'm not sure, however), what Politics rule meant was, that he/she wanted to tag this article, because of an apparent bias against the subject of this article. If that's the case, I wholeheartedly agree, regarding the article being bias'ed, particularly when compared to a similar subject, on the opposite end of the political spectrum (Al Gore). However, I agree that {{bias}} wouldn't be appropriate here. I'd suggest MAYBE {{POV}}, but, more likely a {{POV-section}} in a couple places. For the most part, I think it's a very well written article, and it's improving every day, however we're just not being very consistent, that's all :) This sort of thing isn't terribly good for Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral encyclopedia. Anyhoo, I'll ping Politics rule's talk page, and, see if they want to comment further. (Yes, I know this topic is almost a month old....) Just my $0.02 :) So, as it's been a month, and, there's not been any support for the {{bias}} tag that was added, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Feel free to replace it, and discuss here, why. --SXT4 09:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Casper

Wow, I thought people were joking when they said he was from Casper. Can't make this stuff up... 71.68.17.30 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Is he really a robot? that can't be true

Name listed in Infobox

The Infobox on Bill Clinton lists his name as the proper William Jefferson Clinton. The Infobox on Dick Cheney lists his name as Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney. Only the proper should be listed, the diminuitive of his first name should be dropped. The inclusion of "Dick" is suspect because of the connotation that comes with the word.Light Bulb 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to removed "Dick" from the infobox, go for it, but there's nothing "suspect" about its inclusion. Nobody refers to Cheney as Richard, and his common name is in fact Dick. - auburnpilot talk 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
True, no one refers to Cheney as Richard, nor does anyone refer to Clinton as William. The inclusion of "Dick" in Cheney's Infobox compared to the exclusion of "Bill" in Clinton's Infobox legitimately raises concern over whether or not there is bias in the former.Light Bulb 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Bias would be if George W. Bush's infobox read "George Dubya Bush" or Cheney's read "Richard Sureshot Cheney". We'll simply have to agree to disagree, but thankfully this isn't a life or death decision; I've just removed dick from the infobox. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that there is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the name used in Template:Infobox Officeholder. This issue (the inconsistency) has been brought up before elsewhere. Even when all of the U.S. presidents and vice presidents are "fixed" to use one system, eventually it's changed by an unknowing editor. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring controversy sub-section

I am restoring the small section about the assertion of an Al Qaeda -- Hussein link. No matter your political opinion, this has been a consistently reported controversy. I'm not sure why it was removed initially. Selecting press coverage almost at random, see this article from this spring.Benzocane 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Transparency and Secrecy

I think recent revelations about the positions taken by Vice President Cheney regarding document classification, the national archives, executive privilege, etc. necessitate a section on Secrecy and Transparency. Politics aside, the positions Cheney and his staff have taken on these issues are rather unique if not extreme, and represent a significant shift from recent administrations of both parties. 129.79.173.224 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bruce Cheney is America's leading traitor and criminal. He must be brought to justice, and made to pay for his criminal behavior (e.g. Valerie Plame outing) and numerous war crimes.

I think that the Wikipedia entry on Richard Bruce Cheney is objective and factual, and well-referenced. I also believe that it will ultimately help many Americans to understand why felon Richard Bruce Cheney must be impeached, prosecuted and incarcerated.

Democratic Underground Shenanigans

FYI, this George Bush hate site is having a little fun with this article.."Hurry, hurry, check the new Dick Cheney wikipedia entry"[[13]] . Nothing to serious, but I would expect further vandalism. Dman727 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism or Journalism?

The debate as to whether Dick Cheney has indeed created a "fourth branch of government" is actually quite serious. People who believe that mainstream media are not reporting the real news have a legitimate complaint about the coverage of this issue -- because the leading blogs covered it but the mainstream media didn´t -- until Senator Henry Waxman started asking questions about Cheney´s alleged power grab, five months after Cheney quite visibly arrogated himself this power "[[14]]. This news blackout may in part explain the eagerness of leading web news and opinions sites such as Democratic Underground to provide some coverage of this radical new change in US govt.

The debate is quite real and serious I agree. Making up silly unsourced jpgs, inserting them into an encyclopedia and then running off and giggling about them on fringe websites is vandalism. While WIKI isn't a debate forum, nor a forum to breed "news blackout" conspiracy stories, Reliable Sourced (WP:RS) information about noteable Cheney events can and should included. Dman727 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheney's own office is fighting oversight efforts by Congress on the grounds that he supposedly is not part of the executive branch, so I would say this issue is legitimate. GrotesqueOldParty 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The second article of the US Constitution says the VP is in the executive branch. Since it's in the constitution, I don't know why anyone is surprised that Cheney is ignoring it.4.246.126.218 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If he's not ignoring it, he's usually busy despoiling it. GrotesqueOldParty 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The first article says the VP is a part of the legislative branch. The second article mentions the VP only as 'being elected with the President and presidential succession (later clarified by the 25th amendment). GoodDay 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As well the second article also mentions the VP, concerning impeachment along with other government officials. GoodDay 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

More generally regarding this section header... Journalism on Wikipedia is vandalism, in a sense. See the policy WP:OR, as well as some other policies that I can't think of off the top of my head. The mainstream media may have its problems (boy howdy, does it ever!) but Wikipedia unfortunately is not the place to fix that. --Jaysweet 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite wiki's status as a encyclopedic rather than jourlistic organization, Jaysweet, its articles should in include relevent updates to there subject's. Such as is the case with Cheney interprectation of his office's role. Cheney argues that the office of the Vice President is not a part of the excutive branch and therefore is not subject to the disclosure rules that other offices in the excutive, such as the white house, must follow. imv the article should include a more comprehensive section on this topic.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted at least a mention of it. It's now been mentioned in TIME and CBS News (though I personally first heard of it on the Daily Show). Unfortunately, the sources on this page seem to be really screwed up. Esn 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Stockholder?

The introduction asserts, without citation, that Cheney is "still a major stockholder" of Halliburton. I find that hard to believe. He took the trouble to put his stock options in an irrevocable trust, the proceeds of which will go to charity. It seems incredible that he (or his advisors) would be smart enough to take that precaution and yet stupid enough to own stock, let alone enough shares to be considered a "major stockholder." Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, a citation is needed.75.3.122.222 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From a cached article in the Wall Street Journal: "Richard Cheney Richard Cheney

Wife: Lynne Cheney

Couple's combined 2003 income: $1.3 million

Couple's 2002 net worth: $19.1 million to $86.4 million*

The vice president's salary is set at about $200,000 a year, and Mr. Cheney also made $178,437 in deferred compensation from former employer Halliburton, according to a White House press release. The Cheneys' 2003 earnings also included Mrs. Cheney's income from work at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, publisher Reader's Digest board and from her books.

The Cheneys, who have most of their assets in a blind trust, have $15 million to $75 million in tax-exempt bond funds, and $2 million to $10 million in stock.

Mr. Cheney also has about $18 million in stock options from Halliburton; he says he will donate the proceeds from exercising those options to charity."

Key words: "Says he will." He also said the insurgency was in its last throes. He's a man who lies very easily. GrotesqueOldParty 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First, even assuming you're right, there is a difference between owning "$18 million in stock options" and being a "major shareholder." An owner of an option to purchase stock in the future is, by definition, not a "stockholder," and even if he held $18 million in Halliburton stock, that would not be a "major" share of the company's stock (market capitalization today is $31.8 billion). Second, the article documents with reliable sources that his Halliburton options have already been irrevocably assigned to a trust. Cheney no longer owns them. So, although "says he will" might be a little confusing, it doesn't mean what you say it does. Can someone with edit rights please remove the "major stockholder" claim or cite a reliable source? Thank you75.3.122.222 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the stockholder issue, but it doesn't say anywhere in the article that the assignment of the option is "irrevocable." As Bill Frist's recent problems demonstrated, these "blind trusts" aren't always so blind. Do you have actual knowledge of the mechanics of this particular trust? Common sense says someone with a huge potential future interest in Halliburton has a conflict of interest when he also happens to be a warmongering VP. Why exactly should anyone take Cheney's word on this matter? Has he ever done anything to earn that sort of trust? GrotesqueOldParty 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
First, note that the stock options issue has nothing to do with the "blind trust" in which the Cheneys placed some of their assets. It is the Gift Trust Agreement that the stock options were assigned to. I have not been able to find a copy of the actual Gift Trust Agreement. Factcheck.org summarizes it at http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html and quotes it as stating that the transfer is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," but the factcheck.org link to the document is dead. If factcheck.org is a reliable source, we should cite it. I'm a brand new editor, so I can't make that change to the article yet.Lowell33 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I'll fix it. - Crockspot 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"put all of his corporate shares into a blind trust"?

Related to the point above regarding Cheney being a "major stockholder" in Halliburton, the assertion in the first sentence of the "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President" section that Cheney "put all of his corporate shares [in Halliburton, presumably] into a blind trust" is missing a citation. I suspect that's because there is no reliable source for that proposition. I strongly suspect he sold any Halliburton stock he may have owned before taking office. Maybe I'm wrong, but a citation is needed. Thanks,Lowell33 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where such a citation would be found, but Cheney should have released his financial information before running for office. If we can find a link to this information, it would presumably include information related to the Halliburton stock. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been unable to find anyone, including openly anti-Cheney sources, such as http://www.halliburtonwatch.org, who alleges that Cheney owned Halliburton stock at any time during his vice presidency. I assume that the point of the first sentence (since it is in the section regarding his "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President") is to make that allegation implicitly. It's highly POV and completely unsupported. It should be deleted unless someone comes up with a cite. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure it's not my job to disprove an unsourced allegation. Seems like it would be up to someone who advocates that POV to come up with a reliable source, right?Lowell33 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What we do seem to know is that his trust ("blind" or not - and again, in the Frist case "blind" meant nothing) has Halliburton options attached to it. That's all we really know. Claims that they're out of Cheney's control or that the proceeds of any sale will be given to charity are totally unsubstantiated as far as I can see. Given the accuracy of Cheney's other claims - i.e. "the insurgency is in its last throes" - I think pure skepticism about anything the man says is the only way to go. GrotesqueOldParty 06:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing two issues. First, there is a "blind trust," which contains the Cheneys' securities and is traded by a trustee who is not supposed to consult with the Cheneys on those decisions. That's why it's "blind." (I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your allegations of impropriety on this issue. I just know Wikipedia requires reliable sources.) Second, there is a Gift Trust created by the Gift Trust Agreement. It is completely separate from the blind trust. Everyone knows exactly what is in it: Hallibuton stock options (approx. 433,000 of them, I believe). So, your assertion that the blind trust has Halliburton stock options "attached to it" is wrong. Back to the point of the question I raised above, it appears that no one in the world (except this article) asserts that Cheney owned Halliburton stock while in office. That's why the statement that Cheney put "all his corporate shares [in Halliburton] into a blind trust" upon taking office is unsubstantiated and should be removed. Thanks Lowell33 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you for clearing that up. You're right, I was mistaken. GrotesqueOldParty 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I deleted the allegation. Lowell33 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-place Kiplingers citation

I don't see what the following sentence has to do with Cheney's "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President." Or with the article in general, for that matter.

"On May 17, 2006 Kiplinger's Personal Finance reported that, based on Cheney's financial disclosures, his '...financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.'"

Comments? Lowell33 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much info

I see there is even MORE detail now on the Noriega arrest, not sure why this needs to be in this article. There is a too much background info, particularly in the SecDef section. Is this material presented in detail elsewhere on Wikipedia? Can some of this be pared down to a concise summary, and wikilinked to the articles where the deeper detail can be found? This article is about Dick Cheney, and I don't think he had much to do with David Bowie being played at loud volume outside Noriega's house, so why is it in his bio? - Crockspot 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Section 3.7.6 reeds to be renamed or removed

Section 3.7.6 "Reaction by others" reads like an advertisement for Cheney. Worse, the title is totally nonsensical. "Reaction" to what? The fact that he's vice president? I think that this whole section could be removed, or have its RELEVANT information placed under a different section.

But at the VERY LEAST the title must go. I have no time to do so at the moment at would be grateful if a more experienced person would do so in any case. If not I will probably be back later as the article seems not to be restricted that I can see -- surprising in such a contentious figure unless I'm just blind. 66.41.25.19 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the article is not marked Protected, the Edit tab seems to be simply GONE. So, I propose changes to be made when editing becomes possible (I will no doubt not remember for that long):
1. Graft the second half of the aforementioned subsection -- everything from "House Speaker Dennis Hastert" on -- and integrate it into subsection 3.4.1 "Early tenure", probably at or near the end because that seems to be on the same subject and/or segue nicely.
2. Delete the first half -- from "Both supporters" to "fact that the" -- since it all either is simply cheerleading or would be redundant in its new home.
3. Delete the now empty subsection 3.7.6 "Reaction by others".
Please, I ask all of you Wikipedians, perform this cleanup as soon as it becomes possible. If I am somehow failing to see what is to you an obvious way to do the edit now, please forgive my ignorance. 66.41.25.19 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Dick?

So he is so powerful and almighty that the "edit" has been removed from his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.102.193 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2007

Nothing to do with Dick Cheney's power, actually. Due to the high level of vandalism this article receives, it is protected from editing by anonymous and new users. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

The external links to Comedy Central do not aid a reader's understanding of the Dick Cheney bio in any way. These links are perfect examples of everything listed under the links to be avoided section of Wikipedia:External links. They are not factually accurate and they do not provide an additional resource (remember this is a biography). Please stop adding them; remember, Wikipedia is not a link farm. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So I guess links to puff pieces are just fine, but satire rubs you the wrong way. I think the link is a valid alternative view of Cheney and shows what a polarizing figure he is. GrotesqueOldParty 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
What rubs me the wrong way are links that go against policy and guideline. If you actually watch the videos found at the removed links, they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. An "alternative view" is fine; suggesting that everything Cheney touches is automatically pixeled, including a foreign leader, is not. - auburnpilot talk 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's called "humor." There's plenty of it here on Wikipedia. I suggest you simply don't like seeing this particular ox (and he is built like one) being gored. GrotesqueOldParty 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My person view of Cheney, which by the way you are not familiar with, is irrelevant to my edits. The links are inappropriate. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think I can guess, after looking at your own user/talk pages and seeing what your activities have been. Let's just say I don't think you would have made the same decision (or even gotten involved) if we were talking about the Al Gore page. But perhaps I'm wrong. I'm sure you can point to any number of deletions you've made on such non-right-wing pages. GrotesqueOldParty 03:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me introduce you to a few basic fundamental aspects of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Articles must maintain a neutral point of view, as do our editors. I edit articles that interest me, not ones that I wish to force my viewpoint upon. The assumption of good faith is something that you should extend to every editor. Nothing in my edits indicate otherwise. Etiquette is just good sense; be polite, treat others as you wish to be treated, and argue facts, not personalities. You can comment on me all you wish, but it just makes your argument look even less persuasive. "I like it" is not a valid argument. - auburnpilot talk 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That was not the e3xtent of my argument, of course. I happen to think that how the Vice President is perceived and portrayed in our culture is significant, and that your decision has removed one very significant element of that perception. I also have reviewed your editing history, and I'm not assuming bad faith - just making the judgment that you spend a very significant portion of your time as a defender of all things Bush. Please don't pretend that you're immune to bias yourself. None of us are. GrotesqueOldParty 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have something to say related to this article, please do. However, I have no desire to justify my edits to you or anybody else. I've been editing for a long time, and no matter what my real life viewpoint is, I don't allow it to effect my edits. - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. And the insurgency was "in its last throes," and "Mission Accomplished," and Donald Rumsfeld did a heckuva job. You don't have to be ashamed of your "real life viewpoint," you know, just because it has been shown to be a fiasco. BTW, if you think my last comment above said nothing about the article, you're sorely mistaken. It most certainly did. The fact that the Vice President of the United States has become a figure of almost universal mockery and disgust is highly relevant and deserves a mention in any article about him. GrotesqueOldParty 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the deal, stop accusing editors of bias or you will be blocked from editing. I'm not ashamed of anything, and truthfully, you couldn't be further from the truth when it comes to my person views. You've been warned, now stop trolling. You will not continue to question my motives. - auburnpilot talk 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone else wants to re-revert the Cheney=Daily Show external link deletion[15] (I'm not going to do it again personally), you could cite this in your edit summary[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by An unattributed source (talk • contribs)

Winning an award doesn't change the content of the videos. It's false, factually inaccurate, and does not contain any biographical information. Unfortunately, I got sucked into the troll-fest above, but that doesn't change the facts. Also note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. - auburnpilot talk 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Weird - every encyclopedia I've ever used - without exception - will refer readers to other articles within it. GrotesqueOldParty 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be a "see also" section. Any encyclopedia that would use itself as a source is not reliable. - auburnpilot talk 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot - The fact that "The Daily Show" has won numerous awards - whether they are Emmys, Peabodys, Television Critics Association awards or whatever else - and in whatever category, including news and information - is actually beside the point. The entire "You Don't Know Dick" series was directly based on information reported in the four-part Washington Post series "Angler," which is the first external link under the "Critical Views" subheading. Obscuring the Naval Observatory Vice Presidential official residence in Google Earth through pixelation - True. "Man-sized" Mosler safes in Cheney's personal office - True. The "Treated as Secret/SCI" faux classification stamp used exclusively in the "OVP" that developed it - True. You just don't like the way Jon (forgive my earlier misspellings) Stewart presents that true, factual, and very telling information about Cheney. Which is fine, of course, but it does not diminish its relevance or propriety to appear under the "Critical Views" subheading. I leave it for some other Wikipedia editor to revert your deletion of the links though.[17] Despite your efforts to mis-characterize this dispute as a "trollfest," it is really an effort at ideologically based censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by An unattributed source (talk • contribs)

And the Washington Post series is an appropriate external link and reference. The Comedy Central links are not. Also, don't you dare accuse me of ideologically based censorship. I consider that an egregious personal attack and is not going to be tolerated. Falsely trying to discredit my edits by accusing me of bias is trolling, and an accurate description of the above behavior by GrotesqueOldParty. - auburnpilot talk 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, first, I apologize for not properly following the obvious instructions regarding the four-tilde signature on all entries made on all talk page. I haven't been drawn into talk page discussions all that much so far, but will do everything in my power not to repeat that mistake. Second, I apologize for the "ideologically based censorship" remark. It is obviously a judgment call, but it does probably violates both letter and spirit of personal attack.

Now, let me try to properly address your previous comment that I mishandled. You said, and I partially quote you, working hard to preserve your context and presumed meaning: "...the content of the videos. It's false, factually inaccurate, ...."

I dispute that statement, and did so in what was probably a clumsy way in my previous response, but stand by those three invocations of the word "True." That is not an "ad hominem" argument; I just disagree with the literal proposition you put forth. Then you said: "Also note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source."

OK. All I was trying to quickly and simply point out is that "The Daily Show" is widely regarded as a major source of political information and opinions, and has won many critical awards for doing so. Leaving any citation of a Wikipedia source for that assertion aside, you may click on the citation at the end of this sentence for additional references to support that simple statement. [18]

Now, finally, here is the only real reason I am replying to your comments here at all. You say "...is not going to be tolerated..." and on my own personal talk page leave me another, separate comment that says, in part: "...expect it to never happen again..." I'm not going to try to interpret the tenor of those remarks here, but instead will provide two annotations to WP policies at the end of this sentence that I will work to abide by.[19][20] An unattributed source 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no doubt that you, An unattributed source, are here to benefit the project. You've done great work so far, and if I've been rude to you, I apologize. I simply cannot stand for people to question my motives in such a blatantly false manner. Now, I understand that the Jon Steward videos are based in fact, but they just aren't presented in that same manner. I presume you watched them, and they are comedic performances, which take a great deal of liberty with the facts. I don't dispute the bases of the information, and the Washington Post series is a perfect addition to the article. The Comedy Central links simply do not present information in a factually accurate way that is expected of links within an encyclopedic article. - auburnpilot talk 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of those comments, including your implied characterization of Auburn's tactics. In my short time on Wikipedia I've really been stunned at how often and easily threats are made (and carried out) by administrators. Talk about a stifling effect on discussion, and what a disincentive for new people to contribute! GrotesqueOldParty 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand the near-instant resort to threats on Wikipedia. GrotesqueOldParty 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuilding of Iraq section

This section doesn't contain much in the way of real information about the attempted (and thus far utterly futile) rebuilding of Iraq. It seems to be mistitled and in need of work. Any ideas? GrotesqueOldParty 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't have any real information or discuss the topic in the heading. As it stands, it's probably better suited to move the information to the "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President" section. Alternatively, simply indenting the heading and making it a subsection of the Halliburton header could work. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Secrecy/Privacy issues

Is it worth discussing his 'Treat as Secret/SCI' stampings and his huge safe? The removal of his properties from GOogle Earth and other map systems? ThuranX 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that there is no true criticism section; it's just splattered throughout the article. This is the kind of thing would fit perfectly in such a section. As the article stands, I'm not sure where you'd put it, but so long as it is reliably sourced, I don't see any problem with mentioning this. To me, it seems a little trivial, but again, so long as its sourced. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You know what's funny? This was just covered on the Jon Stewart rerun last night. Perfect! GrotesqueOldParty 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hunting Accident Apology

We forget to mention that Whittington was kind enough to apologize for all the trouble this caused Cheney and his family. I think it's worth mentioning, it shows that Whittington has integrity. Franky210 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows that Whittington was terrified of Cheney, which is important to establish the nature of their relationship. By all means include it. Wercloud 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested Cheney for Veep?

The article says that Bush asked Cheney to run, but omits the common story that Cheney came out of his "search committee" with the recommendation that he himself should be Veep. However, while this story is commonly repeated, a little googling doesn't show a reliable source. Does anyone know whether there's a source for this assertion? If there is, then the claim should be mentioned in the article. --Andersonblog 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find the sources, but as I recall, it's not that Cheney chose himself; it's that Bush picked Cheney after seeing his work on the committee. I'll try to find the articles, and hopefully they are still online. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent Time magazine article The Cheney Branch of Government states: "He was believed to be just what Bush needed: a chief operating officer who would give great advice, based on his years of experience, and who, because he had no ambitions for his boss's job, wouldn't have his own agenda.". Also, the CNN articles Bush picks Cheney for VP, Republican sources say and Bush, Cheney officially debut the full 2000 Republican presidential ticket say that although Bush had been considering Cheney for weeks, he was a late contender and Bush made the decision on his own. - auburnpilot talk 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dick Cheyney Controversies"?

Just a quick suggestion, why don't we move all the 'negative' stuff (these sections in particular): 

3.8 Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President
3.9 Rebuilding of Iraq
3.10 CIA leak scandal
3.11 Hunting incident
3.12 Impeachment proceedings
3.13 Ongoing assertion of Al-Qaeda/Saddam link

Over to Dick Cheyney Controversies as was done over at Al Gore (SEE: Al Gore controversies)?

Just trying to keep things consistent... --SXT4 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, Dick Cheney controversies. Yes, that would be a good idea. Esn 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, lower case c would be better.... I'm one of those people that can't help themselves when it comes to caps.... --SXT4 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind... It seems like that would be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks --SXT4 09:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pic

Anyone have a pic on his office with his name plate (you know, the metal label on his table, I don't know how it is called). --Howard the Duck 11:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

can this be added?

Can this new released video of Cheney in 1994 talking about Iraq and it becoming a quagmire if the US overthrew Saddam be linked to the article? Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think YouTube is generally regarded as a reliable source, sorry... --SXT4 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that the video is simply hosted from the YouTube site makes YouTube the actual source of the information. The clip appears to be from a 1994 interview conducted with Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute, where he was working at the time while considering a Presidential candidacy of his own. The only thing that detracts from the value of the clip is that someone has superimposed an extraneous still graphic over it in the lower right corner of the frame. Even that may not render it unusable for the Cheney article, but it would be preferable if a copy of the same clip could be located that does not include that particular text. An unattributed source 14:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This 1994 clip and Cheney's quagmire predictions is being talked about on CNN Situation Room right now. Bmedley Sutler 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles now appearing in the news "How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?" Bmedley Sutler 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Er? Apparently there's no Criticism section in this article, which I find terribly odd, considering that this guy has a 27-33% approval rating. Somemone needs to break out the WikiScanner... -- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The whole article's basically the 'criticism section'.... --SXT4 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed there is no mention of the hunting accident or the fact that he removed his home from Google Earth. WikisScanner would be a great idea. 71.89.8.194 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"...no mention of the hunting accident..."? What are these links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Hunting_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

As for "pixelating" the Google Earth image of the official Vice Presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory, I gave up on an editing tug-of-war regarding some "Daily Show" clips that include mention of it specifically, but you can read about it elsewhere on this talk page at this address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dick_Cheney#External_links

... and find the clickable links themselves to the video clips by looking at the editing history page for the article itself. An unattributed source 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dick's "hobbys"

Don't get me wrong, this is funny and appropriate, in my opinion: "He also has many different hobbys like shooting guys in the face screwing over soldiers and have seizures or/and heart attacks." The spelling and grammar really ought to be corrected, though.SarahMay222 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted as vandalism from a sleeper account. -- Gogo Dodo 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

what's with his grin?

does he always pose like that i the camera? his smile was crooked.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.242.203 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Early life and family

I modified this section yesterday; it included a rather drawn out discussion of the 'growing interest' in his daughter's homosexuality - references dated from 2004. it also mentioned her pregnancy - considering she's already had the baby, it's clearly out of date. furthermore, the discussion of the interest in her sexual orientation, same sex marriage issues, etc - this is all well and good, and could certainly be covered in the article - but it's in the wrong place in this section. it's POV pushing when it's supposed to simply be describing his early life and family. my edits were reverted; i've reverted them back. i can't see an NPOV justification for the discussion of her orientation being in that section. Anastrophe 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all comments above, now that you explain it like that. Sorry for the revert. It's obviously a relevant tidbit to mention, but up-to-date and in the right section, and NPOV and not drawn out. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually after looking at the article more closely, there's no other section where it might fit right now. It was during the 2004 re-election campaign that Mary's orientation and pregnancy became a public issue, and that campaign was not even mentioned in the article! I at least put in a "seealso" tag for it at the appropriate place - and restored an updated and trimmed-down mention of Mary's orientation, with the cites, in its old spot. In the longer term, there should be a new section added on the 2004 campaign, and maybe then this mention will fit better there. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

cool - thanks.Anastrophe 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

'as portrayed on the daily show'

if this were any other article, speculative additions could probably fly; with the amount of vandalism and POV here, i think not. so, do we have some evidence that they're using Photoshop? how do we know they're not using the GIMP? or Paint.net? wikipedia has an endemic disease of unsourced, uncited crap. a key characteristic of an encyclopedia is ACCURACY. unsourced additions don't help accuracy. call me a 'deletionist' if you want, but anything less than rigorous sourcing is unacceptable. Anastrophe 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even understand why the paragraph exists to begin with, and am happy to see you've removed it again. One comic's bit does not equate to "Public perception". The entire section is garbage, and should be renamed "popular culture" or something similar. It certainly doesn't describe public perception. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It was added by McGrupp10799; I was trying to clean it up, and I agree completely with Anastrophe's trimming and comments above. But I do think leaving that in with the reference as is, is justified, as a representative, prominent, cited example of the large amount of public criticism, much of it cartoonish (but not irrelevant). - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
i think a rename to 'popular culture' or some such would do it better justice, as auburnpilot suggested. "public perception" is really a malaproprism. Anastrophe 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Public perception

Correction needed: The main article currently ends with a section that states "He often compares himself to Darth Vader. [96]" I cannot believe he would actually compare himself to Darth Vader so I read through the sited transcript of a CNN interview. He DOES NOT compare himself to Darth Vader - this should read:

"Dick Cheney's critics compare him to Darth Vader and say he 'has become this dark, nefarious force in the administration that believes in secrecy at all price, that believes congressional oversight is a nuisance.' [96] He defends his low approval rating and un-popularity in the polls by stating that since he intends to leave office he has the luxury of doing what he feels is necessary and right for the nation and its security without worrying about re-election or popularity. [96]."

Could someone please fix this. Bshoemate 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, i am from non english-speaker country. I want to know that "Dick" in his name stands for penis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.155.29 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard". - Crockspot 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This section got deleted somewhere along the way, but I re-added it... However, the part about Fox News commentators needs attribution and a citation. Nualran 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Carter Interview

user wikidon added an excerpt from an interview with president carter, with highly critical comments of the vice president. i reverted the addition, with the following edit summary:

"a one day old interview - appropriate for wikinews, not WP. WP:WEIGHT probably also."

user wikidon restored the interview,with the edit summary:

"EXCUSE ME!? This is a former PRESIDENT of the US, who has a better right to criticize another President or Vice-President???????????????????????"

this is over the top. my primary argument against it is that this is wikipedia, not wikinews. barely day-old comments by the former president are far too new for inclusion in an encyclopedia. the secondary argument is that mr. carter's comments are being given undue weight. wikidon pretty much confirms that for me, as the fact is, the former president has no special right to criticize the vice president any more than any other citizen; his comments are being given undue weight simply because he was a past president. he has no more 'right' to criticize the vice president than you or i. i reverted wikidon again, with the following edit summary:

"WP:AGF. as before, wikinews, not WP. your edit summary strikes me as POV pushing."

to which wikidon reverted again, with this uncivil edit summary:

"YOU "Assume good faith" This is Jimmy Carter's POV, a former president, it is HIS statement and his view. This is not just some fly-by-night blogger or fanatic. LEAVE IT"

this is unacceptable behaviour. no editor is in a position to command other editors regarding edits. i will refrain from reverting again, but i object to the inclusion of mr. carter's comments again on the primary basis that this is not wikinews, and the apparent need that wikidon has to insist that these comments be included is clearly POV pushing, as demonstrated by his edit summaries. Anastrophe 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You sir/madam attacked me. You attacked my edit as POV, you attacked me as NOT IN GOOD FAITH. You cited: "WP:WEIGHT"
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles."
1) This is from a credible source. 2) This is HIS POV. 3) It is in the section: "Vice-President: Reaction by others" 4) It is cited from an outside source/REF.
I have been on here since May of 2004 and I have NEVER! been criticized as POV before. I am HIGHLY offended that you did so. I have ALWAYS been very objective. These were comments made by a FORMER U.S. President of a standing Vice-President of the U.S. This is criticism of a standing U.S. Vice President by a CREDIBLE person that has the RIGHT to criticize a vice-president. If it was media group or blogger I wouldn't enter it at all, but when a former U.S. President calls a standing Vice-President a "militant" and a "disaster" for the same county, the most powerful country on the planet, it deserves to be there. WikiDon 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: NPOV means from Wikipedia editors. We can cite, and it is in EVERY encyclopedia, criticisms from a professionals contemporary. Adams criticized Jefferson, and vice-versa. Douglas criticized Lincoln, and vice-versa. Dewey criticized Truman, and vice-versa. Eisenhower criticized Patton, and vice-versa. FDR criticized Hoover, and vice-versa. And ON and ON and ON and ON.... Gerald Ford called Jimmy Carter a "disaster."
DAY OLD NEWS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Muszaphar_Shukor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Ertl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mir_Ali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Von_Wernich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gr%C3%BCnberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones
MORE DAY OLD NEWS:

(the above apparently by wikidon)

in your edit summary adding the above comments, you claimed that I "attacked you first". this is nonsense. i cited my reasons for reverting the edit, they were reasons based upon the content of the edit, and not an attack on you. you seem to be far too personally wrapped up in this matter, judging by the repeated use of ALL CAPS (shouting), and taking immediate personal offense with someone reverting your edit. you have also glossed over the weight aspect of NPOV, and completely ignored my primary complaint that this is not wikinews, it is wikipedia, and thus inclusion of a barely day-old interview is not encyclopedic. i've never claimed that mr. carter doesn't have a right to criticize the president; what i argue is that he has no more right than any other citizen. mr. carter has become more and more shrill in his criticisms of this administration, and the people in it; his comments are becoming less noteworthy with each passing rant. that said, i return once again to the primary argument: this is wikipedia, not wikinews. perhaps you meant to post the excerpt there.
followup to 'DAY OLD NEWS' (all caps again?). news is one thing; an interview by a former president on BBC is not necessarily news. in fact, mr. carter's comments weren't even considered 'above the fold' newsworthy for the new york times.
another followup, to the massive dump of 'proof' further added - i haven't been able to post my initial comments due to the rapid fire additions. you seem to have come completely unhinged. i am not responsible however for your actions. you are merely proving my point that you are far too personally wrapped up in this otherwise minor issue, and that betrays POV pushing. i'm sorry you're apoplectic about this, but i stand by my rationale for reverting your addition. Anastrophe 07:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Several months ago when I was relatively new to Wikipedia, I got into a slightly less contentious editing tug-of-war over this article. The talk page record of that incident is visible here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dick_Cheney#External_links

Given that personal perspective, I have to say that I agree with "Anastrophe" that inclusion of the Carter interview quotes is inappropriate in this context on the WP:WEIGHT argument. Public figures are always commenting on other public figures, pro and con, and to include all such comments when they are not directly tied to some sort of news event would make this or any other article unwieldy. I am reminded of a comment by Carter's predecessor Gerald Ford, who praised Cheney's performance as his White House chief of staff but expressed muted criticism of his temperament as Vice President, or that of General Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to the first President Bush, who was more vocal in his criticism of his former colleague Cheney. Those remarks are not in the main text of this article, and Carter's shouldn't be either.

I'm not going to personally remove the Carter interview text, but I would encourage the person who added it to reconsider. Perhaps including a link only to the Reuters news story cited as a source of the quotes ( http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN10264191 ) under the "Critical Views" external link section would be a good solution. An unattributed source 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Just to clarify what NPOV is, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

--Jagz 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and Obama are cousins

This isn't a joke. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/pl_nm/usa_politics_cheney_obama_dc Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Got further proof here http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1288857,00.html. Apparently on a US TV show. Mrs Cheney was asked if she would support former First Lady Hillary Clinton over Obama to be the Democrats' official presidential candidate because she was a woman.

Mrs Cheney stunned the audience by replying: "I have to admit to a certain bias here . . . Dick and Barack Obama are eighth cousins." C_falco 21:12, 17th October 2007 (GMT)

Lynne Cheney's book promotion tour aside, is this really encyclopedic-level information? If you look at the Mareen Duvall Wikipedia entry, we must also conclude that Cheney is related to Harry Truman and Robert Duvall. Should that be put into this article? And it also means that Obama is related to Harry Truman and Robert Duvall; should that be put into the article about him? I believe the entire Bush family is related to the Queen Elizabeth (less distantly in fact), but I don't think that is included in the George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush articles. You have to draw the line somewhere with what is basically trivia, IMHO. An unattributed source 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Harry Truman, Robert Duvall, the Bush's, and QE2, is: they are not running for president, basically against their rival administration. It deserves ONE small sentence: "XYZ is distant cousins to ABC, DEF, & GHI." w/REF. This is slightly more important right now, because one man is V.P. in a highly critical presidency, and the second is seen as "the savior" by some against that presidency. So, yes, it is worth a mention. But we should 1) not elaborate; & 2) keep it encyclopedic, short, sweet, to the point, and attributed. 3) It would be nice if was included with other important relatives. WikiDon 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
it's trivia. eighth cousins are incredibly far removed from each other, as this trivia highlights. Anastrophe 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is included in the notes - more than that would be giving it more weight than it's worth. The connection is distant and not even well-verified, if you look closely at the sources. Tvoz |talk 07:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the logic of putting that sentence into the text randomly as was just done? It has nothing whatever to do with his attendance at a Methodist Church, but does have something tangentially to do with his parents, his ancestry, where the footnotes are - Society of Dog Lovers and WikiDon just ignored the footnotes that are already there and added one which is a duplicate of the Reuters source cited at note 3 - that is sloppy editing. Do you now think this very minor point is worth two mentions? WP:FN says "Footnotes are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail." This is a classic case for that. I suggest that at most we leave this as footnotes to the parents and remove the extraneous mention in the text. Tvoz |talk 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A strange photograph of his dogs: [21] --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Public Perception and Darth Vader

Are there other people who find it odd that almost the entire public perception section is focused on comparing him to Darth Vader? This doesn't seem to accurately summarize the matter. If one were to survey media coverage and public commentary about him, I don't think they'd find this is the predominating theme. Perhaps there could be more attention to what the overall sentiment has been from the public, instead of referring to an episode of "The Daily Show". Thoughts on this? Kellenwright 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it needs to be expanded, but every time I try to work on the article, it gets reverted. So, feel free to expand the section. Just have and cite reliable-credible sources. ~ WikiDon 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
i actually lean towards elimination of 'public perception' sections. "public perception" is bollocks, unless you've got an accurate sampling of every person on earth. otherwise, it's just an open door to subtle and not-so-subtle POV-pushing. to quote Galliffet, 'the public is an idiot'...Anastrophe 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you on that Anastrophe. But assuming we are keeping it, I'm curious, stepping back even from the darth vader dynamic, what is the reasoning for the whole section consisting only of pop culture's perception? Shouldn't this be under a pop culture section? This is a matter of quality, and it just doesn't seem sufficient in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. Kellenwright (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuilding America's Defenses

Please mention Cheney's September 2000 publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is only fair that this publication is mentioned since it details many aspects of the current administration's agenda. A fair and balanced article on VP Richard B. Cheney would include this document. Tom Laverty II 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

please see section 3.6. it is already covered. Anastrophe 07:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello, Tlaverty. You're welcome to edit this article, from what little I know. -Susanlesch 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ E&P Staff (2007-08-13). "Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'". Editor and Publisher. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney/Archive_3&oldid=1142437760"