Talk:Liz Cheney/Archive 1

Children's Birthdates
Are the last two of her four children fraternal twins, sharing the birthdate that is listed last? Or do we not have a birthdate for the last child?


 * I deleted the birthdates for all children, as that is personal information that really is not relevant here, and could pose problems for this family. It is not the practice, (is it?) to post such information routinely about public officials, and seem invasive...Phoebe13 (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Factlet added by anonymous user - needs factchecking
"where she was captain of the cheerleading squad and dated Mark Elam."

This addition was made by an anonymous user. Can anyone confirm this information? If true, is this information encyclopedic? oo64eva (AJ) 21:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh you, profiling the anonies. MessedRocker 20:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

May 8 "White Tie dinner at the White House"
Does her inclusion among the 134 guests of the President and First Lady for this singular occasion merit noting?

From WashingtonPost "Reliable Source" published guest list MAY 9, 2007

Elizabeth Cheney and Philip Perry: Daughter and son-in-law of the vice president. Who Went to Dinner at the White House -- and Why?

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts Wednesday, May 9, 2007; Page C03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050900085.html

Timothyjshaw 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)timothyjshaw

May 9 trip to Middle East (Official govt. representation)
Elizabeth Cheney / adviser on trip / - - as mentioned by Dan Froomkin (Wash. Post Columnist - - online discussion)

here is the quoted "dialogue"

Washington: Dan, has anyone figured out in what capacity Liz Cheney is accompanying her father on his Middle East trip? All bios that I can find indicate that she quit her State job a couple of years ago. So who is she working for, and for how long?

Dan Froomkin: That's a very fine question, and one I am trying to get answered. Liz Cheney is a former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and has been a relentless public defender of her father's policies. (See, for instance, this Washington Post op-ed from January.) But technically speaking, she has no official role at the moment -- or does she?

Is she considered an official advisor on this trip? Is she part of the delegation? Who's paying her way? Is she just there to massage her daddy's knees? She and her husband, Philip Perry, both of whom I noticed were invited to the state dinner Monday, have become quite controversial, quasi-governmental figures.

here's the web location (active from 1-2 p.m. EDT on May 9)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/05/07/DI2007050701018.html

Timothyjshaw 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)timothyjshaw

more on Mideast trip and involvement in diplomatic exchanges
Elizabeth Cheney was photographed MAY 10 Pool Footage on network news coverage of the Vice President's trip & press conference events during the official greeting at the airport of the Vice President. The Gulf News periodical (unlike other Mainstream US Media) reported some of her interchanges:

the uncredited story found at gulfnews dot-com includes these paragraphs: 05/11/2007 07:46 PM | WAM Abu Dhabi: US Vice- President Dick Cheney arrived yesterday on a state visit to the UAE as part of a whirlwind tour of the region.

Cheney was welcomed upon arrival by Foreign Minister Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Meanwhile, Her Highness Shaikha Fatima Bint Mubarak, Chairperson of UAE General Women's Union, yesterday received Elizabeth Cheney, Dick, Cheney's daughter, at Al Bahr Palace in the presence of US Ambassador to the UAE Michele J. Sison.

Shaikha Fatima and her guest exchanged talks and reviewed a host of issues concerning women in the two friendly countries.

Present at the meeting were Shaikha Shamsa Bint Hamdan, wife of Shaikh Hamdan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister, Khowla Bint Ahmad Al Suwaidi, wife of Shaikh Tahnoun Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Shaikha Al Yaziya Bint Saif, wife of Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Foreign Minister and a number of prominent women leaders in the country.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/05/11/10124476.html

[perhaps there is mention of the discussion results at the State Department section for United Arab Emirates (Michele Sison blog)]

Timothyjshaw 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)timothyjshaw

She will convey Thompson for Prez campaign's "blessing" to Romney
According to FOX NEWS SUNDAY (January 27, 2008) - - Bill Kristol conveyed the news to the Power Panel section of the conservative talk show (hosted by Chris Wallace) that Liz Cheney will be the relay for the endorsement before the January 29, 2008 Florida primary of an endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. He vouched for her accurate sounding of conservative true blue credentials to the Candidate, now neck-and-neck with John McCain. I couldn't yet find this at Thompson website nor at Weekly Standard dot-com. Timothy Shaw Timothyjshaw (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)timothyjshaw

Has she joined the Committee to elect McCain?
After a brief time advising Mitt Romney, has Liz Cheney lately joined the McCain advising staff? - Timothyjshaw (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)timothyjshaw

Deletion of Disputed Source
I removed material about the 2000 v.p. vetting process from the Barton Gellman book Angler, as the book's accuracy was challenged and proven wrong on a related page, Philip Perry. If the concensus on this source's status is to remove all references from it there, I will likewise do the same on this page and remove the other reference remaining here. Please see the Philip Perry talk page if you have questions.Phoebe13 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More deletions from this same source. Phoebe13 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Parking for Questionable section
This section and these sources need examination for reliability and possible politically driven content. Maureen Dowd? Please. Also, unless the subject was the focus of the World Bank coverage, which doesn't seemt to be the case, why is this here? Phoebe13 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're parking politically-driven content, then much of the article should be parked. Avocats (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

''==World Bank controversy== In the spring of 2007, Elizabeth Cheney's name surfaced frequently in press accounts of her former aide, Shaha Ali Riza's affair with World Bank Chairman Paul Wolfowitz, and Riza's tax-free salary that exceeded even that of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, amid calls for Wolfowitz's resignation. At the time of Wolfowitz's eventual resignation, Syd Blumenthal reported in Salon.com that at the time Riza, a foreign national, worked for Cheney in the State Department, she held an "unprecedented" and illegal security clearance engineered by Wolfowitz via the Defense Department: "State Department officials familiar with the details fo this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney.  Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance,  but the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza." ''

Alternate sourcing needed:
"Cheney took maternity leave from the State Department in the spring of 2006. " (This source is a blog, and from a source that could be (and has been) accused of defamation of political figures. It's important info, but a risky source.Phoebe13 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"In that capacity, she pronounced John McCain's potential as a president "bad for the country," in a televised interview. " This too, is important, but the Gellman source proved wrong on some facts, so this should be re-sourced.Phoebe13 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pursuing what one Russian diplomat termed a "shadow Middle East Policy," Cheney met with and financed a "handful" of exiled Syrian activists such as Farid Ghadry to promote regime change in Damascus. ISOG had first a $7 million-dollar budget and then an $80 million-dollar budget to promote democracy in Iran and to develop administration policy for Iran and Syria, as well as to influence Iran's access to credit and banking institutions, and to organize the sale of military equipment to its neighbors." (This needs fact-checking and sourcing from a neutral 3rd party.)Phoebe13 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"In federal campaign contributions made by Elizabeth Cheney during the 2004 election cycle, she listed her occupation as "visiting fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute. " (This sounds awfully invasive.  There should be a record of the fellowship elsewhere?)Phoebe13 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)  Invasive? No. Public records. Avocats (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2004 Bush-Cheney Presidential campaign
"Elizabeth Cheney assisted her father Dick Cheney in preparation for his debate against John Edwards." (The sources were published in 2000 so these are obviously ghosts from an earlier version of this article. Edwards debate prep info should be resourced and placed in the appropriate section.) Phoebe13 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Source Suggestions for Future Inclusion in "Elizabeth Cheney" article
Todd S. Purdum, "Weaned on Politics, Cheney Daughters Find a Place at the Table," New York Times, May 31, 2005.Froghenge (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Material Needs re-sourcing
This below is misleading, because Elizabeth Cheney left the State Department some years ago. This information is a bit redundant with another section. It should be resourced with a better and less biased soruce, and put in the right section, which would be the ISOG part.Froghenge (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ==Office of Iranian Affairs==

In November 2008, it was reported that the US State Department had opened an Office of Iranian Affairs (OIA) - headed by Elizabeth Cheney - which was tasked with drawing up plans to overthrow the Iranian government. The US Congress has reportedly appropriated more than $120 million to fund the project.

The fact that she's Dick Cheney's daughter should be moved to the intro.
It's the single most notable thing about Liz Cheney after all. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And why can't these women respect their husbands? Its Liz PERRY not Cheney! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.33.1 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only relevant when a Democratic woman does it, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton who never even dropped the Clinton name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzle (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

writing style
Several parts of this article are written in a stilted style. "how women have enlarged their scope of political issues," Huh? She filled a "pre-existing vacant post"? I think the style issues derive from the dogged effort reflected in the bulk of the piece to anticipate and counter potential criticism, which is, of course, inappropriate for Wiki. The extensive discussions of her posts at State are the primary examples of this problem. Also, how can she have served "two years" in her first post at State if she joined in 2002 and left in 2003? Is it more like 15 months? Just curious. It warrants noting that her first job was in the federal government and coincided with the GHW Bush administration, as I read the dates. Her next government job was in the GW Bush administration. These were political appointee positions, weren't they? The Iran Syria section approaches incomprehensible. I don't think that Churchill's wiki entry has that many public appearances and interviews listed. Way out of proportion to her [lack of] gravitas. Avocats (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How did she work for State Dept AND for AID during the five years between college and law school? Sajita (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Sajita

In the intro... "She was critical of the foreign policy of the Trump administration[10][11][12][13] and supported the second impeachment of Trump following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, after Trump had told a mob of insurrectionists who vandalized the Capitol and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" to "get rid of" her.[14]" does not make any sense. "...after Trump had told a mob of insurrectionists who..." Told them what? This whole article is in need of serious editing. 2606:6000:CFC0:2:5C78:C359:C92A:3ABB (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's poorly written and in need of a copy edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be some mention somewhere of her criticism last year of Obama's DOJ
It's pretty renowned, when she criticized Holder for hiring lawyers that defended terrorist suspects. J390 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Infamous in its crude McCarthyism, not renowned. A "virtual who's who" of Bush II counterterrorism officials blasted as "shameful" Ms Cheney's web ad maligning the patriotism of DoJ [Dept of Justice, not Dept of Jihad as Cheney slurs it] officials who had previously given legal representation to some Gitmo detainees:


 * http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/03/08/i-was-disgusted-says-former-bush-official-about-liz-cheney-ad.html " 'I Was Disgusted,' Says Former Bush Official About Liz Cheney Ad."   A "virtual 'who's who' of  Bush II counterterrorism officials issued "a statement condemning as 'shameful' attacks by Liz Cheney's advocacy group on Justice Dept Lawyers who had previously represented Guantanamo detainees."

-
 * 173.210.125.42 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to Liz Cheney?
A google search returns 60,000 results for Elizabeth Cheney and 829,000 for Liz Cheney. Doesn't this indicate that we should consider moving the article to Liz Cheney per WP:Commonname ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to suggest this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. This appears uncontroversial, so I'm moving a day early. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cheney → Liz Cheney – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As says above, "A google search returns 60,000 results for Elizabeth Cheney and 829,000 for Liz Cheney." All sources discussing her in the news today seem to have "Liz Cheney" in the headline, not "Elizabeth Cheney". It's also perfectly fine for a political figure to have a shortened name as a title as appropriate (see Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move and redirect seems obvious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per nominator. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There is a reason we have articles under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore instead of James Earl Carter, William Jefferson Clinton, and Albert Arnold Gore. I don't see any reason not to follow precedent here. Dimadick (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rebuttal to Krugman's comments: "State job created for Cheney"?
"Amid reports, including a New York Times editorial by Paul Krugman, saying that the job was created especially for her, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that she had come recommended by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell."

The second part of the statement is nice, but it simply gives another fact (Powell recommended her), but does nothing to expose Krugman's preposterous suggestion that the "job created especially for her".

Should not there be reference to previous holders of the post, date of its creation, etc.? IMO, this is a non-trivial bit for the article.

68.111.65.110 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Liz Cheney & Navid Khiabani
I have removed this passage. The grammar is a bit tortured, but more importantly the cited source mentions neither Cheney or Khiabani at all. A brief google search of the two finds nothing but a blog of Nazi innuendo and several sites that are only copying the Wikipedia text. We cannot allege ties to rich Iranians and arms deals in a WP:BLP without strong sourcing. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Liz Cheney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081127105525/http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/56709.htm to http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/56709.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Liz Cheney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091020131800/http://www.keepamericasafe.com/ to http://www.keepamericasafe.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Liz Cheney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215003947/http://www.mittromney.com/news/press-releases/Endorsement_Cheney to http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Cheney

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Should Cheney's position on the Comey firing be included?
This text has been removed, with the rationale that it's undue:

In May 2017, Cheney supported President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Trump's letter to FBI Director James Comey was the "Best. Termination. Letter. Ever." A week later, after it was reported that Comey had a memo of a conversation of Trump specifically asking Comey to end his investigation into Michael Flynn, Cheney deleted the tweet.

I support the inclusion of this text. It's accurate and amply supported by reliable sources, which demonstrate notability. If six sources on the same story for a Wyoming congressperson isn't enough (and there are no doubt more), I don't know what is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, being accurate and supported by reliable sources are independent of demonstrating notability. News stories about what a politician did today are abundant.  You could probably find six stories about some wonderful little thing she did for a constituent.   But an encyclopedic biography doesn't focus on those things.  Some editors like to go around finding the latest little outrage to denigrate the politicians they don't like or the latest little positive thing to help the politicians they do like.  But in the perspective of a politician's entire life story, one tweet is irrelevant.  It will be forgotten within a week or two and she'll have done another silly little thing that will have her political opponents up in arms.  Deli nk (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't "just a tweet", it's her position on the Comey firing, which is by all accounts a highly notable event, with great implications on US domestic politics. And no, there are never ever going to be six sources about what a congressperson did unless it was notable. You overestimate how much the media cares about what congresspeople do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally dont think this tweet passes WP:10YT so I dont really know why we are trying to chronicle every single little thing politicians do, seems more like a WP:NOTABLOG MaximusEditor (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable Fundraising
I have an email dated Feb. 9, 2019 "Paid for by Cheney for Wyoming." It includes the following content:

Friend,

In case you missed it, here’s a quick rundown of what the Democrats have been up to this week:

* They voted to give sexual predators a taxpayer-funded pay raise. * They advocated killing babies after they were born. * They attempted to give the federal government massive control over your free speech. * They tried to remove God from witness oaths.

I do not believe that any of those claims are accurate. However, how does one use an email as a source? David Cary Hart (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Protect this page?
With today’s news about her support of impeachment, this page is likely to have vandals quickly. What are the best ways to prevent? DrMel (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not pre-emptively protect articles in anticipation of vandalism. If a pattern of ongoing vandalism develops, file a report at WP:RFPP. Add the article to your watch list, as I have done. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to amend page to reflect Cheney's voting record
after the paragraph below under TENURE . She also said, "the extent to which [the Chinese Communist Party] caused [COVID-19] to be spread around the world has really shone a spotlight on the nature of that regime, and has really focused the attention of not just people in the United States but our allies around the world on the threat that they pose and how important it is we protect ourselves by moving supply chains, by ending our dependence on the Chinese government"

add the phrase Liz Cheney has voted against the Anti Asian hate crime bill during her tenure as representative.

the reason being she is on record numerous times equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism when questioned on her stance on Israel,

Mis-quote regarding Jan 6th riot
Ihuntley (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Wiki states: "...and supported the second impeachment of Donald Trump following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, after Trump had told a mob of insurrectionists to "get rid of" her.[11]

The actual quote is "“We got to get rid of the weak congress people, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world,”


 * Thanks for bringing that to our attention, thats quite a difference in tone in my opinion.MaximusEditor (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more correct wording in the article would be: . . . Trump told the mob of insurrectionists to "get rid of the weak congress people" and specifically named Liz Cheney in his statement.Writethisway (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
User:KidAd bizarrely claims Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs "is not a notable office/role". In other words the office that is second-in-command at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs with its 2,000+ diplomats (more than the entire diplomatic service of many other countries) and the immediate deputy of the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (notice the article on the office). They have not offered any convincing rationale for removing this from the infobox, and it's not like the infobox has too many offices (there are only three). Of all her offices, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is by far the most powerful office she has ever had, and she is primarily notable in her current capacity because of her exceptional personal integrity and willingness to defy the far right, not because the third-in-command in the parliamentary caucus of a minority party is in itself a household name. --Tataral (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , In the future, please WP:PING me to a discussion thread if you want me to respond. Your claims that this principal deputy position is notable are entirely unconvincing. "Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is by far the most powerful office she has ever had is a (wrong) opinion. She is a member of Congress. That is the most powerful office she has ever held. Ask yourself, if Cheney were not notable for being a member of Congress and has only served as "deputy associate principle secretary of ___," would she meet WP:GNG? No. Also note that I am not the only editor who made this change.  removed the same minor office here over a week ago and it was added back.  KidAd  •  SPEAK  22:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your explanation is entirely unconvincing and factually wrong. She was not "deputy associate principle secretary" (whatever that is) of anything, but the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, second-in-command of a huge division of the U.S. State Department employing thousands of diplomats and playing a key role in the U.S. diplomatic activities surrounding the Iraq War, as well as co-chair with Elliott Abrams of the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group that promoted regime change in Iran. The Secretary title is a very high title in U.S. government, an Assistant Secretary of State is a very high-ranking official in charge of a large State Department division, and obviously that person's deputy is also an important official. That you believe that a member of a domestic parliamentary body with 500+ members is inherently more important than someone literally changing governments and regimes in other parts of the world is telling. Most members of congress are obscure and have limited influence individually. The idea that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives in the Bush administration, the founder of Keep America Safe, the co-chair of the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group, the high-level government official who worked for regime change in the Middle East, and who happens to be the daughter of Dick Cheney, wouldn't meet GNG if she hadn't been elected to Congress years later ​is spurious and shows me that you need to familiarise yourself with how GNG is actually used and interpreted on this project before throwing that term around. --Tataral (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice essay, but your assertion of a position’s notability seems to be entirely based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OR. And I hope you know that being related to a famous politician does not confer notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. KidAd  •  SPEAK  14:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not offered any valid, policy-based reasons for removing this from the infobox, so it will be reinstated. All we've seen in this discussion is your personal and ill-informed belief that she isn't notable and you namedropping a lot of policies that 1) you're clearly not familiar with and 2) that have absolutely no relevance for the issue at hand, namely the infobox. Her notability is not under discussion here, and I imagine you would be laughed out of court if you attempted to nominate this article for deletion based on GNG or NOTINHERETED or anything else. (Incidentally the article has existed since 2004, and as is clear from its first versions, was clearly created because she became ... the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, her main claim to fame as far as this article was concerned for over a decade). --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing will be reinstated until you gain consensus. Try talking to some editors other than me to do that. If you don't want to gain consensus in this discussion, you could start an WP:RFC or seek a third opinion. You have many options, but I would not suggest edit-warring. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it will, unless you come up with some valid policy-based reason to exclude it that finds support from any other editors than you, instead of your irrelevant personal views on her notability. I also caution you against your disruptive edit-warring against multiple editors over the order of the offices in the infobox. You need to obtain consensus for your proposed edits first. -Tataral (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t her WY-AL incumbency be above Conference Chair in the infobox?
I can’t find any WP article anywhere in which a formerly-held office is prioritized over a current office, and that’s even when a previous office is much more important than being a third-ranking House minority member (see Chuck Grassley as President pro tem, for example). I strongly believe that Cheney’s House seat should come before GOP Conference Chair in the infobox. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Listing positions in non-chronological order does not make sense. Simple. KidAd  •  SPEAK  02:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the current order is not chronological, so your logic supports what I'm saying. Her WY-AL term will end no sooner than 2023, while her Conference Chair spot already did, so it should be prioritized. Again, look at how Chuck Grassley is listed as a Senator from Iowa before President pro tempore; just like Cheney, he still holds his seat, so we list it first. It's the same story for Lindsey Graham as Senate Judiciary Chair – he lost that position, and now it's below Senator from South Carolina in the infobox. I see absolutely zero justification to keep the order as is, even under *your own* logic. Cpotisch (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent position an officeholder has held should go at the top. That is standard. Placing the "conference chair" position at the bottom will make it appear like she assumed that position before she was elected to Congress. Referencing Lindsey Graham is basically WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I can do it too. See: Jim Banks, Elise Stefanik, Ben Ray Luján, Katherine Clark, etc. KidAd  •  SPEAK  19:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument is so bizarre. All of the people you’re referencing have infoboxes in exactly the format I’m advocating for. Incumbent positions are by definition more recent than former positions. Cpotisch (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense to have her incumbent position first. If the order were to be chronological, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs should be first. In terms of importance, she is the sole member of Congress from her state, and it's not self-evident that her number three position in the conference is of much greater significance than her other two important offices (arguably, her State Department role (and regime changing-role pertaining to the Middle East) was her most powerful position in itself to date). --Tataral (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The user KidAd appears to be involved in an edit war against three or four different editors to enforce their personal preference regarding the order of the offices in the infobox. --Tataral (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well considering that, and the fact that we’re already 2:1 in favor of reordering it here, can I make the change and we’ll bring in an admin if KidAd keeps reverting? Cpotisch (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems reasonable, there is clearly only one editor insisting on the other order. --Tataral (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK so he's still reverting. I'm not super familiar with requesting admin action, so can you do it or clarify how I can? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually is it sufficient to just ? Cpotisch (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please ping an admin. Because you two obviously don't understand WP:ONUS WP:CONSENSUS. That policy does not include "insist you're right, then give up." KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS has literally nothing to do with that. Cpotisch (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct, and it's not the first time that KidAd shows a lack of understanding of basic policies that he casually mentions, which is perhaps not surprising since he's new. --Tataral (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I am not commenting as an admin, just as an editor. In any case admins do not cast some kind of "deciding vote" on content matters; content is decided by consensus. My own opinion, and my observation, is that we usually list the highest or most important office first. That would mean keeping the article as it is - with her leadership position first even though she no longer holds it. My example that immediately came to mind is John Quincy Adams. After serving as president he was elected to the House of Representatives, but we list president first even though his position as representative is more recent. (In most cases "most important" and "most recent" would be the same, since it is unusual for a politician to take a lower position after serving in a higher one.) Another argument for listing her leadership position first: it's the position she ASSUMED most recently, even though she no longer holds it. I can't see demoting the position just because she no longer holds it. But this is just one editor's opinion and I am about to leave town for a few days, so I will not be able to discuss it further. -- MelanieN (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to take for granted that her number three position is in itself her most important office, but that is not self-evident. Her other two key offices, sole representative from her state and her senior State Department role (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives) in which capacity she played a major role in regime changing-efforts in the Middle East and was second-in-command of a State Department bureau employing some 2,000 diplomats ​(that was the reason for the article's creation and her main claim to fame for over a decade) are not obviously significantly less important than a number three position in the party leadership of a minority party in a lower house of parliament. Her prominence now is a result of her entire career and background. Most people have normally not even heard of the Republican conference chair in Congress, while she is a household name worldwide primarily due to her personal qualities and broader background. --Tataral (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts? It’s currently 2-2. Cpotisch (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping, but I am afraid I will have to leave it at 2-2. The issue really seems too "technical" for me to offer any sort of useful opinion. Best, JS (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "It’s currently 2-2." No it is not. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, polling is not a substitute for discussion. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cpotisch: Sorry for the late reply, I was logged out of Wikipedia for some time. But I am in favour of shifting the info box of her WY-AL constituency above her former conference chair position. I believe that her incumbent position as the representative from Wyoming takes precedence over the position she once held. Declan Newton (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should Cheney's WY-AL incumbency be listed before her former position in the infobox?
See the previous section for existing discussion about the matter. Pinging. Cpotisch (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support: In almost every politician's infobox, we prioritize incumbent positions over former positions, regardless of how comparatively notable each position is or when it was initially assumed. For example, Lindsey Graham is listed as a Senator from South Carolina before Senate Judiciary Chair, and Chuck Grassley is listed as a Senator from Iowa before President pro tem. Those positions are arguably much more notable than the third-ranking member of the House minority party, yet we still list them below the incumbent position, because incumbency matters. For those reasons, I strongly believe that the infobox should be reordered. Cpotisch (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The position she has held most recently should go at the top. Placing her incumbent position will make it appear to casual and/or mobile readers like she served as conference chair before serving as a member of the House from WY. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose On 21 May 2021 at 11:57 UTC, MelanieN wrote, "... we usually list the highest or most important office first. That would mean keeping the article as it is." I agree with that statement and the rest of MalanieN's argument for keeping the infobox as is. There does not appear to be a hard-and-fast rule, but another example in favor of this position is Template:Infobox officeholder/example. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should change all the articles that I linked to, then? How about John Cornyn as Senate Majority and Minority Whip, Jim Jordan as Chair of the Freedom Caucus, John Barrasso as Chair of the Environment committee, or Jim Risch as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee? All of those positions were assumed much more recently than their House/Senate seats that they still hold, and yet we list them below, because incumbency matters. Cpotisch (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, considering that the same arguments have been relitigated over and over in this section and the one above, and no one has been swayed. The responses thus far are very decisively in favor of making the change. Also note that voiced his support for the change as well in that section. So how and when should we wrap this up? Cpotisch (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no evidence that her number three role in the party leadership of a minority party in a parliamentary body is significantly more important than her two other important offices, namely her Congressional seat as the sole representative from her state and her high-ranking State Department role in the Bush administration in which she literally worked to change governments of other countries. Her current fame is the result of her entire career, background and personal qualities, not the number three role in the party leadership in Congress alone/itself. Normally few people, and literally noone outside the US, have even heard of the Republican conference chair. It makes most sense to treat her three offices as being of roughly equal importance for the purposes of this infobox. --Tataral (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - it's misleading and outdated, she is no longer the chair, just like Cathy Rodgers is no longer in that position. A former position shouldn't be prioritized over her incumbent position. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - as a UK person with only the most superficial understanding of US politics and the relative 'ranking' of US political offices, it makes sense to prioritise incumbency. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There should be prioritisation of an incumbent. Sea Ane (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this RfC should be closed with a summary added that the broad consensus is "Support." I would do this myself but I just voted so I am no longer an uninvolved editor. Hopefully another uninvolved editor can come along and close this discussion. TrueQuantum (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I submitted a closure request a couple days ago, but no one has responded. Is there anything else I can do to get this wrapped up? Cpotisch (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per point raised by Isaidnoway. Idealigic (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Liz Cheney's incumbent position should take precedence over a former position. TrueQuantum (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Her incumbent position should take precedence as her former position is not drastically more significant. ( But if say she was the former speaker of the house but was now just a representative that might be different.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is clear and overwhelming: the change should be made. Per WP:RFCCLOSE: “If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.” That point has clearly been reached. Cpotisch (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Liz Cheney controversies into Liz Cheney. I think that the content in the Liz Cheney controversies article can easily be explained and better integrated in the context of Liz Cheney, and the Liz Cheney article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Liz Cheney controversies will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Furthermore, Liz Cheney controversies does not have a neutral point of view to suffice splitting it from the main bio article. ~ Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is plenty of room in this article to accommodate all the content on that page, and a significant portion is already included. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the person who created the article, I object to this decision because concerns can be addressed via copyediting or even changes to its neutrality. There is a category called Category:Controversies by person, which lists several examples like Pat Robertson. There will be more controversies added to Liz Cheney controversies if any controversy comes up. I oppose this decision as concerns can be addressed in the article itself. --Neocon1 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - integration here is totally possible, as it is a WP:POVFORK hardly salvageable or independently notable of Cheney herself. We have space. Urve  09:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for all the reasons already mentioned. Cpotisch (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral on second thought, I'm torn Weak Oppose We should generally avoid "controversy" sections and to copy all of this content into a new section of the main article would give it WP:UNDUE weight; indeed, even integrating it within the body of the article might have that effect. At the same time, it's reliably sourced and can't be excluded. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC); edited 15:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no justification for keeping a separate article on 'controversies' in her career. These can easily be incorporated into the main article. Furthermore, I strongly suspect this is intended as a POVfork to tarnish the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy support the secondary article should be integrated into the prose of the Liz Cheney article. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
The article says that Cheney "has supported the use of torture". What Cheney has supported is waterboarding. There is debate over whether waterboarding is torture. I edited the page to correct the problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liz_Cheney&diff=prev&oldid=1045168052), but User:Alalch Emis has restored the language regarding torture (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liz_Cheney&diff=next&oldid=1045168165). That language should come out. Amandil21 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently in the article: Cheney again defended the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, saying that they "saved lives, prevented attacks, and produced intel that led to Osama bin Laden". So she defended enhanced interrogation in general, not just waterboarding. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for the program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (and others). It includes very many different forms of torture, not just waterboarding. So she supported torture. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, — Alalch Emis. Then the article should spell out the connection the way you did above. Also, shouldn't it clarify that Cheney does not believe that enhanced interrogation is torture, despite others' beliefs to the contrary? Amandil21 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying something in the vein of "Cheney supported torture, but she doesn't think enhanced interrogation is torture" we would be creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. No appearance of equal validity needs to be given here to a view that enhanced interrogation isn't torture because it's torture. This is not an ongoing debate in society where Wikipedia shouldn't arbitrate. Wikipedia already calls "enhanced interrogation" torture. The key information given to the reader here is that Cheney supported torture. The fact she perhaps doesn't think what she supports is torture is much less due, and not something that sources put an emphasis on. Per WP:TONE: . "Enhanced interrogation" is one of the most famous examples of doublespeak (of a euphemistic sort). There's no possibility to veer into synthesis here (making a "connection" like you say), because it comes down to using encyclopedic language, i.e. calling things by their name. Based on this, your idea of changing the section would not be an improvement to the article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense since by using words other then she used you are misquoting her. You obviously just want to express your opinions on torture. The reason you use the double speak word is because that is what she uses.

The user Amandil21 is a sockpuppet. Comments should be struck. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Change Cheney's Party affiliation from "Republican" to "Independent", at least at the State level.
As of November 15th, 2021, The Wyoming GOP voted 31-29 to stop recognizing her as a member of the party, as reported by the Associated Press in "Wyoming GOP votes to stop recognizing Cheney as a Republican". If the state GOP no longer recognizes her as a member, then her affiliation should be changed to "Independent" on the State level.

Since political parties in the United States are vested on the state level, its possible that she also now an Independent (Caucused with Republicans) on the National Level, though an argument could be made otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.80.95 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * She is still a Republican, whether or not the Wyoming Republican Party likes it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The news article above should be included as a reference in the article as prose, although I agree with that she should still be considered as a Republican.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 00:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ with twotwofourtysix . Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to an objective point-of-view to solve the problem. It should be noted that "affiliation" mean that a person is "closely attached or connected to an organization". Political parties are not identities, they are organizations. Definitively, Political parties are political organizations that supports the election of a group of candidates. Is the Republican Party currently supporting the election of Liz Cheney? Does the Republican Party have a cooperative relationship with Liz Cheney? If not, then definitively, Liz Cheney is no longer a Republican. Reavery (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition we use. She is a registered Republican and publicly identifies as a Republican, so we consider her to be a Republican. If we went by the decision of the state party, we'd be opening up a whole can of worms. If she moves to Idaho, is she once again a Republican because she's now under the jurisdiction of the Idaho GOP and they haven't voted not to recognize her? And if we're going off of the "closely attached or connected to an organization" definition, then wouldn't every single person need to be personally well-known to state party leadership such that there could even be a "relationship"? The standard your suggesting is extraordinarily murky, and it should make it apparent why we don't decide party affiliation that way. Cpotisch (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Former US president John Tyler is listed as an independent on his own page as well as on List of presidents of the United States for the time period following his expulsion from the Whig party in 1841. Is this expulsion any different from Cheney's expulsion from the GOP or is Cheney's more symbolic or something? I'm just wondering if this might count as precedent for changing Cheney's listed affiliation as well. -- pluma  ♫ '''♯ 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, if you can find some articles that could dispute the main stream idea she is still a Republican. Eruditess (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Section
"Regarded as a leading ideological conservative[4] in the Bush–Cheney-era tradition and a representative of the Republican establishment,[5] Cheney is a neoconservative". This doesn't make a great deal of sense; "neoconservative" (per various sources linked in our very own wikipedia article) refers to ideologically liberal members of the Republican party. It does not seem logically possible for Cheney (neither Liz nor Dick) to be regarded as "leading ideological conservatives" yet also neoconservatives (a tongue-in-cheek term referring to liberal GOP members). Could the first sentence be changed to "regarded as a leading ideological neoconservative" for consistency and clarity? 98.246.150.92 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That sentence should be improved and I can try to take a stab at it. Neoconservatives are not ideologically liberal, though. They are hawks. Neocons may have started off more liberal in the 1960s, but they weren't in the 2000s. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Legitimate Political Discourse
The article says that "On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee called the events of January 6, 2021, "legitimate political discourse". It cites to a Boston Globe article that says this. The full statement by the RNC can be found here https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf. The actual censure never says what the media has portrayed. Instead it says "WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." The media might argue that this is the same thing. The other side may argue that it is not the same thing. The RNC may not have been referring to those who stormed the capitol but may have been referring merely to those who engaged in "legitimate political discourse" and who are now being subpoenaed, investigated, etc. by the Democrats. It isn't fair to reword the censure to make it sound worse for the RNC. The section should be changed to read

"On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for "participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." NTAbbott (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
Change

On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee called the events of January 6, 2021, "legitimate political discourse" and overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for taking part in the House investigation of the Capitol assault.

to

On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for "participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."

and cite to

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf NTAbbott (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I don't think extending the quote is useful in this situation. The current summary is more than sufficient, and doesn't require the use of a primary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022
Improve the correspondence of text to source in the 2014 U.S. Senate bid section, in keeping with WP:VERIFY (policy), WP:NOR (policy, esp. the WP:STICKTOSOURCE subsection therein), and WP:INTEGRITY (guideline section, esp. the "Keeping citations close" subsection therein), in the following ways:

——————————

1A. Change from:

...marriage.

[at end of Sentence 1]

To:

...marriage.

[that is, reproduce the NYT citation at end of this sentence, which, rather than the Wash Post citation, appears to be the source of this sentence (see also next edit) — change for reason of sourcing clarity, per WP:INTEGRITY]

NOTE: Here and following, the "  ...   " markup must be removed from the source text appearing, before copying and pasting the shortened citations at the end of this and another sentence where this type of change is requested.

1B. Change from:

her sister over her

[in Sentence 1]

To:

her sister over candidate Cheney's

[or similar; that is, disambiguate the earlier double use of the feminine pronoun, so that it is clear that the second "her" was in reference to the candidate, and not the sister — change for reason of content clarity, again per WP:INTEGRITY; this is an urgent content clarity need]

1C. Change from:

hawkish foreign policy

[in Sentence 1]

To:

"hawkish foreign policy"

[that is, in this case of the use of the verbatim phrasing of the source, make clear that we are reproducing the NYT text — change for reason of source-use integrity, per WP:VERIFY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE; alternatively it must be replaced with an interpretive paraphrase, which is less desirous here; this is an urgent editorial honesty need]

2A Change from:

with Wyoming Republicans.

[at end of Sentence 2]

To:

with Wyoming Republicans.

[that is, reproduce the NYT citation at end of this sentence, which, rather than the Wash Post citation, appears to be the source of this sentence (see also next edit) — change for reason of sourcing clarity, per WP:INTEGRITY]

2B Change from:

Enzi's continuing popularity

[at beginning of Sentence 2]

To:

The general admiration of Enzi's constituents for him, and his continuing close ties to them,

[that is, replace the less defensible word "popularity" (which subtly de-substantiates voter choice motivation) with content extracted directly from the appearing source (paragraphs 18 and 20); the repeat uses of the word "popular" in the article are never about Enzi per se (rather, being about Cheney's father twice, about a Wyoming Democrat once, and then in closest use, about competing Enzi-Cheney conservative brands, once also — change for reason of source-use integrity, per WP:VERIFY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE]

3A Change from:

family health issues.

[at end of Sentence 3]

To:

family health issues of a serious nature.

[that is, in this case, rather than use the most accurate verbatim phrasing in both sources ( "'serious health issues' in her family" ), an interpretive paraphrase is suggested that more accurately conveys what both sources actually state; more subtly, and in keeping with the fact that no followup reporting established this claim was insincere, this statement avoids the appearance of bias against the subject (via suggestion of possible insincerity, in not fully accurately representing the reporting from both sources on the campaign's announcement) — change for reason of source-use integrity, per WP:VERIFY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE]

4A

Change from:

even his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.[80]

To:

even his subsequent chief of staff Mark Meadows.[80]

[despite the fact that Mark Meadows is now the president's former chief of staff, at the time Mark Meadows was voting in the House he was not yet the president's chief of staff, hence subsequent] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A990:F00:C5CA:3168:4B2C:1B73 (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

2601:246:C700:C:8D5C:71C1:CFE9:5128 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've only done 1B, and 1C since the entire paragraph is backed by the two sources at the end(1A, 2A) and that 2B and 3A unnecessarily complicate the article's wording, the present words are already unbiased and sticktosource enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)