Jump to content

Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 2

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

Archives of Talk:Dick Cheney, from July 2005 to August 2006.


Premature obituary

Is this really so major an event as to require its own heading? Feels like trivia to me. Waltersobchak 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Will delete it if no one objects.. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheney's height

According to a "public records database" [1], Cheney's driver's license lists him as 5'10", which seems an accurate enough source. I agree with Rhobite, though, that it might not need inclusion, especially in the opening paragraph. It seems out of place — he's a politician, he's a Republican, he's vice president, and he's 5'10. Huh? —Cleared as filed. 20:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cheney's wife

The article originally stated his wife was "and co-host of Crossfire" Other then pointing to the wrong crossfire article, the real crossfire article didn't mention Cheney's wife as ever being a co-host. I have no idea if she was but if she was, the crossfire article should be amended to mention it.

She was. I verified it on IMDB, her official biography at the White House web site, and on her Wikipedia page. So I added it back in to the paragraph about her, and also that she is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. I also added her name to the list of co-hosts in the Crossfire article.Brandon39 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Should "She is considered unattractive by many who have seen her." really be included in the section on Lynne Cheney? Seems grossly irrelevant to this article.--Zhuuu 07:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheney as Secretary of Defense

I hate to say this but I bet quite a bit of people are still not happpy that Mr. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense ordered grumman to destroy their tools for the F14s. they were good planes. The super Hornet could never replace them well —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Acting President Template?

The Acting President of the United States template should be erased, since Cheney was still Vice President when he temporarily assumed the role of Acting President (June 29,2002). How about doing the Template this way? - Example below Mightberight/wrong 19:22, 31 October 2005

Preceded by Vice President of the United States
January 20, 2001- present , Acting President: June 29, 2002 		Succeeded by
incumbent

US/Interrogation Controversy

Something about Cheney's involvement with this issue should perhaps be in the article. See eg Vice President for Torture. Rd232 talk 13:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheney & pork spending

Isn't Cheney infamous for setting up the regulations so that he could funnel money through no-bid contracts, and avoid governmental oversight? Shouldn't that be mentioned, as pork spending is well-known to be skyrocketing under the Bush Jr Administration.

Um...no. And "Bush Jr" is incorrect as the current president's name is not the same as his father.--Hbutterfly 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, some discussion ought to be given to Haliburton's contracts in New Orleans, I'd think. I don't really have the time to make a thorough edit on this point, but I do recomend that it be done. I am refering to the "contract auctioning," of long-term reconstruction projects in New Orleans, post-Katrina. This maybe what the first poster meant. There were also some rather iffy 1999 contracts that Halliburtun alledgedly made in Yugoslavia, however, I am not at all certain of the credibility of this second point, and so do not recomend it. 24.62.63.6 03:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

lesbian daughter mary?

Why isn't Cheney's daughter Mary lesbianism mentioned here? It seems quite notable.

-Justforasecond 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I did include it sometime ago, but some die-hard republican apparently seems to have removed it for fear that homosexuality might somewhat be condoned. I think the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney is extremely notable as it has had a considerable effect on Dick Cheney's stand on homosexuality - he is considerably more accepting of it, and has chosen to stay silent on the matter of gay marriage. It is certainly a source of possible tension within the White House, and it is something that could have a profound effect on the religious vote, especially if Cheney decides to take a stand one way or another. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This edit deleted it, with explanation. I have restored this. Morwen - Talk 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that the way she chooses to live her life is anybody's business but her and her family. ~Lilfreakydude

Then why would we have an article on the family at all? It's a valid point of information. ~Exquire

Mary Cheney worked in the 1990s as the gay & lesbian outreach officer for Coors Beer company, and she has also made statements supporting gay equality in the context of Republican party policy debate. Bwithh 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

huh?

For this he has been characterized in later years as a "Chickenhawk."

So are we going to start quoting everyone who hates the Vice President? This is really just a partisan attempt to attack VP Cheney.--Hbutterfly 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems out of place and carries no citations.--TrustTruth 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I definitely agree ~Lilfreakydude

Cheneyism

I've occasionally seen the term "Cheneyism" used legitimately to describe Cheney's politics, but it's always remained very vague. Is "Cheneyism" firmly established enough to justify starting an article on it? - 9 Feb 2006

Only time will tell.--220.238.172.194 10:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

misplaced

“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route on Janueary 21,2001, to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.

Why is this under the Halliburton section?--Hbutterfly 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hunting Accident Discussion

This is the second documented instance of an American politician shooting another human during or after holding the office of Vice President, only other time this has happend was the Hamilton-Burr duel over 200 years ago.

Who thinks this is REMOTELY relevant? I think the whole story is completely ridiculous. It was an accident and people on here are acting like this is relevant to his vice presidency or his life at all. It's not.--Hbutterfly 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not a Republican by any chance?--Greasysteve13 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Accidentally shooting another man in the neck, face, and chest will likely haunt Cheney. Accidental shootings are not forgettable accidents. It's relevant to Cheney's life, and should continue to be mentioned in his biography. As for the Hamilton-Burr mention, I think it is great when you can bring that up in everyday conversation. Because it's cool. Abe Froman 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, here in Michigan, hunters shoot each other by accident all the time. It's not that big a deal. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It deserves a long sentence or maybe a short paragraph, not a section. Stuff happens, and whilst as a major news story we can't exactly ignore it, neither do we need to overblow it. Five years later this will be seen as trivia. Morwen - Talk 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I do think the overwrought why-was-there-a-delay-in-press-notification passage can go. They delayed announcing it by a day, so what? The man did not die. Calling the press after getting shot in the face is probably low on the list of priorities, I imagine. Abe Froman 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. There's nothing really to suggest a conspiracy atm, so it's a bit odd having that paragraph. Stuff happens. Hospitals are there to look after people, not to put out press releases. Obviously if he does actually face charges as a result of this it will need to be longer, but it this so far appears unlikely. Morwen - Talk 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It's too early to even speculate about criminal charges. We should lose that part. Rhobite 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
By any objective standard, a notable figure shooting another individual, contrary to Mackensen's opinion, is a "big deal" and newsworthy. Thankfully, the victim survived. KSchwartz 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Except he didn't shoot him on purpose. This was an accident and not at all relevant. And of course he survived. Like I said, it was an ACCIDENT so stop acting like it wasn't.--Hbutterfly 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem rather defensive, my friend. I fully believe it was an accident. I would assume that if you were shot in the face, you would consider it "relevant" whether the shooter's intent was malicious or innocent. I certainly would! KSchwartz 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We are losing sight of what is important, here. Did Cheney bag the quail? Abe Froman 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL! You're absolutely right, that's the important thing. And KSchwartz, I didn't mean to be so defensive. I'm just getting really frustrated with all the stupid additions (i.e. "just to watch him die") to the page.
Fully understood. Thank you, hbutterfly. And shame on the mainstream media for failing to report on the condition of the quail. KSchwartz 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference, Aaron Burr meant to kill Alexander Hamilton. Dick Cheney did not mean to hurt the guy so therefore, comparing the two is wrong. ~Lil Freaky Dude~

Sweet Jesus. The whole thing is an honest to God accident. It's not like Cheney went out and said to himself "Hey, I feel like shooting a fellow hunter in the face today!" The whole thing is being blown out of proportion to give Cheney bad press. It's like Bush's 'pretzel incident.' On top of that, whoever wrote the second paragraph is in a serious need of a slap to the face. "OMG, THE PRESS DIDN'T REPORT IT TILL THE NEXT DAY! CONSPIRACY, LOL!" Some people really need to get a life. --Captain Cornflake 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, it kind of makes you think: How did Cheney manage to shoot this guy? Even paintballers take several precautions so as not to shoot anyone, and here's this guy who hits someone with a live bullet. But in any case, this is newsworthy and should be on Wikipedia. As for a conspiracy, I highly doubt it.Sanjayhari 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, paintball is all about shooting other people; players are responsible for ensuring that protective gear (mask/goggles) stay on while in the fight AND for avoiding shooting at too close range. The biggest danger of permanent injury in paintball involves a getting hit in the eye, which is what the (always fogging!) goggles are there for. Oh, and shotguns don't fire bullets. --Sommerfeld 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it very relevant. I independently came up with a similar edit. And BTW User:Hbutterfly has a real problem, making edit summaries that call others' ideas stupid, in violation of WP:CIV. Dr U 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement makes it sound as though the VP shot the guy intentionally which he did not. Aaron Burr had a DUEL with a guy. It's not at all the same thing so trying to compare the two is wrong.--Hbutterfly 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It just says he shot him, which he did. Thus, it's relevent because it is true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is required to put relevant correct information in articles even if that info isn't flattering to the subject. In this case, you are best not to try to spin the details of a shooting, as it just sounds ludicrous. On a related note, you will be blocked if you call someone stupid again in an edit summary. Harro5 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If I say John Kerry shot someone, that sounds intentional, doesn't it? So it makes a big difference. And I didn't call someone stupid.--Hbutterfly 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is okay to say that Cheney shot someone because that is the exact phrase that the White House Press Secretary used to characterize the event. The press briefing for Monday can be found here: [2]. Nisaba Gray 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quoting your edit summaries: "why do some people insist on being idiots?"; "that is a completely stupid comment"; "stupid"; "don't be an idiot"; "stop being a moron". What you are trying to exact on this article could be seen as censorship, so stick to the issues at hand and try to stay distanced from the mudslinging. Thanks. Harro5 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:CIVHbutterfly, you are belittlingt others ideas, and disrupting the community spirit. You are now in violation of the 3 revert rule as well. Dr U 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Mention the accident, sure. It's interesting. But not important. Let's just keep in mind that, utimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and what's interesting because it's "today" should not outweigh what's significant and important in a year, 10 years, and forward. Hunting accidents are interesting (especially to non-hunters and non-gun-owners) because they involve guns. In the big picture though, this could have been a car accident, a camping accident, or a sports accident that he was responsible for. I hope none of these would get more space in this article than the political, war-time, and business mistakes that are most relevant to Cheney. --Ds13 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Except for the "stupid comment" one (and I'm sorry for that), the others were for people who added in things like "just to watch him die".--Hbutterfly 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently its a slow news day. Of course, how one could confuse a human for a quail is beyond me. :D Kyaa the Catlord 07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The press reports I've read make it clear that both quail and human were present - Cheney was aiming for quail but the human came into the line of fire without calling out his presence. This accident could not have happened without mistakes from both shooter and shootee. (And, oddly enough, around the time the story broke I was watching the Firefly episode where Mal says, after being startled by Inara while cleaning his pistol collection: "You know, not wise, sneaking up on a man when he's handlin' his weapon") --Sommerfeld 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The references to the Hamilton/Burr duel are very relevant and topical; it's the first time a vice president has shot someone in over 200 years. Plus its an interesting bit of trivia. Please stop deleting it.

Wiki's Cheney coverage got a mention in a Scripps Howard story:
On the Internet, some commentators were quick to point out the shooting incident was the first involving a vice president since Aaron Burr, vice president to Thomas Jefferson, shot Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in an 1804 duel in Weehawken, N.J. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, updated its article on the Burr-Hamilton duel this weekend, adding the sentence: "In 2006, Richard Cheney, while on a hunting trip in Texas, became the second vice president to shoot a person while in office.
linky link KSchwartz 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is an embarrassment to the article and to Wikipedia. Are we running People magazine here? How does this incident deserve more than a single sentence? It's non-notable and everyone will have forgotten about this in a month. Should we include an entire section on Bush's choking pretzel incident, Carter's heat exhaustion while jogging, or Reagan's "Third World War" slipup? Monkeyman 19:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Vice President of the United States blasting someone in the face with a shotgun is considerably more notable than the president choking on a pretzel. Besides, quirky, oddball events involving international political figures are inherently notable. It's been some 30 years since Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbit (a period of time longer than "a month", sir) and many still consider it the defining moment of his presidency.
There is a matter of scope, but that doesn't mean this isn't worthy of inclusion. Rather, it may mean that the coverage of more significant periods (e.g. Cheney's tenure as Secretary of Defense) is inadequately covered. KSchwartz 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The section is now six paragraphs long. That's five paragraphs longer than our coverage of Cheney's term as Secretary of Defense. His entire business career gets two paragraphs. Please resist the urge to cover recent events disproportionately. I agree with Monkeyman: the tendency to focus on minor trivia is embarrassing for Wikipedia. Rhobite 20:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the poor sap who was "super stable" yesterday just had a "minor" heart attack. This incident is becoming more important because Cheney's future as VP is tied to whether Texas law enforcement is forced by events to charge him with something more serious than not having the right hunting license. ( I hope not ). [3] Abe Froman 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


I think most people believe that the shooting was indeed an accident, but this does not make the incident irrelevant. The main issue is really the lengthy period of time that passed before the public was informed; one need not be a conspiracy theorist to be alarmed at the communications failure that occurred. Cheney's office ignored established protocols for dealing with such situations, and I think that information is relevant to an article that includes information on his vice presidency at least. It highlights the autonomy with which his office operates. I'd be happy to find some more sources on this, but I have not edited the article; just adding my two cents to the debate. Nisaba Gray 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the article either but, while I agree that the incident is relevant, I strongly believe that the treatment here is excessive and embarrassing. Wouldn't one paragraph be enough? Two, to be generous!? WBcoleman 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree...I think it is relevant to note, but there are some things in the Hunting Accident section that seem unnecessary, such as the Cheney-Hume exchange. I don't think that adds anything to the article. Anyone have any thoughts? Nisaba Gray 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he didnt mean it
If it had been ANYONE not famous that had been involved in this hunting accident, it wouldn't:
  • Make the front page of newspapers
  • Be the subject of an absurd attack on a political party
  • Even be CONSIDERED for mention in an encyclopedia

I love to criticize the current administration as much as anyone, but this is asinine. Loodog 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


This does seem like a waste of time to debate. I am as anti-Cheney as you can get, but the truth is if he wanted someone dead or mutilated or whatever, then I am sure he could have gotten someone else to do it for him. Secondly I do think it is worth noting, however to go into unverified rumors that it was some sort of conspiracy (as much as I wish it were so) is not relevant or productive. If people have substantiated evidence in the future and this something still being discussed then so be it, but as for now I would hardly catagorize this as a conspiracy. In addition it detracts from the actual crimes and questionable actions of the man that are verified. Let us focus on those instead. -Eventide (p.s. how exactly did he manage to shoot a grown man in the face when quail are mere inches in height?)

Lucky thing guns don't kill people.

RE: It deserves a long sentence or maybe a short paragraph, not a section. Stuff happens, and whilst as a major news story we can't exactly ignore it, neither do we need to overblow it. Five years later this will be seen as trivia. Morwen - Talk 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but as noted here wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and if CNN.com still has many an archived article why not over do it if someone can do it nicely. (Creator22 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

How many bullets?

--Greasysteve13 07:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a 28 gauge shotgun, so bullets is an incorrect wrong term to use. Whittington was hit by some of the pellets. Abe Froman 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
28 gauge shotguns are smaller than the perhaps more typical 12 gauge; some google-based research suggests that typical 28-gauge shells contain about 3/4 oz of birdshot pellets which would be distributed over a circle of a yard or so in diameter at 35 yards. [4] suggests that Whittington was hit by about 50 pellets, but does not say what size pellets were involved. A table in [5] suggests that, for birdshot 50 pellets could be anywhere between 2% and 75% of the shell contents, but other sites suggest that something between #7 1/2 and #9 shot would be typical for quail hunting, so something closer to the low end of the range seems more likely. --Sommerfeld 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The Smoking Gun has the accident report, which (among other things) says that #7 1/2 shot was used, and there was a minor violation of Texas hunting regulations - it appears that neither Cheney nor Whittington had purchased a $7 upland bird hunting stamp; apparently this is a new regulation and as a result they only warn violators and collect the $7 after the fact. [6] --Sommerfeld 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize that details are sketchy in this accident, but I must say I'm having a hard time reconstructing how the shooting happened from the accounts that have been given. I can't even see the answer to the most basic question: where were the quail that the Vice President was shooting at, and where was Harry Huffington at in relation to the VP Cheney and the quail? What was the contour of the land, was Huffington approaching the group from behind or from in front, how far away was the covey of quail? I honestly don't see how the Vice President could not have seen a human being in his gunsight if he was only 30-35 yards away, especially if the quail were behind him but even if (unlikely) the quail were between Cheney and Huffington. I am not a conspiracy buff, but I do not think this story adds up. Jeitel 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean Whittington rather than Huffington? I've seen more than a few first-person anecdotal reports (such as [7], [8] and [9]) from people with firearms and hunting experience suggesting that this sort of hunting accident is actually quite common, and may often go unreported. Read critically -- at least in the US, hunters tend towards the conservative end of the spectrum so you'll see quite a bit of pro-Cheney spin mixed into these reports -- but they also contain a body of potentially verifiable facts about the nature of quail hunting. Anyhow, it appears that typical quail hunting involves walking through tall grass where the birds are believed to be hiding; at some point the birds will startle and take off in random directions -- think of how pigeons in city parks react to people and/or dogs walking towards them -- and at that point the hunters aim and shoot at the flying birds. Press reports indicate that the victim had stopped to pick up a bird he had shot and then caught up to the party without announcing his return, so it seems quite plausible that one or more birds ended up flying between him and Cheney.--Sommerfeld 16:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that many people tend to focus completely on their target while shooting and ignore whatever may come between it and their gun, especially if the target is moving. I imagine the V.P. may have put a bead on the birds, which flew off to one side, and as he followed the birds in his sight he may have swung the gun around quickly, not seeing Mr. Whittington. Just a guess. BTW, I knew a man who got shot with a 12-gauge at about 100 yards, and although he was hit by pellets, none broke his skin. He told me he was scorched by hot gas more than anything else. Those powder burns can be nasty. I don't understand why some of you are thinking that this was anything but an accident. Whittington is a campaign contributor, not an evildoer. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

      • Hey Republicans. The guy is 78 years old and suffered a heart attack. No big deal? If he was your dad, you'd be scared for his life. If the guy dies, Cheney will be indicted by a Texas Grand Jury as is the law in Texas. By the way, the story doesn't add up according to gossip in Texas. If everything was on the up and up, why wait an extra day to break the news? Unless, everyone had to get their stories sychronized first?
    • Not true. If the guy died the Grand Jury would have to investigate-not indict. A grand jury is never required to indict anyone. That's the point of a grand jury, to investigate and choose whether to indict. Otherwise, you wouldn;'t need the grand jury if it was automatic.
What's the difference between bird shot and regular shot? Size? Hamilton burr 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Birdshot is tiny, smaller than BB's which are also used, imagine tiny pellets, say of a household cleaner, also very light, they're made of steel and usually won't kill a bird over 50 feet. Getting shot with birdshot probably didn't hurt much more than a slap in the face and was in no way, shape or form, "life-threatening." As a matter of fact, there are probbly a lot of birds flying around with birdshot in them from indirec hits. What about the "oxygen deprived" birds thing, that's just stupid, how would you deprive a quail of oxygen? As small as it is, it would either die or recover in a matter of minutes. You should cut that out at any rate, this is one of the most biased "encyclopedia" articles I've ever seen!

Lucky thing guns don't kill people.

Cheney's Health Problems Section

Due to the hunting accident, new information about Cheney's health arrangements have been brought into the open. According to the New York Times [10], Cheney travels with a health retinue and has an ambulance on-call at all times. I added this in a one sentence blurb to the Cheney Health Problem section, but it was removed. I believe that this sentence is relevant and contributes to an understanding of Cheney's present health, without detouring into morbidity. I am readding the sentence as follows:

"Cheney's health problems are serious enough that, when traveling, Cheney includes a retinue of medical personnel with him, and keeps an ambulance on-call. [11]"

Abe Froman 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're drawing a conclusion about the reason for the medical team which is not supported by the article you cite (which as best as I can tell contains not a word about why the VP travels with a medical team). My understanding is that it's been the practice for many years for the U.S. President to travel with a medical team to allow for an immediate response in the event of an assassination attempt, and that Air Force One contains emergency medical equipment and facilities.[12]. Do you have any evidence that a similar team didn't travel with Bush Sr., Quayle, or Gore? --Sommerfeld 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The conclusion is based on ranch owner Karen Armstrong's comments to the Associated Press after the Hunting incident. "The vice president has got a lot of medical people around him...and has got an ambulance on call." [13] Abe Froman 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh? That quote doesn't explicitly link the presence of the medical people to the state of his health. --Sommerfeld 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
See also [14] which claims to describe provisions made for Clinton's visit to Vietnam: “Wherever the president was staying, the surgical room we set up on his floor was always manned by a member of the team,” Johannigman said. “The remaining members were physically in the building with pagers.” --Sommerfeld 01:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And this looks even more specific: "... the mission of the White House Medical Unit (WHMU) is to provide comprehensive worldwide medical care and emergency actions to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and their families." [15] --Sommerfeld 01:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Then the fact that the White House Medical Unit travels with Cheney as a matter of course should be appended to the sentence regarding medical/ambulance shadowing. After spending a paragraph detailing Cheney's five heart attacks, I think most Wikipedians would be happy to learn the WHMU exists to care for Cheney at a moment's notice. Abe Froman 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Made the changes to context described above. Props to Sommerfeld for digging for the information and posting it here. Abe Froman 01:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually Abe I could care less whether Mr. Cheney is alive or dead and I think a great deal of people would agree with me on that point. -Eventide

Placement of the Hunting Accident segment

Shouldn't "Hunting accident" precede "Plans for the future" in this bio?

--RobbieFal 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree that it should. KSchwartz 04:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

lol

cheney make me so happy!


The link to the Rolling Stone article is broken. It should point here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/

Can somebody fix this? Thanks.

Done. Thanks for the heads up. --AStanhope 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

damnit, liberals and bloggers are going to try and spin the hell out of this, look at the version it was protected on! Why is something as minor as a hunting accident even listed in this article! It reads like a blog from the freaking Daily Kos, please clean this up to conform to Neutral POV, and not exploit a minor accident like it's a big deal!--205.188.116.6 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, the comparison with the Burr-Hamilton duel, The Most Dangerous Game and Hard Target is not applicable and a cheap shot. Any historian worth his salt would realize that Burr was a Democrat-Republican (the same party as Thomas Jefferson), and that the Republican Party wasn't created until 1854. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

what kind of shot was used?

someone listed the size of the shot and the gauge of the shotgun, but is there any info on the composition of the shot? is it lead, or something less toxic? this would have bearing (sorry for teh pun) on the victim's health, as they decided to leave some of the shot in his face. --Ghetteaux 18:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC) If it was toxic they wouldn't leave it in, duh

Project for a New American Century

Is there a reason that Cheney's involvement with this group isn't included?

KV 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I know

It was birdshot and a 20 gauge

more stuff interesting stuff

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/14/mcclellan-conceals-heart-attack/

The reports I've seen state it was a 28 gauge weapon.KSchwartz 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Italian-made Perazzi 28-gauge shotgun" you could be right 132.241.245.49 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What happens if he dies?

Does Cheney get charged with manslaughter?--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope so.--Greasysteve13 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he's obviously guilty of no wrong-doing. But I'll try to demonize him anyway, because I'm a mindless, slavering, Daily Kos lackey with no integrity whatsoever! 132.241.245.49 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Texas law is that because game violations are felonies, and Cheney may have committed two felony crimes (hunting game without the proper license, and conspiracy to hunt game without a license), any death resulting from the commision of these crimes could open Cheney to felony murder charges. Dr U 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My good Lord - could you possibly be less informed in this information age? From refernce

§ 42.025. PENALTY. A person who violates any provision of this chapter commits an offense that is a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.

Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 3, § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. --Geneb1955 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Good idea. I find this topic interesting. I actually like Cheney. But its such a bizarre piece of news. Nobody I know has ever shot anyone accidently. What are the odds a celebrity would do it? And just think what the Europeans must be saying about this. Most of their politicians have never touched a gun in their entire lives Dr U 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While you need a felony for felony murder, having a misdemeanor would only get you misdemeanor manslaughter. MM is not recognized in all states, so someone needs to research Texas Manslaughter law. John wesley 20:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper question is can Cheney be impeached if the victim dies? SYSS Mouse 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Category for deletion?

[Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people] has been nominated for deletion. Dr U 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but think that there's some Aaron Burr scholar who was waiting for this moment to make that category
KV 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious, but as with the filing of George W. Bush as a cheerleader, I'll have to support a speedy deletion. Uncyclopedia on the other hand ... -- Miwa 09:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Two Vice presidents who shot people for a category, not needed here. --Terence Ong 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. 216.79.249.123 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

known VP shooters

"Dick Cheney is the first known Vice President to shoot someone while in office since Aaron Burr" is this implying that other VPs have shot people secretly?

You may be on to something... All those hikers disappeared during Spiro Agnew's Vice Presidency.  :-) Abe Froman 17:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheney in Congress

Was Cheney involved in the House banking scandal of the late 80's and early 90's? House_banking_scandal

I find it interesting

Does anyone else find it interesting that the section about his recent hunting accident is the longest one in this entire article? Batman2005 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

protection? semi-protection?

President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Over the President's right shoulder is Cheney; over his left is Dennis Hastert.

This article is protected due to vandalism on February 13th. If protection is still warranted, shouldn't it be suitably marked with {{vprotected}} or {{sprotected}}? And wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient?

I was going to update the section on the Vice Presidency to reflect the explicit {de}classification powers granted to him by Executive Order 13292, but I guess that's for another time.

BTW, the caption for the photo at right could be tweaked to eliminate a reference to a non-existent 2003 State of the Union address.

Thanks. 66.167.138.49 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

i would say no, when a vp shoots somebody its a pretty important story

Deleted a little bit of vandalism from the section concerning Cheney's future plans. Freddie deBoer 00:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Reduce Hunting incident section. Vote here.

I propose we reduce the 'Hunting incident' section (which is currently 9 paragraphs long) to the first paragraph only, leave the 'current event' tag, and leave the link to the full article Dick Cheney hunting incident. Do we really need this much information here when we have an entire article on it already? What purpose is this serving? Monkeyman 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

second that. The dedicated accident article describes the mess in full. On the main bio page, one paragraph on the incident and a link to the dedicated accident article is enough. Abe Froman 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
...are you suggesting to erase the hunting incident just because it has too much information???... isnt this a fricking encyclopedia?!!. Your claims make no sense at all, the only reasson to remove the hunting incident would be censorship and bias.
I'm not suggesting erasing the hunting incident section. As I stated, I am in favor of cutting it down from its current nine paragraphs to one. We would leave the link to the Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident article and the 'current event' tag. Why should we keep all of this information in two places? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a newspaper. Monkeyman 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree because then we could excise it when the incident is no longer new news. John wesley 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think paring it down is appropriate, however I would be sure to include the information regarding the length of time in between the incident and it being reported. That issue is a prominent feature of the coverage, and some consider it the main issue. Freddie deBoer 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
disagree. time will tell how important this is. makes sense to leave as is for now. I don't see how more information could hurt. If you feel it's not entirely relevant to Cheney, why not make a separate page? Hamilton burr 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

DWI information

By this edit an anon removed the discussion of Cheney's DWI's, stating "this information is in education". The DWI's were mentioned in the "Education" section, but with only an inaccurate summary plus Cheney's explanation. I've restored the information to the "Early life and family" section; moved Cheney's explanation to the same section, so that it comes immediately after the details about the convictions; and reduced the "Education" reference to a passing mention, to establish the context of his return to college. JamesMLane t c 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Lack of NPOV

What on Earth is this erroneous comment doing in the article?

Dick Cheney is the first sitting Vice President known to have shot someone since 1804, when Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in the Hamilton-Burr duel.

It's not erroneous. It's entirely truthful.--RattBoy 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to tie Cheney to a deliberate and malicious shooting. How would you editors like it if I went into the Lewinski article and wrote in something like, "Bill Clinton had sexual relations with a younger female just like Roman Polański," would you be OK with that factual statement?

Sure, the above statement is true, but it is misleading and has nothing to do with the circumstances of the incident. I'll allow for some debate before I remove the statement. Haizum 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Even the main Hunting Incident article has the Aaron Burr reference listed under triva. So, explain to me what trivia is doing in the Dick Cheney main page segment that is supposed to be succinct? There is no excuse for this, I'm removing it. Haizum 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Relax. Making threats and ultimata just pisses people off.
  2. "Clinton was the first President to be impeached for lying under oath since (you know, somebody)" would be more apropos... and would also definitely belong in the Clinton article. I don't recall Polanski being President of the United States.
  3. The entire section will probably get deleted in three to six weeks when it ceases to be a big deal.
  4. It's a lot easier to get non-NPOV things out of articles when you just... remove them instead of yelling at everybody.
  5. 4 was a lot like 1, but bear with me.
I'm juuust about as liberal as they come, but I was the first one to pare that article down to size. Please don't assume "we" are all out to get conservatives and make them look bad. Just edit the article as you believe is appropriate, instead of attacking the lefties out here.
Regards, JDoorjam Talk 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You are making assumptions, I never cited liberalism or left wing editors as my reasoning behind the removal of the erroneous Aaron Burr comment; I cited erroneousness. Please note that you didn't provide a reason for why that comment should be in the article summary. If it deserves to be included at all, it should be in a trivia section like it is in the main article. Haizum 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what word you're looking for, but "erroneous" isn't it. The comment is truthful. It is not erroneous.--RattBoy 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that your example of Clinton being the first to lie under oath since isn't a fair analogy because a hunting accident is a non-issue that has no real bearing on the nation or world, whereas the most powerful official in the world lying under oath about oral sex and anal oral contact is a bit more serious ... as is the malicious shooting of another person (Hamilton-Burr). Haizum 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the fact that I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the text in question. I'm simply saying that starting arguments with people isn't the best way to make changes on Wikipedia, and, in fact, it's probably the least efficient way of getting anything done around here. On political pages especially, it's far more effective to have a cool head... unless you're trying to pick fights, which would be unfortunate and counter-productive to this project. JDoorjam Talk 12:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my tone, JDoorjam. I just assumed someone was going to try to try and argue the change. "Assuming good faith" is easier said than done. Haizum 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be that tough. I'm assuming that you erroneously implied that Bill Clinton had something to do with "anal oral contact," although no reputable references would back you up on that. I'll assume, also, that any references you might make re. Hillary Clinton's slitting Vince Foster's throat with a fishing knife would also be a simple misunderstanding on your part. It's all about good faith.--RattBoy 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a gift for you; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_report
Under oath she admitted that her relationship with Clinton involved oral sex, including oral-anal contact, as documented in the Starr report
What then, RattBoy, what then? Haizum 00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll be durned! I must've missed that chapter. My apologies. (In answer to your question, I don't really know what comes after oral-anal contact. Sorry.)
You still gotta get you some larnin' bout the word, "erroneous," though. It ain't nohow the same as "erogenous."--RattBoy 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology: Latin errare 'to wander' I meant, and I mean, erroneous; not with regards to the Burr/Hamilton statement itself, but to its use. Haizum 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is an important complement to definition, but it's no substitute for definition.--RattBoy 11:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Etymology in part defines the usage when the definition is apparent. Haizum 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Being "True" isn't the only concern for an encyclopedia. Relevance and context are just as important. Statements that are "true" but imply a connection that is "erroneous" do not belong. For example: "Bill Clinton never apologized for his role in the shooting death of Vince Foster" is a true statement. It implies an erroneous tie, however. Or "Bill Clinton wasn't the first head of state to cheat on his wife. Henry VIII did it and had his wives exectuted in order to make room for his mistresses. It is not known if Bill Clinton had anyone killed over his mistresses" is also a true state statement but totally irrelevant connection. --Tbeatty 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks. Haizum 19:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New photo

[16] proposed new photo of Cheney. --DanielCD 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Draft Deferments

The only source for the "other priorities" quote is a Terri McAuliffe statement during a campaign? I don't think this is in context. "Other priorities" agrees with the rationale for having the deferements in the first place, namely a wife and family. Unless a citation for what "other priorities" means, the family context should be added. In any case, using Terri McAuliffe, the Democrat Party chairman, as a source for a quote that he didn't even hear directly is woefully inadequate.--Tbeatty 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, the quote has been changed from Terri McAuliffe to other commentaries. Where is the original article? QUotes inside commentaries that are decidedely POV against Cheney are just as contrary to Wikipedia as if they had been written directly into the Wiki article. Please cite the original article. --Tbeatty 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunting incident: what's the reporter's name?

This article says that "Katherine Garcia" reported on the accident. "The Dick Cheney hunting incident" article says "Kathryn Garcia." What is her real name, and which article should be changed?

68.148.168.84 06:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Cheney's Health

What's the objection to this text? "Further, there would be serious questions over whether Cheney would be medically fit to serve as President. He is known to be in poor health and would be over 70 years of age by the end of his first term"

Together with the observation that if Cheney did retire, it would effectively allow somebody to be anointed for the GOP nomination. 203.214.45.134 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's uncited and speculative. WP:ISNOT a crystal ball (or an HMO). JDoorjam Talk 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the first one (that he's well known to be in poor health, and that if he did run and win in '08 he'd be over 70 by the end of his first term) a fact? Or rather, two facts? If there's an objection to 'speculative' content, shouldn't the reference to speculation about his retirement be removed entirely? 203.214.45.134 02:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to add:

And it keeps getting reversed. This is link used on other political pages and Wikipedia even has an article for the site that provides the content.--Halliburton Shill 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It has no worthwhile encyclopedic content whatsoever. Wikipedia's article on it lists it as a "parody website". It is not worth inclusion as a reference here, or on any other article. JDoorjam Talk 00:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a broader quotation, from the web site itself:

Political Friendster was developed by Doug McCune for a class at Stanford University (ART 176: Web Projects). The site has no affiliation with Friendster, Stanford University, They Rule, or anything else and the views expressed on the site are not endorsed by anyone. The site copies the look and feel of the real Friendster site. Due to the educational nature of this project, the use of copyrighted material is covered under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which defines "fair use."

Sorry, but an unendorsed web site created for a web art class is not exactly encyclopedic content. JDoorjam Talk 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What?! -- It never once explicitly states in that definition that it is a "web art class". Go away and stop spreading obvious fallacies.--Mofomojo 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait.. nevermind, I didn't fully read the part that stated ART 176. My apologies, I'm not used to reading information that isn't formed properly in a sentence.--Mofomojo 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"The site has hundreds of current and historic political links. Many of the connections have under-reported details and links to events long forgotten. It also is a rich source of photos for individuals seldom pictured."--Halliburton Shill 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support removing this link from all articles. It doesn't seem to be a useful or reputable resource. It is a self-described parody site. Random examples: It describes the Trilateral Commission as "The High Priests of Globalisation". Katherine Harris's relationship to Tom DeLay is described as "they're both crooks". The relatioship between Skull and Bones and 9/11 is described as "Skull & Bones has had major control of the CIA since its founding." And most of Wikipedia's links to the site come from articles about Republicans, which demonstrates that the person adding these links is biased. Rhobite 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Republicans dominate the U.S. political scene at the moment because of majorities in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and, of course, the President.--Halliburton Shill 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to link to any site that provides political and corporate connections. Is their a better site that provides such content and, like it, provides a Wikipedia like environment for addiing and changing connections?--Halliburton Shill 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The obvious answer would be Wikipedia. Most of these "connections" are already documented here, in a neutral manner. However it's not appropriate to link to a site that says Rush Limbaugh is connected to the drug war because "Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers made him "collateral damage" in the drug war -- and a hypocrite". Rhobite 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So humor or, say, cartoons are not an allowed form of encyclopedic documentation?--Halliburton Shill 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Rhobite 04:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheney/Leahy

For explanation of my reverts: Leahy did not "confront" Cheney. As I understand the anaecdotal account, Leahy was on the Sunday shows essentially calling Cheney a liar and a thief. A few days later, during the picture, Leahy acted as if Cheney and he were buddies and didn't seem to realize that his words a few days ago were a personal insult as opposed to just political posturing. Cheney said "go Fuck yourself" when Leahy was trying to be buddy-buddy. I have never heard the "finger" account. Nor have a seen a source that would make this encounter more than just anecdotal. --Tbeatty 07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details of the incident well enough to be able to say how exactly we should describe it, but it is certainly more than anecdotal. The incident was widely reported in the media, and nobody in the Cheney camp ever denied it. See this CNN story, for instance. And this one, from the Washington Post (although I didn't think the Post printed profanity...) Anyway, it's completely confirmed, and quite well known. I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. Obviously, we should aim to describe the circumstances as clearly as possible, but the Post article, which says "A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice," doesn't bring in any of this "Leahy trying to be buddy-buddy" business. john k 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's the description of the incident to be found in wikipedia's Patrick Leahy article:

On June 22, 2004 Leahy and Vice President Dick Cheney participated in the US Senate class photo. During this time, Cheney upbraided Leahy for Leahy's recent excoriations of Cheney over Halliburton's alleged war profiteering. The discussion ended with Cheney telling Leahy to "... go fuck yourself" and giving Leahy the middle finger. Some have pointed to this incident as further evidence of increased partisanship in American politics.

I'd add that, like you, I don't recall it having been reported that Cheney gave Leahy the finger. But the rest of it sounds fairly accurate as far as my memory of what happened goes. At any rate, I think the story is fully confirmed, and is significant enough to mention in the article. john k 07:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Cheney's account on Neil Cavuto. It's the only first person account we have and here it is.

"Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had "challenged my integrity" by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee's "Halliburton Week" focusing on Cheney, the company, "and the millions of dollars they've cost taxpayers," the party said.

"I didn't like the fact that after he had done so, then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream," Cheney said. "And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards."

Leahy, crossing the aisle to the Republican side of the chamber Tuesday, tried to make small talk with Cheney. Cheney yesterday referred to the incident as "a little floor debate in the United States Senate," although the Senate was not in session at the time." [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Kicked out of Yale?

If I understood the article correctly,the vice president was actually kicked out of Yale due to poor grades. That's too bad.

I think you need to take some more reading comprehension.--Tbeatty 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my reading comprehension is just fine. On the other hand, maybe you're right. The article does not state that he was kicked out, it says that he "left partly due to poor grades." I think that you need to learn to read between the lines. Also, my husband is a Yalie who said that Cheney failed horribly as a Yale student. Either way.. can we agree that Cheney had "poor grades?"

This is an encyclopedia and if you can "read between the lines" I would argue it isn't NPOV. But you're right. It's missing citations for the "poor grades" premise. I'll agree that it needs a citation before we can conclude he had "poor grades" at Yale. It does go on to say he was a "straight A" student which also needs a citation. --Tbeatty 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

hardship

"On January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents."

Hmmm...So it was a "hardship" for him to go and fight with a wife and baby at home, but he doesn't have any qualms about sending men in the same situation to go fight in Iraq.

In 1966, the military was drafting men involuntarily...in 2003, the military consisted of all volunteers. There IS a difference.
Troops being sent to Iraq in not so much Dick's decision as it is the administration as a whole. And Dick Cheney is a douche. Douche douche douche douche douche.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.6.156.230 (talk • contribs) .

Dick Cheney#Health problems

Subsequent infarctions in 1984, 1988, and 2000 have resulted in moderate contractile dysfunction of his left ventricle and his crooked smile.

Is this correct? His crooked smile is a result of heart problems? --BillC 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't jibe with the black-and-white photo in this very same article; it's dated 1976, and his smile is extremely crooked. Cheney's first heart attack was in 1978. 12 May 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Found a citation at ABC News[18] that claims that Mary Cheney has the same crooked smile. I don't think a heart attack can cause crooked smiles in your children either! :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

I took this out: "His name is pronounced CHEE-ney, as per an exchange from a December 5, 2000 press conference.[19]" I'm assuming that "CHEE-ney" is supposed to mean /'tʃini/. Anyway, it's false that his name is prononced to rhyme with "meanie". Apparently, that's how people he knew pronounced it when he was growing up, but he says himself in the source given that he will answer to either pronunciation, and /'tʃeni/ is clearly the dominant form. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


NPOV Redux

Someone put in a fairly long quotation from Rolling Stone. I cleaned up the formatting (end quote mark) and inserted a ref tag to the article. However, I question whether that section belongs in the article. It's essentially an op-ed article that refers to Cheney's accession to the Chief of Staff position in the Ford Administration as a "palace coup." Citation or no citation, I think it's an NPOV error to include it-- the quotation literally adds no new information to the article, and seems to be present solely to take a cheap shot at Cheney. (Substantively I think there's a factual error in the op-ed as well-- it refers to Cheney forcing out a Secretary of Defense who'd already [I think] been sacked when Cheney became Chief of Staff.) I'm inclined to delete it after an appropriate discussion period. Any thoughts? DCB4W 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names - Neutrality disputed

Regarding the US invasion of Panama and the Gulf War, please note that official policy is to avoid propaganda names as article titles, and the explanation as well as the mere policy of NPOV clearly show they should be avoided if possible altogether. Añoranza 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is for article titles, please read more carefully. This has been pointed out to you about 9 times now. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The reasons given for the guideline in no way hold less for text in an article than for an article title. As you insist on keeping propaganda in the article, I have to place a POV-tag. Añoranza 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it doesn't work that way. The guideline is for titles as you were told by the MILHIST group themselves and does not apply to article space. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know very well, the reasoning for the article names clearly implies that propaganda is not neutral in the text either. Añoranza 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the group that made the guideline does not agree with you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As you like to point out when it fits you, it is only a guideline, and your summary is misleading. Añoranza 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering you are no longer debating the point anymore, instead engaging in some sort of "innuendo", I will no longer by replying to you in this thread until a point is actually debated. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Both "Operation Just Cause" and "Operation Desert Storm" are only redirects because there are neutral, descriptive and common names for the conflicts: United States invasion of Panama and Gulf War. Please do not use the propaganda terms for the sake of neutrality. Añoranza 08:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gulf War" is ambiguous (as you can see in the article on it). As to "Operation Just Cause", I think "United States invasion of Panama" is unambiguous and would be OK. You can't "direct" a conflict (such as the 1991 Gulf War), but you can direct an invation or other campaign/operation. --GunnarRene 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, the name "Desert Storm" is less POV than "Just Cause". --GunnarRene 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So was this the reason for the POV tag? Is there still a dispute?-- nyenyec ☎ 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Early life section

I can't find any source that lists Dick Cheney as a junior, or his father as a senior. I added two fact tags, which should remain there until it's proven that's his real name. --MZMcBride 03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He's not a "junior". Dick Cheney's full name is "Richard Bruce Cheney". His father is "Richard Herbert Cheney" [20]. Since their names are technically different, they do not have the "junior/senior" moniker. This is just like "George Walker Bush" is not the junior of "George Herbert Walker Bush". -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed {activepolitician}??

How is Dick Cheney not an active politician? Did he resign this morning and I just haven't read the news yet?? heh.... --Jaysweet 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of issues with the {{activepolitician}} tag. First, it's only supposed to be place on talk pages, and it was placed on the article page. Second, the text read: "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy." Cheney isn't running for office, isn't campaigning for re-election, and at the moment isn't really in the middle of a political conflict or controversy. Thanks. --MZMcBride 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
He is involved in the controversy about expanding the power of the excutive branch and lying about intelligence about the Iraq War. Bona Fides 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that {{activepolitician}} should be re-added, please add it to the talk page. While I don't really see the Vice President as "in" a current conflict or controversy, I understand your point. Thanks. --MZMcBride 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I read the text too quickly and instead of "is in office AND campaigning," I read "is in office, OR campaigning." My bad. Also, I didn't know it was supposed to be placed only on the talk page.
That said, I think one could make a strong case about controversy thing. I mean, he may be asked to testify in the Scooter Libby thingy. Meh, I don't feel strongly about it, I was just surprised to see it removed -- but now I understand why. --Jaysweet 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, there has been a lot of vandalism to this page... That's why I've got it on my watchlist :) --Jaysweet 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The paragraph:

After graduating from the University of Wyoming in 1963 with a Bachelor's degree in political science, Cheney drank until he was brought up on drunk driving charges at the U of W to complete an MA in political science, graduating in 1965.

doesn't seem to make sense. It seems someone posted something into the middle of the sentence that they thought would be funny.

Edit suggestion

Perhaps change "Criticisms of Obama" to "Criticisms of Barack Obama". It just seems more encyclopedic to me, especially for people who come to the page especially to find out about his criticisms of Obama. I know there are really no other Obama's he'd criticise, but it just seems more appropriate. Ignore it if you want, just a suggestion. 60.234.236.221 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.72.27.200, 9 May 2011

wash post mon 11 may 2011 dick cheney with end stage heart disease considering heart transplant see washpost for complete info

69.72.27.200 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
UPI is reporting on current statements by Cheney. There doesn't appear to be much of anything that is new: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/05/Cheney-may-seek-heart-transplant/UPI-44151294243041/.Jarhed (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Amlorusso, 1 September 2011

Reference 68 has a dead link. Archive.org has the page at: http://web.archive.org/web/20100412120227/http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm Amlorusso (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Done and correctly I hope. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Hey I guess someone will fix this. He couldn't have been one of Reagans "early" supporters. April 1980? I'd consider now to be "early". Someone just endorsed Rick Perry the other day. Thats early. The Reagan equivalent to early would be closer to september of 79. You guys(wikipedia) made it hard to edit. I tried this one time back in like 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.76.225 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney/Archive_2&oldid=1071680730"