![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives of Talk:Dick Cheney, from July 2005 to August 2006.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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]])
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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 love to criticize the current administration as much as anyone, but this is asinine. Loodog 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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))
-- Greasysteve13 07:08, 13 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)
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.
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)
Shouldn't "Hunting accident" precede "Plans for the future" in this bio?
-- RobbieFal 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
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]])
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
Is there a reason that Cheney's involvement with this group isn't included?
KV 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It was birdshot and a 20 gauge
more stuff interesting stuff
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/14/mcclellan-conceals-heart-attack/
"Italian-made Perazzi 28-gauge shotgun" you could be right 132.241.245.49 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Does Cheney get charged with manslaughter?-- Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 22:11, 14 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)
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)
[Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people] has been nominated for deletion. Dr U 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"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?
Was Cheney involved in the House banking scandal of the late 80's and early 90's? House_banking_scandal
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
[16] proposed new photo of Cheney. -- DanielCD 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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:
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)
"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]])
If I understood the article correctly,the vice president was actually kicked out of Yale due to poor grades. That's too bad.
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?"
"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.
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]])
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)
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)
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)
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)
So was this the reason for the POV tag? Is there still a dispute?-- nyenyec ☎ 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives of Talk:Dick Cheney, from July 2005 to August 2006.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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]])
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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 love to criticize the current administration as much as anyone, but this is asinine. Loodog 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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))
-- Greasysteve13 07:08, 13 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)
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.
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)
Shouldn't "Hunting accident" precede "Plans for the future" in this bio?
-- RobbieFal 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
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]])
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
Is there a reason that Cheney's involvement with this group isn't included?
KV 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It was birdshot and a 20 gauge
more stuff interesting stuff
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/14/mcclellan-conceals-heart-attack/
"Italian-made Perazzi 28-gauge shotgun" you could be right 132.241.245.49 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Does Cheney get charged with manslaughter?-- Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 22:11, 14 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)
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)
[Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people] has been nominated for deletion. Dr U 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"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?
Was Cheney involved in the House banking scandal of the late 80's and early 90's? House_banking_scandal
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
[16] proposed new photo of Cheney. -- DanielCD 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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:
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)
"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]])
If I understood the article correctly,the vice president was actually kicked out of Yale due to poor grades. That's too bad.
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?"
"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.
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]])
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)
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)
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)
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)
So was this the reason for the POV tag? Is there still a dispute?-- nyenyec ☎ 20:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)