Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 1

message: One thing that may want to be edited is the "Opponents and detractors accuse him of being too closely tied and beholden to the oil industry," portion. It would seem to me that many also accuse him of now being the "missing VP." While he may have been one of the most involved before 9-11, he seems to have dissapeared since then. Would this be applicable to add? --Wolf530 08:01, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
: I've never read any Democrat accuse Cheney of being "missing" except immediately after September 11th for security reasons. Can you substantiate those claims?  Maybe should go under Anti-Cheney links with the rest of the conspiracies.  Maybe you should add to Kerry's page that he missed 70% of the possible 612 Votes In The 108th Senate from 1/1/03-7/6/04?  --Ryan Knoll 03:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: oil industry

message: This section is messy and unorganized.  Furthermore, the negative bias is substantial because it focuses almost exclusively on draft deferments and DWI.  I'm going to try and reorganize it so it is at least chronologically in order.  Any comments?  Please put below to discuss.
 --Ryan Knoll 05:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life and Family

message: Yes, Cheney is a bit blurred in that pic, but he's sort of well known for pushing the Iraq war. WhisperToMe 05:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheney at War Speech photo

message: There is a link section in the article titled "Anti-Cheney Opinions". I wish to balance this by inserting and populating a section titled "Pro-Cheney Opinions". Please take notice and comment as needed here. Thank you. Rex071404   03:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Link section titles 

message: I propose that we delete the entire Dick Cheney article and let Ryan (attorney at law) write it from scratch.  As we can see from this discussion he is well versed (as an attorney would be) in modes of argument, knowledgeable on the topic of Dick Cheney and eloquent on top of all that.  All in favor say "aye".  --Funkyj 22:44, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
: Aye!  Just kidding.  Let's just get back to the proposed wording, it seems we are very close to a mutually reasonable wording and we can both get back to something more important and productive in our lives.  --Ryan Knoll 23:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ryan Knoll show 

message: A passage in a recent speech could be interpreted as a terrorist threat.  Should this be put in the article?  I noticed that his swearing was in the article.
The relevant passage is
 "...it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd,
 we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the
 danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be
 devastating from the standpoint of the United States..."
-daesotho
:: It is not a signficant quote (repeats his position that Bush administration has a more effective strategy than Kerry to protect the USA) and is already listed in the wikiquote archive.  Just so you know, the quote is incomplete and not in context to understand that he is talking about the danger of falling into the "pre-911 mindset" and so on.  --Ryan Knoll 08:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent terrorist threat? 

message: The article states:
:Cheney is in the unusual position of having been Secretary of Defense during a war with Iraq, heading a company (Halliburton) which sold equipment through foreign subsidiaries to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure, then serving as Vice President during another war with Iraq.
How is this an "unusual position", and on what grounds is it unusual? I think the subtext here is that there is some potential for a conflict of interest -- but if that's the case, this point has already been made earlier in the article. Neilc 11:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point.  Dick Cheney's career timeline is outlined elsewhere in the article.  The sentence crams a 20 year carrer into a short sentence to infer a conflict of interest, and the word "unusual position" is too suggestive.  Should be changed.  --Ryan Knoll 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, cool. I decided to remove the content rather than to salvage it because the information in the paragraph was redundant with information already contained in the article -- brevity is good. Neilc 13:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unusual" position WRT Iraq 

message: The veep's recent hospitalization has brought about some renewed discussion regarding his past health problems (and subsequent discussion as to his fitness to serve as VP), which don't seem to be mentioned in the article.  And can we find a picture that has a less creepy smile?
--ZekeMacNeil 02:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly feel that four heart attacks and a quadruple heart bypass operation are worth mentioning... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: In the "Congress" section (right next to the picture of the Dick Cheney building), it says he served as SecDef "from ary 1993"; that should read "from [whatever year he started]." ugen64 03:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Can't believe someone corrected my edit within 2 mins
:We aim to please. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow that was fast 

message: I can't presume to speak for the rest of you, but it appears that the objection over including the CBC link is the fact that it contains no actual text content, am I right? Are there any existing guidelines as to whether an external link has to contain relevant text content, or whether it can just describe a televised program that contains relevant content? -- Deathphoenix 21:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does contain some text content , though not very much.  I should think that for someone as notable as the vice president, there are plenty of better online sources available.  That's the reason I removed the link once.  Dbenbenn 23:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree as well. In the interest of Wikilove, I sent the guy a nice little "try to find a link with real content and we won't revert it", but Dubya had already broken the 3RR. Oh well. -- Deathphoenix 00:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to the CBC 

message: It did read:
In 1964, he married his high-school sweetheart Lynne Vincent. Lynne was elected Mustang Queen, the equivalent of most popular girl, and was a state-champion baton twirler. Under president George H. W. Bush, she was Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, from 1986–1993. She now also calls for abolition of the agency and discontinuance of the National Endowment for the Arts, claiming that both agencies foster cultural corruption. She is now an author and college teacher. [4]
The second sentence of the above is both incorrect and demeaning. Do you wish to be judged by what you did in high school? The fourth sentence is not supported by the reference shown.
So the parapgrapoh now reads:
In 1964, he married his high-school sweetheart Lynne Vincent. Mrs. Cheney has a B.A. with highest honors from Colorado College, an M.A. from Colorado State University, and a Ph.D. from The University of Wisconsin specializing in British literature. She has authored or co-authored eight books and numerous articles. Appointed Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities by Ronald Reagan, she served from l986 to 1993. She is now a public speaker and co-host of Crossfire.  
The following sentence was removed because it added nothing. 
In 1995, Cheney had a non-speaking bit part in the Bruce Willis film Die Hard: With a Vengeance, playing a New York City official.
The following lengthy paragraph is particularly onerous. 
As part of the Ford administration, Cheney helped formulate the White House response to the death via LSD of CIA scientist Frank Olson.  Olson, a participant in the controversial MKULTRA project, was determined to be a security risk after developing moral qualms about his work on mind control experiments and deciding to leave his government work and become a dentist.  Unwittingly given LSD and apparently thrown to his death out a hotel window in 1953, the circomstances of Olson's death remained a mystery to his family until they were unearthed by the congressional Church Committee investigation into the CIA's domestic  activities.  In response to their threat to sue the United States government, White House staffers Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld reportedly warned President Gerald Ford that a lawsuit concerning Frank Olson could result in the public disclosure of additional and related measures taken in the interest of national security that could extend popular disatisfaction with the intelligence community and federal government.  An out of court settlement was offered, allong with personal meetings between the Olson family and the White House.  The White House maintained, however, that Olson's death was a suicide, a detail that remained unchallenged until an exhumation of Olson's body suggested the scientist had been murdered.  The exhumation was inspired by the Olson family's discovery of a CIA manual on interrogation that recomended drugging a subject before throwing them out a window.  The full story  was reported on by the Baltimore Sun in late 2004.
What the reference says from The Sun article says is that Cheney and Rumsfelds became aware of the problem and arranged for Olsen's family to meet with President Ford. 
  
I have removed that paragraph. If it stays in, I want a NPOV sticker on the page. If you want to write it so it reflects the known facts, then by all meand rewrite it. 
The following parapraph tries to make a mountain or of a very small molehill, is too long, and is another smack of bias. 
There was some controversy over the fact that Cheney had been living in Texas when he was selected as Bush's running mate.  The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that electors shall vote for president and vice president "one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves."  Bush was obviously a Texas resident, being that state's governor.  In November 2000, Cheney's vehicles were alleged to be registered in Texas, he allegedly paid taxes on them in Dallas County, he allegedly had filed federal income tax returns listing himself as a Texas resident, and he had lived in a Highland Park, Texas home for the last five years.  On July 21st Cheney had changed his voting registration to Teton County, Wyoming, where he had long maintained a residence.  Critics charged that this action was insufficient to switch Cheney's residency to Wyoming.  A lawsuit was brought in Jones v. Bush attempting to invalidate electoral votes from Texas, but was rejected by a Texas district court. 
It now reads:
In the 2000 presidential election, a question was raised by the Democrats as to Cheney's state of residency since he had been living in Texas. A lawsuit was brought in Jones v. Bush attempting to invalidate electoral votes from Texas under the Twelth Amendment, but was rejected by a Federal district court in Texas.
 
The following sentence was removed:
Many detractors of the Bush presidency in fact claim that Cheney has more control in the Bush White House than Bush himself.
The following sentence adds nothing but I left it, although it should come out. 
Following the uncertainty immediately after the events of September 11, 2001, Cheney and President Bush were kept in physically distant locations for security reasons. For a period Cheney was not seen in public, remaining in an undisclosed location and communicating with the White House via secure video phones.
The following was added after Joe Guzzardi (Couldn't we find a better reference?)
a columnist for a small weekly newspaper in California and part-time English instructor,
Reference for the following:
Cheney's alleged dishonesty over the justifications for the Iraq conflict has caused further controversy.
I added the following:
Of course, as Vice President, he should be involved in major government decisions.
Added this to the following paragraph:
and no-bid contract extensions are common place in contrating.
The following sentence was rewritten; It was: 
This apparent conflict of interest, however, was mitigated by Cheney's purchase of an insurance policy to guarantee the payment of the deferred salary regardless of how Halliburton performed. The policy was taken when he became a nominee for Vice President.
It is now:
This alleged conflict of interest, was legal and no action was taken against Cheney. Cheney purchased an insurance policy to guarantee the payment of the deferred salary regardless of how Halliburton performed. The policy was taken when he became a nominee for Vice President.
The following paragraph is irelevant, burns bandwidth, and adds nothing. I removed it. 
On June 22, 2004, while participating in the U.S. Senate class photo, Cheney and  Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont had  a personal exchange that garnered headlines in the U.S. After Leahy had greeted Cheney in a lighthearted way, the vice president criticized Leahy for Democrats' attacks on himself regarding ethics matters, such as alleged improprieties in Iraq military contracts awarded to Halliburton. Leahy responded by objecting to Republican accusations that Democrats were anti-Catholic because they opposed a Bush judicial nominee who was Roman Catholic. Cheney then told Leahy to "...go fuck yourself," which was later characterized by Kevin Kellums, a Cheney spokesman, as "a frank exchange of views."  In response, Leahy said that he thought Cheney "...was having a bad day. I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor." Others have pointed to this incident and the events that led up to it as evidence of a culture of extreme partisanship that has developed in Washington.  Senate rules prohibit profanity while the Senate is in session, but Cheney did not violate the rules because the Senate was not in session at the time.
Later on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News Cheney said of the incident, "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it. I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said—that it was long overdue." 
Added as a reference:
*[http;//www.whitehouse.org/mrscheney]
Even with all these changes, the article is biased. Johnwhunt 22:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes Made

message: * Dick Cheney → Richard Bruce Cheney – This is how it is in the World Book, as well as the title being more formal. --BrenDJ 21:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
*Oppose move. Prevailing standard Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says "Use the most common name of a person".  Dick Cheney is overwhelmingly the most commonly used name. --  21:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: When I get a minute I would like to edit some of this article (see my comments in the first talk section).  This is the VP of the United States, who has a thirty year career in government, and the article in three separate places mentions "alleged" conflict of interest or "possible" conflict.  The congressional vote section:
During his tenure in the House, he voted against making the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. He also voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, and the imposition of sanctions upon South Africa for its official policy of apartheid. In addition, Cheney voted against a Congressional resolution calling on the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison, describing Mandela and the African National Congress as "terrorists," though years later he called Mandela a "great man."  Can anyone read that as neutral? Kaisershatner 18:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to drop links because they express an opinion on the subject of the article. Gamaliel 14:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason is that it runs the risk of editors trying to "balance" the other side out by just adding more and more links reflective of differing POV's. That is what happened here - we have like 15 links to articles and essays bashing Cheney or bashing his bashers. The list just grows and grows. Ellsworth 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NEUTRAL point of view

message: How about following the example of the Ronald Reagan article and dropping all of the "reference" links that are simply POV commentary on the subject? I got us started in that direction by dropping a few of the more blatant ones. Ellsworth 13:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to drop links because they express an opinion on the subject of the article. Gamaliel 14:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason is that it runs the risk of editors trying to "balance" the other side out by just adding more and more links reflective of differing POV's. That is what happened here - we have like 15 links to articles and essays bashing Cheney or bashing his bashers. The list just grows and grows. Ellsworth 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Change noting this fact was removed, including the comment Cheney was the most powerful vice president in recent memory. A location of his office is irrelevant and the claim of power is unsupported. By the way,Al Gore's article claimed he greatly expanded the vp. Johnwhunt 16:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Office in The House of Representatives

message: I'd like to raise the possibility of protecting this article due to vandalism. Any thoughts for or against doing so? Everyking 02:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment