Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 3

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

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

message: I've heard many US news corporations and services decbribe Cheney as "The most powerful Vice President in US History" can someone explain why/how this is?  SKC
Read this series; first part just published today: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/--68.49.95.99 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch this video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18751/1/TDS-Cheney-DickMove.wmv Billy Nair 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Most Powerful Vice President"

message: the language says "he" flunked out of yale, but that is confusing because the prior sentence talks about his brother. it reads as if his brother flunked out of Yale. The pronoun use is lending itself to ambiguity. Just use the mans name. someone should change it. its poorly written. - unsigned.
He seems to have been in the class of 1963 at Yale, attending from September 1959 until January 1961 and from January to June 1962. Does anyone know which was his residential college (Berkeley,  Branford,  Calhoun,  Davenport,  Ezra Stiles,  Jonathan Edwards, Morse,  Pierson, Saybrook,  Silliman, Timothy Dwight,  Trumbull)? - Nunh-huh 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yale

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

message: Considering his credibility, stature and insider knowledge of the Bush administration, a notification of Bob Woodward's suspicions of a presidential run would be prudent in this section. Have a look: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920885
:In the Plans for the future section of the article, it says: "There have...been rumors that Cheney may resign at some point during George W. Bush's second term, in order for Congress to appoint a new Vice President (via the 25th Amendment), who is interested in running for president, to smooth this leadership transititon for the Republican Party."
:Does anyone have a link to substantiate this speculation? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic. It looks like wild-&-crazy rumor-mongering to me.--RattBoy 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been over ten daze and nobody's stepped up to support it, so I obliterated it.--RattBoy 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, bring this information back about the speculation of Dick Cheney's possible Presidential Run. These things are important, don't be so impatient to delete, thank you.--Mofomojo 08:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plans for the future

message: "One of his first known ancestors was Ralph de Chesney, Sire of Quesnay who fought on the side of William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings in 1066."
I'm intrigued by this. Any sources? Fergananim 19 August 2005.
*WARGS is your one-stop shopping place for politician's genealogies. On Cheney's page, you will find many interesting things (for example, his relationship to Lon Chaney, Sr.), but the earliest ancestor there in the Cheney line is William Cheney (d. 1667). Since he's a descendant of King Edward I via Percival Lowell, it wouldn't be surprising if Ralph de Chesney was an ancestor if it were traced more fully. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't he Irish-American? Everyone else in the US seems to be. ;o) 86.7.208.240 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His most recent Irish ancestor seems to be Lila <B>McIlhaney</B>, b. Ireland 1709. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheney's ancestry

message: I've noticed that the Vice-President always seems to bear a slight squint on the left side of his face (his left, not that of the of the observer). Is this a result of nerve damage, his oft discussed heart problems, something he does unconciously, &c.? I haven't been able to find any serious reference to it elsewhere, and I find it curious it hasn't been brought up. Have other people noticed this, or am I crazy? Perhaps I've missed something in the article? --Yossarian 30px| 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC
COULD be result of Pumphead syndrome. Take Care Will314159 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely, since the idea of said syndrome causing more than transient deficits is a belief of political flacks rather than doctors. And also unlikely in that the squint is already apparent in Cheney in the group photographs of the Yale Baseball and Football teams in which he participated long before he had any cardiac surgery. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squint 

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

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

message: The medical literature shows that a large percentage of people that have bypasses suffer significant cognitive impairment. Vice with the help of his helper Scooter maneuvered us into the Iraq War and is all Gung Ho about getting us into an Iran War. It is very fit and proper to make this edit in the medical section.
*An open question is whether Cheney has suffered any cognitive impairment from his bypasses due to pump-head syndrome, a condition where a significant percentage of bypass patients suffer cognitive impairment.
Let me know what you all think. After 2,700 dead over 20,000 wounded, a trillion dollars blown and no exit in Iraq, it may be derelict to the readers not to let them know there are some  medical issues out there. Best Wishes. Will314159 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is about the syndrome and doesn't relate it in anyway to Dick Cheney. Doing so would be original research and inappropriate in this article. The only thing derelict would be inserting it into this article, as it is certainly not a neutral point of view . AuburnPilotTalk 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original Research - AuburnPilotTalk 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pumphead Syndrome 

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

message: At one point in the article, it says Cheney went to Yale.  This is not true.  Bush went to Yale but not Cheney.
---------
No, it's true:
This is from a White House transcript of a Cheney speech at Auburn U.:
"I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Wyoming. My college experience, though, began at a place called Yale -- but I didn't finish there. Actually, instead, I dropped out after a few semesters. Actually, dropped out isn't quite accurate. (Laughter.) Was "asked to leave" would be more like it. (Laughter.) Twice. (Laughter.) And the second time around, they said, don't come back. (Laughter.)"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050513-1.html
This is from Yale Class of 1963 alumni page:
Dick Cheney Yale '63
Dick Cheney has gone from Yale Class of '63 to the White House. Read more about it in the recent Yale Daily News article, then browse the Dick Cheney photo gallery on the Class of '63 website.
http://www2.aya.yale.edu/classes/yc1963/
4.153.11.169 16:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney college 

message: Just a heads up to those who monitor this article, Cheney was indeed mentioned on the NPR show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! today, in the segment where people have to guess which trivia question is correct. The purported butter sculpting career of Mr. Cheney was one of the joke questions. So be prepared for more vandalism as the segment reaches various NPR markets or is rerun. Katr67 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's where it came from; I was wondering why such a ridiculous claim was made. The good news is this article is semi-protected so anons and newbies can't vandalize. -- AuburnPilottalk 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butter Sculptor? 

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

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

message: Organization of controversies section, makes outline to show that most of his controversies fall under the DUI section.
68.171.2.144 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointed that out; I've demoted the heading so they all fall under the Controversies section. -- AuburnPilottalk 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Organization 

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

message: DaveAppendix 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous employment references 

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

message: In June 1962, Cheney left Yale to return home to Casper, where he worked as a lineman for a power company.
 
Cheney said that he found himself, "working, building power lines, having been in a couple of scrapes with the law."[28] He said that the arrests made him, "think about where I was and where I was headed. I was headed down a bad road if I continued on that course."
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there more available regarding?: 

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

message: This section and its one piece of information need to be removed. It is useless information and if this page wasn't protected, I would remove it myself. 72.147.79.165 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I've removed it. Shanes 08:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I deleted this section from the article since the only content was about a band telling Cheney to "stop being a dick". I don't see the relevance to Cheney's bio, or how it in anyway helps better a reader's understanding of him. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References in pop culture

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

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

message: Cheney has chronic heart failure, due to his many heart attacks. Reports have estimated Cheney's EF (a measure for the effectivness of the heart) to about 35% (normal EF s 65-70%). Chronic heart failure is treated with a lot of different drugs with a correspondingly broad spectrum of side effects that may or may not affect his performance as VP. It would be interesting to include a list of the drug classes that Cheney would be using, were he to receive state-of-the-art pharmacological treatment (as he certainly is) for his heart failure. Cheney's daily drugs probably include:
- ACE-inhibitors or ATII-antagonists (ie ramipiril or losartan etc)
Lowering his blood pressure, protecting his heart (remodelling).
- Platelet inhibitor(s) (low-dose aspirin (ASA) and possibly Plavix (clopidogrel)
Popularly known as "blood-thinners
- Cholesterol-lowering drugs; statins (ie simvastatin etc)
Lowering his LDL and stabilizing his atherosclerotic plaques
-  Beta-blocker (metoprolol)
Lowering his blood pressure and protecting his heart (remodelling).
- Aldosterone antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenon)
Has been shown to be effective in severe heart failure (ie NYHA classes 3 and 4).
-  Diuretic (thiazides or loop-diuretics)
Lowering his blood pressure and keep him from accumulating water
As to his cognitive and mental state. Having suffered from coronary heart disease and popliteal aneurysms, there is no doubt Cheney has generalised atherosclerosis. The length of his heart problems (almost 30 years), serves as a surrogate parameter for determining the onset of his atherosclerosis. Due to the considerable time Cheney has suffered from atherosclerotic vessel disease, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this also as manifested itself in the arteries inside his brain, thus increasing the chance greatly that Cheney is suffering from some degree of cognitive impairment due to ischemic brain injury (ie small strokes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alkaselzer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health problems 

message: "[..]earned his bachelor's and master's of arts degrees from the University of Wyoming."
What subjects?
Which subjects did he take his bachelors and masters?
213.172.204.59 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney's University Education 

message: How is his name Dick Cheney, at the top of the article it says Richard. D-hyo 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Nickname. It's the same situation as Bill Clinton, whose full name is actually William Jefferson Clinton. auburnpilot talk 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Why would he use a nickname like "Dick" instead of "Rich"? There must be some explanation of this, as it is very strange. As it is, this conundrum confuses the average reader. Livich 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Nickname. It's the same situation as Bill Clinton, whose full name is actually William Jefferson Clinton. I fail to see the "conundrum". You may also find List of United States Presidential names to be of interest; it seems Bill Clinton is the only US President to go by a nickname. There is no mention of VP's. auburnpilot talk 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is totally irrelevant, but Pres. Carter goes by "Jimmy" human 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dick is a very common nickname for Richard.  Dick Nixon comes to mind.  Tomhormby 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, what? 

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

message: I deleted the text "as he was appointed Secretary of Defense (see below) to replace former Texas Sen.John G. Tower, whose nomination had been rejected by the Senate." from the section "House Minority Whip" because this text appears in the section "Early Tenure" under Secretary of Defense "President George H. W. Bush initially chose former Texas Sen. John G. Tower to be his secretary of defense. When the Senate, in March, 1989, rejected his nomination,"
My edit was reverted.  Should I change it back to the way I had it?  I guess it would be an edit war if it wasn't discussed on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomhormby (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous Paragraph in Early Tenure 

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

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

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

message: This quote is attributed to Cheney in numerous places, including this article. "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?" 
When I google this quote, the only original source I can find is a Hearst article by Helen Thomas called "What Planet Is Cheney Living On?" In order to verify the validity of this quote, I would like another source. Supposedly this was on ABC-TV. Can someone find an ABC source for this? 
This page (www.aljazeerah.info/ ? Doesn't sound trustworthy) claims to have the transcript from ABCNEWS. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor/2004%20letters/May/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor,%20May%204,%202004.htm
128.252.107.160 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (prophetic) Quote from 1991 about possible Iraq quagmire 

message: Why is the assassination attempt listed under "controversies"? Shouldn't that be shifted to the section "First and second terms"? Or am I missing something?— Lenoxus 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, yeah, it certainly doesn't belong under Controversies, ha ha ha...  I moved it to its own section, but I'm not sure that's right either.  Certainly it's better than where it was, though... --Jaysweet 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination attempt "controversial"? 

message: According to the article Dennis Kucinich, Kucinich won't introduce articles of impeachment until April 25, 2007. This article says April 24, 2007. GoodDay 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's April 24, 2007. I've corrected the Dennis Kucinich article. GoodDay 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeachment movement

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

message: The article says Cheney "transfered" to Wyoming from Yale. I was always under the impression that he flunked out of Yale, took a job with the phone company for a short while, then enrolled at Wyoming. The article makes it sound like it was just a casual decision to leave Yale for Wyoming. --BWD (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He mentions he was asked to leave Yale twice here. --Jagz 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, "asked to leave". Nowhere does either source use the phrase "flunked out," which is why I reverted this and this. The truth is that Cheney flunked out, but until that is verified, we must use the wording of the source. I have no issue making the article clearer on the fact he didn't voluntarily leave. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  College education 

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

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

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

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

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

message: Near the bottom of the page, the article looses all tag processing, and looks all hosed. (that great tech term).. I would fix it, and be bold and whatnot, but I tried, and I dont know how. Someone please fix it.  This is an important article, about one of the most influential people in the western world... and it looks bad..
:Ok, I fixed it - was a missing end double brace and close ref - but now I have a question: what's up with the major edit that was done?  Looks to me on a quick look that legitimate stuff was removed, like the way he proomounces his  name.  Indeed, he pronounces it  "ChEEny".  And there's an awful lot of other stuff removed - too late at night for me to llok now, but someone might want to check into this major edit.  Tvoz |talk 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is up with the bottom of the page? 

message: The article doesnt mention what his mother did for a living.
Does anybody know?
:According to an interview with Lynne Cheney on Larry King Live, she was a softball star in the 1930s before marriage and family. Amazing - thanks for asking. I've added it. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Mother 

message: Being a newbie editor, I'm going to discuss before editing.
It seems to me that the line in the article, "The resolution has since acquired two co-sponsors.[29][30]" should simply be deleted, as just before it there's a wikipedia link to HR333 which is more current (listing 3 sponsors).
:Thanks for bringing this up - I changed it to three and added a citation for Wynn. If many more sign on, we may want to re-think. For now, I think we can afford to be precise about this here as well as at HR333. Tvoz |talk 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI -- there are now seven co-sponsors to the resolution, as documented in the HR333 article. Article appears to be locked at the moment for editing, but when the lock is released, this should be updated.--68.54.18.57 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsors of HR333 (Impeachment) 

message: I am going to rate this article bias because with the anti Bush/Chaney, you can't be sure if everything on here is true, or if it's bias!
I am open to debate on this matter. Please, any concerns, or questions, leave on my talk page!
Politics rule 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how the  template works. It shouldn't be added to an article because you fear "anti Bush/Chaney" groups have added false information. If you have specific instances where you believe a bias is present, violating NPOV, then we have an issue. Simply stating "you can't be sure if everything on here is true" isn't a reason to add the bias tag. Maybe . - auburnpilot talk 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The Infobox on Bill Clinton lists his name as the proper William Jefferson Clinton. The Infobox on Dick Cheney lists his name as Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney.  Only the proper should be listed, the diminuitive of his first name should be dropped.  The inclusion of "Dick" is suspect because of the connotation that comes with the word.Light Bulb 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to removed "Dick" from the infobox, go for it, but there's nothing "suspect" about its inclusion. Nobody refers to Cheney as Richard, and his common name is in fact Dick. - auburnpilot talk 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, no one refers to Cheney as Richard, nor does anyone refer to Clinton as William.  The inclusion of "Dick" in Cheney's Infobox compared to the exclusion of "Bill" in Clinton's Infobox legitimately raises concern over whether or not there is bias in the former.Light Bulb 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias would be if George W. Bush's infobox read "George Dubya Bush" or Cheney's read "Richard Sureshot Cheney". We'll simply have to agree to disagree, but thankfully this isn't a life or death decision; I've just removed dick from the infobox. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that there is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the name used in Template:Infobox Officeholder. This issue (the inconsistency) has been brought up before elsewhere. Even when all of the U.S. presidents and vice presidents are "fixed" to use one system, eventually it's changed by an unknowing editor. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name listed in Infobox  

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

message: I think recent revelations about the positions taken by Vice President Cheney regarding document classification, the national archives, executive privilege, etc. necessitate a section on Secrecy and Transparency.  Politics aside, the positions Cheney and his staff have taken on these issues are rather unique if not extreme, and represent a significant shift from recent administrations of both parties.
129.79.173.224 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate is quite real and serious I agree.  Making up silly unsourced jpgs, inserting them into an encyclopedia and then running off and giggling about them on fringe websites is vandalism.  While WIKI isn't a debate forum, nor a forum to breed "news blackout" conspiracy stories, Reliable Sourced (WP:RS) information about noteable Cheney events can and should included. Dman727 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheney's own office is fighting oversight efforts by Congress on the grounds that he supposedly is not part of the executive branch, so I would say this issue is legitimate. GrotesqueOldParty 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second article of the US Constitution says the VP is in the executive branch.  Since it's in the constitution, I don't know why anyone is surprised that Cheney is ignoring it.4.246.126.218 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's not ignoring it, he's usually busy despoiling it. GrotesqueOldParty 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The first article says the VP is a part of the legislative branch. The second article mentions the VP only as 'being elected with the President and presidential succession (later clarified by the 25th amendment). GoodDay 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well the second article also mentions the VP, concerning impeachment along with other government officials. GoodDay 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The debate as to whether Dick Cheney has indeed created a "fourth branch of government" is actually quite serious. People who believe that mainstream media are not reporting the real news have a legitimate complaint about the coverage of this issue -- because the leading blogs covered it but the mainstream media didn´t -- until Senator Henry Waxman started asking questions about Cheney´s alleged power grab, five months after Cheney quite visibly arrogated himself this power "[]. This news blackout may in part explain the eagerness of leading web news and opinions sites such as Democratic Underground to provide some coverage of this radical new change in US govt.
:The debate is quite real and serious I agree.  Making up silly unsourced jpgs, inserting them into an encyclopedia and then running off and giggling about them on fringe websites is vandalism.  While WIKI isn't a debate forum, nor a forum to breed "news blackout" conspiracy stories, Reliable Sourced (WP:RS) information about noteable Cheney events can and should included. Dman727 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheney's own office is fighting oversight efforts by Congress on the grounds that he supposedly is not part of the executive branch, so I would say this issue is legitimate. GrotesqueOldParty 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second article of the US Constitution says the VP is in the executive branch.  Since it's in the constitution, I don't know why anyone is surprised that Cheney is ignoring it.4.246.126.218 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's not ignoring it, he's usually busy despoiling it. GrotesqueOldParty 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first article says the VP is a part of the legislative branch. The second article mentions the VP only as 'being elected with the President and presidential succession (later clarified by the 25th amendment). GoodDay 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well the second article also mentions the VP, concerning impeachment along with other government officials. GoodDay 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The introduction asserts, without citation, that Cheney is "still a major stockholder" of Halliburton. I find that hard to believe. He took the trouble to put his stock options in an irrevocable trust, the proceeds of which will go to charity. It seems incredible that he (or his advisors) would be smart enough to take that precaution and yet stupid enough to own stock, let alone enough shares to be considered a "major stockholder." Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, a citation is needed.75.3.122.222 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, even assuming you're right, there is a difference between owning "$18 million in stock options" and being a "major shareholder." An owner of an option to purchase stock in the future is, by definition, not a "stockholder," and even if he held $18 million in Halliburton stock, that would not be a "major" share of the company's stock (market capitalization today is $31.8 billion). Second, the article documents with reliable sources that his Halliburton options have already been irrevocably assigned to a trust. Cheney no longer owns them. So, although "says he will" might be a little confusing, it doesn't mean what you say it does. Can someone with edit rights please remove the "major stockholder" claim or cite a reliable source? Thank you75.3.122.222 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the stockholder issue, but it doesn't say anywhere in the article that the assignment of the option is "irrevocable."  As Bill Frist's recent problems demonstrated, these "blind trusts" aren't always so blind.  Do you have actual knowledge of the mechanics of this particular trust?  Common sense says someone with a huge potential future interest in Halliburton has a conflict of interest when he also happens to be a warmongering VP.  Why exactly should anyone take Cheney's word on this matter?  Has he ever done anything to earn that sort of trust? GrotesqueOldParty 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, note that the stock options issue has nothing to do with the "blind trust" in which the Cheneys placed some of their assets. It is the Gift Trust Agreement that the stock options were assigned to. I have not been able to find a copy of the actual Gift Trust Agreement. Factcheck.org summarizes it at http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html and quotes it as stating that the transfer is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," but the factcheck.org link to the document is dead. If factcheck.org is a reliable source, we should cite it. I'm a brand new editor, so I can't make that change to the article yet.Lowell33 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You are correct. I'll fix it. - Crockspot 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Stockholder?

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

message: I don't see what the following sentence has to do with Cheney's "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President." Or with the article in general, for that matter.
"On May 17, 2006 Kiplinger's Personal Finance reported that, based on Cheney's financial disclosures, his '...financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.'"
Comments? Lowell33 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out-of-place Kiplingers citation

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

message: So he is so powerful and almighty that the "edit" has been removed from his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.102.193 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2007
:Nothing to do with Dick Cheney's power, actually. Due to the high level of vandalism this article receives, it is protected from editing by anonymous and new users. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate Dick? 

message: The external links to Comedy Central do not aid a reader's understanding of the Dick Cheney bio in any way. These links are perfect examples of everything listed under the links to be avoided section of Wikipedia:External links. They are not factually accurate and they do not provide an additional resource (remember this is a biography). Please stop adding them; remember, Wikipedia is not a link farm. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess links to puff pieces are just fine, but satire rubs you the wrong way. I think the link is a valid alternative view of Cheney and shows what a polarizing figure he is. GrotesqueOldParty 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What rubs me the wrong way are links that go against policy and guideline. If you actually watch the videos found at the removed links, they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. An "alternative view" is fine; suggesting that everything Cheney touches is automatically pixeled, including a foreign leader, is not. - auburnpilot talk 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called "humor."  There's plenty of it here on Wikipedia.  I suggest you simply don't like seeing this particular ox (and he is built like one) being gored. GrotesqueOldParty 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My person view of Cheney, which by the way you are not familiar with, is irrelevant to my edits. The links are inappropriate. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think I can guess, after looking at your own user/talk pages and seeing what your activities have been.  Let's just say I don't think you would have made the same decision (or even gotten involved) if we were talking about the Al Gore page. But perhaps I'm wrong.  I'm sure you can point to any number of deletions you've made on such non-right-wing pages. GrotesqueOldParty 03:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me introduce you to a few basic fundamental aspects of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Articles must maintain a neutral point of view, as do our editors. I edit articles that interest me, not ones that I wish to force my viewpoint upon. The assumption of good faith is something that you should extend to every editor. Nothing in my edits indicate otherwise. Etiquette is just good sense; be polite, treat others as you wish to be treated, and argue facts, not personalities. You can comment on me all you wish, but it just makes your argument look even less persuasive. "I like it" is not a valid argument. - auburnpilot talk 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That was not the e3xtent of my argument, of course.  I happen to think that how the Vice President is perceived and portrayed in our culture is significant, and that your decision has removed one very significant element of that perception.  I also have reviewed your editing history, and I'm not assuming bad faith - just making the judgment that you spend a very significant portion of your time as a defender of all things Bush. Please don't pretend that you're immune to bias yourself.  None of us are. GrotesqueOldParty 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have something to say related to this article, please do. However, I have no desire to justify my edits to you or anybody else. I've been editing for a long time, and no matter what my real life viewpoint is, I don't allow it to effect my edits. - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh.  And the insurgency was "in its last throes," and "Mission Accomplished," and Donald Rumsfeld did a heckuva job.  You don't have to be ashamed of your "real life viewpoint," you know, just because it has been shown to be a fiasco.  BTW, if you think my last comment above said nothing about the article, you're sorely mistaken.  It most certainly did.  The fact that the Vice President of the United States has become a figure of almost universal mockery and disgust is highly relevant and deserves a mention in any article about him. GrotesqueOldParty 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the deal, stop accusing editors of bias or you will be blocked from editing. I'm not ashamed of anything, and truthfully, you couldn't be further from the truth when it comes to my person views. You've been warned, now stop trolling. You will not continue to question my motives. - auburnpilot talk 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: First, I have no doubt that you, An unattributed source, are here to benefit the project. You've done great work so far, and if I've been rude to you, I apologize. I simply cannot stand for people to question my motives in such a blatantly false manner. Now, I understand that the Jon Steward videos are based in fact, but they just aren't presented in that same manner. I presume you watched them, and they are comedic performances, which take a great deal of liberty with the facts. I don't dispute the bases of the information, and the Washington Post series is a perfect addition to the article. The Comedy Central links simply do not present information in a factually accurate way that is expected of links within an encyclopedic article. - auburnpilot talk 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of those comments, including your implied characterization of Auburn's tactics.  In my short time on Wikipedia I've really been stunned at how often and easily threats are made (and carried out) by administrators.  Talk about a stifling effect on discussion, and what a disincentive for new people to contribute! GrotesqueOldParty 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the near-instant resort to threats on Wikipedia.  GrotesqueOldParty 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This section doesn't contain much in the way of real information about the attempted (and thus far utterly futile) rebuilding of Iraq.  It seems to be mistitled and in need of work.  Any ideas? GrotesqueOldParty 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it doesn't have any real information or discuss the topic in the heading. As it stands, it's probably better suited to move the information to the "Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President" section. Alternatively, simply indenting the heading and making it a subsection of the Halliburton header could work. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding of Iraq section 

message: Is it worth discussing his 'Treat as Secret/SCI' stampings and his huge safe? The removal of his properties from GOogle Earth and other map systems? ThuranX 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this article is that there is no true criticism section; it's just splattered throughout the article. This is the kind of thing would fit perfectly in such a section. As the article stands, I'm not sure where you'd put it, but so long as it is reliably sourced, I don't see any problem with mentioning this. To me, it seems a little trivial, but again, so long as its sourced. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what's funny?  This was just covered on the Jon Stewart rerun last night.  Perfect! GrotesqueOldParty 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secrecy/Privacy issues 

message: We forget to mention that Whittington was kind enough to apologize for all the trouble this caused Cheney and his family. I think it's worth mentioning, it shows that Whittington has integrity. Franky210 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that Whittington was terrified of Cheney, which is important to establish the nature of their relationship.  By all means include it.  Wercloud 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting Accident Apology 

message: The article says that Bush asked Cheney to run, but omits the common story that Cheney came out of his "search committee" with the recommendation that he himself should be Veep.  However, while this story is commonly repeated, a little googling doesn't show a reliable source.  Does anyone know whether there's a source for this assertion?  If there is, then the claim should be mentioned in the article.  --Andersonblog 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to find the sources, but as I recall, it's not that Cheney chose himself; it's that Bush picked Cheney after seeing his work on the committee. I'll try to find the articles, and hopefully they are still online. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent Time magazine article The Cheney Branch of Government states: "He was believed to be just what Bush needed: a chief operating officer who would give great advice, based on his years of experience, and who, because he had no ambitions for his boss's job, wouldn't have his own agenda.". Also, the CNN articles Bush picks Cheney for VP, Republican sources say and Bush, Cheney officially debut the full 2000 Republican presidential ticket say that although Bush had been considering Cheney for weeks, he was a late contender and Bush made the decision on his own. - auburnpilot talk 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who suggested Cheney for Veep? 

message: Just a quick suggestion, why don't we move all the 'negative' stuff (these sections in particular):
 3.8 Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President
 3.9 Rebuilding of Iraq
 3.10 CIA leak scandal
 3.11 Hunting incident
 3.12 Impeachment proceedings
 3.13 Ongoing assertion of Al-Qaeda/Saddam link
Over to Dick Cheyney Controversies as was done over at Al Gore (SEE: Al Gore controversies)?
Just trying to keep things consistent... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, Dick Cheney controversies.  Yes, that would be a good idea. Esn 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, lower case c would be better.... I'm one of those people that can't help themselves when it comes to caps.... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind... It seems like that would be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 09:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dick Cheyney Controversies"? 

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

message: Can this new released video of Cheney  in 1994 talking about Iraq and it becoming a quagmire if the US overthrew Saddam be linked to the article? Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think YouTube is generally regarded as a reliable source, sorry... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Er? Apparently there's no Criticism section in this article, which I find terribly odd, considering that this guy has a 27-33% approval rating. Somemone needs to break out the WikiScanner... -- Floaterfluss  (talk) (contribs)   18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. The whole article's basically the 'criticism section'.... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also noticed there is no mention of the hunting accident or the fact that he removed his home from Google Earth. WikisScanner would be a great idea. 71.89.8.194 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Don't get me wrong, this is funny and appropriate, in my opinion: "He also has many different hobbys like shooting guys in the face screwing over soldiers and have seizures or/and heart attacks."  The spelling and grammar really ought to be corrected, though.SarahMay222 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted as vandalism from a sleeper account. -- Gogo Dodo 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick's "hobbys" 

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

message: I modified this section yesterday; it included a rather drawn out discussion of the 'growing interest' in his daughter's homosexuality - references dated from 2004. it also mentioned her pregnancy - considering she's already had the baby, it's clearly out of date. furthermore, the discussion of the interest in her sexual orientation, same sex marriage issues, etc - this is all well and good, and could certainly be covered in the article - but it's in the wrong place in this section. it's POV pushing when it's supposed to simply be describing his early life and family. my edits were reverted; i've reverted them back. i can't see an NPOV justification for the discussion of her orientation being in that section. Anastrophe 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all comments above, now that you explain it like that. Sorry for the revert. It's obviously a relevant tidbit to mention, but up-to-date and in the right section, and NPOV and not drawn out. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually after looking at the article more closely, there's no other section where it might fit right now. It was during the 2004 re-election campaign that Mary's orientation and pregnancy became a public issue, and that campaign was not even mentioned in the article! I at least put in a "seealso" tag for it at the appropriate place - and restored an updated and trimmed-down mention of Mary's orientation, with the cites, in its old spot. In the longer term, there should be a new section added on the 2004 campaign, and maybe then this mention will fit better there. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life and family

message: if this were any other article, speculative additions could probably fly; with the amount of vandalism and POV here, i think not. so, do we have some evidence that they're using Photoshop? how do we know they're not using the GIMP? or Paint.net? wikipedia has an endemic disease of unsourced, uncited crap. a key characteristic of an encyclopedia is ACCURACY. unsourced additions don't help accuracy. call me a 'deletionist' if you want, but anything less than rigorous sourcing is unacceptable. Anastrophe 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even understand why the paragraph exists to begin with, and am happy to see you've removed it again. One comic's bit does not equate to "Public perception". The entire section is garbage, and should be renamed "popular culture" or something similar. It certainly doesn't describe public perception. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by McGrupp10799; I was trying to clean it up, and I agree completely with Anastrophe's trimming and comments above. But I do think leaving that in with the reference as is, is justified, as a representative, prominent, cited example of the large amount of public criticism, much of it cartoonish (but not irrelevant). - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think a rename to 'popular culture' or some such would do it better justice, as auburnpilot suggested. "public perception" is really a malaproprism. Anastrophe 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'as portrayed on the daily show'

message: Correction needed: The main article currently ends with a section that states "He often compares himself to Darth Vader. [96]" 
I cannot believe he would actually compare himself to Darth Vader so I read through the sited transcript of a CNN interview. He DOES NOT compare himself to Darth Vader - this should read: 
"Dick Cheney's critics compare him to Darth Vader and say he 'has become this dark, nefarious force in the administration that believes in secrecy at all price, that believes congressional oversight is a nuisance.' [96] He defends his low approval rating and un-popularity in the polls by stating that since he intends to leave office he has the luxury of doing what he feels is necessary and right for the nation and its security without worrying about re-election or popularity. [96]."
Could someone please fix this. Bshoemate 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard". - Crockspot 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public perception 

message: Just to clarify what NPOV is, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: 
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
    Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
--Jagz 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view (NPOV) 

message: This isn't a joke. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/pl_nm/usa_politics_cheney_obama_dc Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lynne Cheney's book promotion tour aside, is this really encyclopedic-level information? If you look at the Mareen Duvall Wikipedia entry, we must also conclude that Cheney is related to Harry Truman and Robert Duvall.  Should that be put into this article?  And it also means that Obama is related to Harry Truman and Robert Duvall; should that be put into the article about him?  I believe the entire Bush family is related to the Queen Elizabeth (less distantly in fact), but I don't think that is included in the George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush articles.  You have to draw the line somewhere with what is basically trivia, IMHO. An unattributed source 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between Harry Truman, Robert Duvall, the Bush's, and QE2, is: they are not running for president, basically against their rival administration. It deserves ONE small sentence: "XYZ is distant cousins to ABC, DEF, & GHI." w/REF. This is slightly more important right now, because one man is V.P. in a highly critical presidency, and the second is seen as "the savior" by some against that presidency. So, yes, it is worth a mention. But we should 1) not elaborate; & 2) keep it encyclopedic, short, sweet, to the point, and attributed. 3) It would be nice if was included with other important relatives. WikiDon 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's trivia. eighth cousins are incredibly far removed from each other, as this trivia highlights. Anastrophe 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is included in the notes - more than that would be giving it more weight than it's worth.  The connection is distant and not even well-verified, if you look closely at the sources. Tvoz |talk 07:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the logic of putting that sentence  into the text randomly as was just done? It has nothing whatever to do with his attendance at a Methodist Church, but does have something tangentially to do with his parents, his ancestry, where the footnotes are -  Society of Dog Lovers and WikiDon just ignored the footnotes that are  already there  and added one which is a duplicate of the Reuters source cited at note 3 - that is sloppy editing.  Do you now think this very minor point is worth two mentions?   WP:FN says "Footnotes are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail."  This is a classic case for that. I suggest that at most we leave this as footnotes to the parents and remove the extraneous mention in the text. Tvoz |talk 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A strange photograph of his dogs:  --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dick Cheney and Obama are cousins

message: Are there other people who find it odd that almost the entire public perception section is focused on comparing him to Darth Vader? This doesn't seem to accurately summarize the matter. If one were to survey media coverage and public commentary about him, I don't think they'd find this is the predominating theme. Perhaps there could be more attention to what the overall sentiment has been from the public, instead of referring to an episode of "The Daily Show". Thoughts on this? Kellenwright 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it needs to be expanded, but every time I try to work on the article, it gets reverted. So, feel free to expand the section. Just have and cite reliable-credible sources. ~ WikiDon 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i actually lean towards elimination of 'public perception' sections. "public perception" is bollocks, unless you've got an accurate sampling of every person on earth. otherwise, it's just an open door to subtle and not-so-subtle POV-pushing. to quote Galliffet, 'the public is an idiot'...Anastrophe 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you on that Anastrophe. But assuming we are keeping it, I'm curious, stepping back even from the darth vader dynamic, what is the reasoning for the whole section consisting only of pop culture's perception? Shouldn't this be under a pop culture section? This is a matter of quality, and it just doesn't seem sufficient in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. Kellenwright (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Perception and Darth Vader 

message: Please mention Cheney's September 2000 publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is only fair that this publication is mentioned since it details many aspects of the current administration's agenda. A fair and balanced article on VP Richard B. Cheney would include this document.
Tom Laverty II 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see section 3.6. it is already covered. Anastrophe 07:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hello, Tlaverty. You're welcome to edit this article, from what little I know. -Susanlesch 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuilding America's Defenses