Talk:Dick Cheney/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reaction by others

First off, I combined the section with "Public perception" as they were two very similarly titled sections.

Secondly, it's not very NPOV to have Jimmy Carter bashing Cheney with no response from the other side presented. Who is Jimmy Carter to be saying this anyway why is this quote important? What does it add to the article but a critical acclaim by Carter (who, after his presidency, shouldn't be criticizing anyone in my opinion), and Carter doesn't have any insight into what's going on in the White House? I say either remove the quotes entirely, or give some sort of balance. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought this article was awful. Anything you want to do to improve it, you have my support. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you. I've already fixed up some formatting but it could use a facelift. Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'public perception' section contains a factual inaccuracy. When Cheney went to BYU in 2007 Gordon B Hinckley was not the university president. Rather, he was the chairmen of the board of trustees and acted in that role because he was the president of the LDS church. Cecil Samuelson was the university president at the time of Cheney's visit. This should be corrected. (--Dc387 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Woah. The public aproval ratings as listed don't jive. Dick Cheney has had aproval ratings as low as 13 percent. Even acounting for averaged in the 2006 and 2007 years he has had an aproval rating lower than Bush's. Far lower. This is clearly been chosen selectively. Dick Cheney is one of the least popular political figures of our times and that is something that must be shown objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielCanada (talk • contribs) 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Readiness for GA status?

I've looked over this article for a possible GA review. In doing so, there are a few areas that seem to be missing citations. I believe that this is easily remediable, so I'm mentioning this now. Examples include:

• Early White House appointments (2 para)

 Done - will try to add more as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Votes (1 para)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Early tenure (does the citation also apply to the last sentence?)

 Done - yes. Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• US and world reaction (1rst para has a quote)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Aftermath (1 para)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• 2000 Election (1 para)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disclosure of documents (1 para, does the last sentence have a citation?)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hunting incident (quote is unreferenced here)

 Done - removed quote. Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Future as Vice President (1 para)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Health problems (2nd para--last sentence)

 Done - this is cited with all the refs below it. It pretty much generalizes what comes after it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you find these suggestions useful. I'll check back in and consider a review. In the meantime, I encourage article nominators to pick out something that they'd like to review. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been working extensively on this article over the past week and a half, cleaning it up and expanding it. It can use more cites, and I will begin working on those. I do feel it is ready for GA status, and doing this will push it over the edge. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have completed the recommended tasks. Would you consider proceeding into a full-on review? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stability

One of the criteria for a GA review is stability. I would like to watch the tenor of edits for a while to see whether there is a consensus on the emerging content. I note that the article is closed to non-registered editors. I assume that it has been subject to vandalism—not legitimate dissent. Vandalism, of course, shouldn't count as a measurement of stability, since it does not involve referenced counterpoints.

While I agree that the 00:31, 23 December 2007 edit by User:Mantion needed a citation and should have been discussed in Talk:Dick Cheney, I might have done a quick Google search to see whether a citation was readily available and whether the item was a worthy update.

Why don't we see how other users have responded by the New Year? That should give a sense of stability. Sincerey,--User:HopsonRoad 13:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been plenty stable. I think this is the least of our worries and I do not feel it is necessary to wait until New Year's on the grounds of stability only. I have also readded that sentence added by User:Mantion and cited it. --Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a looksee after Christmas with a goal of completion by New Year's.--User:HopsonRoad 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a deal. Happyme22 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Statements and Positions

I don't know quite how to recommend handling some of the Vice President's controversial statements. Without some summary or mention of such statements, I'm concerned that the article may appear to be a "puff piece," although I know that you've gone to great lengths to provide balance. I'll leave you an example in the attached subsection. I'm sure that someone following Mr. Cheney more closely could find more significant examples. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent support of Waterboarding and White House Denial

Cheney endorses simulated drowning Gardian Mark Tran Friday October 27, 2006 Guardian Unlimited The use of a form of torture known as waterboarding to gain information is a "no-brainer", the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, told a radio interviewer, it was reported today.

Cheney endorses simulated drowning—Says use of water boarding to get terrorist intelligence is ‘no brainer’ Financial Times By Demetri Sevastopulo updated 6:04 p.m. ET, Thurs., Oct. 26, 2006 WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney, US vice-president, has endorsed the use of "water boarding" for terror suspects and confirmed that the controversial interrogation technique was used on Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior al-Qaeda operative now being held at Guantánamo Bay.

Snow: Cheney doesn’t support ‘water boarding’—White House denies vice president’s radio interview championed torture updated 1:56 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 27, 2006 WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer."

I'll take a look at those in a little bit. It sounds as if it would be contradicting statements, not so much controversial. Happyme22 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually controversy involves contradiction between parties, although contradiction may not involve controversy. I was merely trying to illustrate an instance where something the Vice President said drew attention, criticism and defense. I expect that there are many examples, some of them apocryphal, that could be found (e.g. with Google), sampled, and reported. If there are many statements and criticisms of them on a given topic, then a summary of the issue could be rendered, as I believe you have done with respect to his position of support on the Iraq war. Other cases may just be a spike in notoriety/notability, as with the question of water boarding. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

After your explanation I think this example merits inclusion, possibly in the "public perception" section. It appears to only be one example, so I can create an "umbrella sentence", if you will, stating that there have been controversial (and contradicting) statements made by Cheney and the White House and use this as an example. I will get on that in a little bit. Thanks for the prompt. Happyme22 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added it in the newly redone "public perception" section. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Note about a deletion

I will re-send this invitation by way of the White House Web site, along with my present best understanding of how to deal with the lack of response to a good faith invitation. Mr. Cheney (again, it may be that you and your staff don't monitor this page, sorry for the error if so). I was hoping for a barnstar, oh well. Happy holidays. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of approval ratings with Harry Reid

I don't see the relevance of the comparison of Cheney's approval ratings with Reid's in Dick Cheney#Public perception. I see that at your source there's a reference to a quip by Reid and a rejoinder in the headline. However, the following issues arise:

• Cheney's positive is 25, whereas his negative is 68, compared with Reid's positive of 22 and negative of 52; so, the positives are similar and Cheney's negatives are much worse.
• Both should be rated by their constituencies: Cheney's is national; Reid's is his home state.
• Cheney's approval rating would best be compared with past vice presidents at the same point of time in office.

I recommend either dropping the comparison or putting in a comparison with previous VPs at the same time in office. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually found Al Gore's approval rating from January 31, 1999 here. Considering that Clinton's term ended two years later, and Cheney only has about a year to go, this comparison might be beneficial. Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This Washington Post article from a couple years back compares Cheney's then 18% approval rating with a number of public figures, noting only Paris Hilton as having a lower one (but not OJ, MJ, etc.) Also, American Research Group polls from last summer and this month both found that a majority of Americans, of Democrats, and of Independents believed that Cheney had committed impeachable offenses. The findings of those polls could be presented in a number of ways; some version should probably be included. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though the two polls are at different times and we don't know what questions were asked, I feel that it's a more apt comparison VP to VP, as long as the reader can find the source of each and the different times in the term are noted. I'd report both the positive and negative numbers, if possible.--User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

public opinion polls aren't terribly notable for the most part, i would think. now, if people were asked "whose sex tape was more offensive, dick cheney's or paris hilton's?", then you might be on to something. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, compare to the other VP. Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point with the disaproval ratings. I searched google and yahoo and wasn't able to find any of Gore's disapproval ratings, which, acccording to User:Wasted Time R at a discussion here historians use both the positive and negative ratings. Teechnically, it would not be a true comparison unless Gore's disapproval ratings are compared with those of Cheney. Is it better just to abandon the idea? Happyme22 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you've been diligent in looking for comparisons with Gore. For now, I think it's sufficient to have dropped the apples/oranges comparison with Reid. I didn't find any discussion of ratings in the Al Gore article, although I feel that it would be appropriate there, too.

As to approval and disapproval ratings, I feel that both are important and allow one to infer the size of the "don't know" category. I believe that your current references allow you to do that. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence about it in public perception. Please tweak or fix if necessary. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought...it says that the end of Al Gore's term was 1999, but wasn't it 2001 technically? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article actually says, "...Al Gore, had a 64% approval rating in January 1999, two years before the end of his term." The idea was to provide parallel statistics with the 2007 numbers for Cheney two years before his term ended. When the VP's term ends, then the article can be updated with summary statistics.--User:HopsonRoad 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopson, at the time Jed Bartlet made his comment, the article was incorrect and said that Gore's term ended in 1999. It has since been fixed. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Precedents for not seeking nomination

I added the following sentence to the subsection discussing Cheney's retirement plans:

He will be the first vice president under a second term president not to win the presidential nomination for his party since Alben W. Barkley in 1952, and the first one not to seek the nomination since Thomas R. Marshall in 1920.

User:Anastrophe. removed that sentence claiming that it is prognostication and also stating that "the first contention is invalid".

Regarding the prognostication label - this seems like a foregone conclusion falling under rule 1 of the crystal ball policy WP:CRYSTAL. I also do not understand what is "invalid" about the contention that all vice presidents under second term presidents since Barkley won their party's nomination.

Anyone care to opine/explain? --Drono (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not start by finding a citation? It's probably true, but there is no way to know without a cite. Happyme22 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia does not speculate even on 'foregone conclusions'. first, it is not an event, rather it is a non-event. he has stated his intentions, it's likely he will remain true to his intentions, but politicians have been known to backtrack. heck, it was barely two years ago that barack obama said that he had no plans to run for president. regarding the invalid contention - you cannot say that someone will be the first "not to win" if they don't run in the first place. by this logic, i could say that i didn't win the 2004 olympic decathlon; neither did i win the illinois lottery. both contentions are true, but both are irrational, as i participated in neither. Anastrophe (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the possibility that Cheney will make a run for the presidential nomination, I find that no more likely than the possibility that the Beijing games will not take place (the example given in WP:CRYSTAL). I guess your opinion may differ, but I don't see why your opinion is important enough to unilaterally erase the sentence.

As for invalidity of "not to win": as I see it, it is your position that is illogical. If A (winning the nomination) implies B (making a bid), then accepting the fact that ~B does not mean that ~A is "invalid" or "irrational". Besides, the point is clearly about precedents. There are two precedents discussed - one for ~A and one for not ~B. Both are of interest.

By the way, I have no particular axe to grind here. I thought that these are bits of information which would be of interest to people perusing the encyclopedia (mainly because I find them interesting, but see for example [8]). If most people think that there is no room for those facts, I would accept that. What I don't accept is that a single editor sees fit to censor me based solely on his personal opinion. --Drono (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

it's not censorship when another editor removes unsourced contentions from an article. it's not censorship when an editor removes an addition on a policy basis. this is wikipedia, not a city council meeting, please don't conflate 'editorial disagreement in a consensus driven arena' with 'censorship' - doing so is uncivil, as you're suggesting i have some sort of undue power in the matter. i stand by my contention that it is illogical to suggest that cheney will be the first 'not to win', if he never runs, per the examples i provided. the link you cite in support of your position....doesn't (nowhere does it suggest he'll be the first to 'not win'). we're talking about a potential future status. it will be an interesting bon mot a year from now. if it's properly sourced, relevant, and constructed rationally.Anastrophe (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it is you who is being uncivil. You have reverted an entire edit simply because you - and as far as we know, you alone - think it is a few months premature, and because you - again, you alone - judge part of it to be logically problematic. Doing so without discussing the matter first or suggesting a more suitable way to convey the information is uncivil, and is an attempt at censorship. By the way, (1) I provided the link to demonstrate that the information I provided is of interest, (2) referring to factual information as "bon mot" is also rather rude. --Drono (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm baffled by your hostility. editors are reverted all the time. i've been reverted countless times; i've reverted others countless times. this is wikipedia. as it states on every 'editing' page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.". i provided examples that clearly show your wording to be illogical. if you can provide some counterpoint - articulated, not simply an attempt at a symbolic logical syllogism - i'll happily entertain it. i meant no offense with the term 'bon mot' - i don't understand how one would take offense, but that's beside the point. your addition is a speculative factoid. as an encyclopedia, trivia is discouraged, and particularly speculative trivia. it doesn't belong in the biography article for dick cheney, certainly not now, and certainly not as worded. i repeat that there is no censorship - this is also another illogical contention, so i think further discourse on this matter will not be fruitful. Anastrophe (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Edited mercilessly" is one thing, "eliminated" is another. If our opinions differ, and we each see fit to simply over-rule the other's edits, all that results is a fruitless edit-war. Whoever is more persistent wins. That's hardly a way to run a collaborative effort. Obviously, I don't see your "examples" as "clearly showing" anything relevant. We disagree - you see fit to impose your ideas without any attempt to reach a compromise. Then, you call me hostile. Hmmmm. --Drono (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drono, I have to agree with Anastrophe about what to expect when one edits Wikipedia. It's easy to take reversals personally or to feel singled out, but that's how the system works. I might suggest that you could achieve the point of interest that you were trying to highlight by including something like, "Historically, X of Y vice presidents have run for the presidency upon the retirement of the head of their ticket and C of B vice presidents have succeeded their former running mate either by election or by constitutional succession due to death or other cause.(Citation)" This would go after "Since 2001, when asked if he is interested in the Republican presidential nomination, Cheney has said he wishes to retire to private life after his term as Vice President expires.[59]" Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal matter with me. It is just that Anastrophe's conduct is no way to resolve a disagreement. As for your suggestion - I don't see it as qualitatively different from what I wrote. If Anastrophe or you would like to change (rather than eliminate) what I wrote to this new phrasing, I will probably have no problem with that. --Drono (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I blinked, but I didn't see anything that either of you did wrong in your discourse. Edit summaries and talk page discussions are both rife media for misunderstandings and disagreements where they wouldn't cause a ripple in face-to-face discussion. I don't personally have the level of commitment necessary to fill in the "X of Y" or the "C of B" with the necessary citations. I was merely making a suggestion as a way to avoid an impasse. My suggestion was to enable the perspective that Drono was trying to contribute without the logical contradiction that Anastrophe was objecting to. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any misunderstanding here. Anastrophe reverted my edit based on certain opinions of his, without trying to either reach a middle ground or find out whether his opinions are the common view. I am just as sure of my opinions as he is of his. If I responded by doing what he did, we would be constantly reverting each other's edits. How can such a situation be seen as acceptable? --Drono (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment: Dick Cheney

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Reviewed by: User:HopsonRoad 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   -The article required signficant word-smithing while on "hold." It would benefit from more polishing to reach WP:FA status.

   B. MoS compliance:

   -This reviewer didn't find any significant MOS issues.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   -The use of sources is appropriate. Most statements are sourced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   -The addition of the Washington Post series on Cheney contributed essential substance to the article. To reach WP:FA status, material from books on Cheney's vice presidency would be appropriate.

   C. No original research:

   -There is no apparent original research in the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   -The addition of corroborated material from the Washington Post series on Cheney provided necessary information on Cheney's behind-the-scenes influence, his influence on tax policy and on environmental policy that were previously missing. These topics should be expanded upon to reach WP:FA status.

   B. Focused:

   -Each sub-topic represents adequate focus.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   -The article initially had the appearance of "sugar-coating" the topic. The editors were earnest in their effort to achieve balance. This Discussion page reveals that reviewers questioned the NPOV quality of some material, especially that in the Washington Post series. However, this appears to be accepted. Clearly, the topic arouses strong opinions pro and con the vice president, which are challenging to restrain in contributing to the topic.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   -Thanks to good use of this Discussion page, the issues in editing the article have been discussed beforehand and the article appears to be stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   -The images are primarily from government sources and appropriately tagged.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   -The images could be better tied to the topic in which they are found to qualify for WP:FA status.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   -The article meets GA criteria, but is vulnerable to POV editing and bears vigilance to assure that essential aspects don't go missing or are compromised.

1: Is it reasonably well written?

A: The following style issues could be improved.
Throughout

• There are probably too many trivia items, like the type of shotgun that Cheney used, whether the building named in his honor is the one of a few named after living persons, weapon systems, etc.
  

 Done - The type of shotgun is probably trivia, but I would disagree with the building named in honor of a living person, as that is notable. I changed the caption, though. Happyme22 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lede

• Does the sentence, “Under Vice President Cheney, the office of the vice presidency has grown in size, as he remains a very public and controversial figure,” refer to the powers of the vice president or to the size of his staff? “Vice presidency” is an abstract term, referring to the powers or span of the office; “vice president” refers to the individual.

 Done - I have no idea, and I think it would be better to remove it altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early life and family

• If properly referenced (see 2), “Mary is one of her father's top campaign aides and closest confidantes; she currently lives in Great Falls, Virginia with her longtime partner, Heather Poe” should be reworded to read something like, “Mary has been one of her father's top campaign aides and is one of his closest confidantes; she currently lives in Great Falls, Virginia with her longtime partner, Heather Poe.”

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early White House appointments

• If properly referenced (see 2), ”In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld successfully pushed for William Colby to be replaced by George H. W. Bush as the Director of Central Intelligence, forging what would become a long-term relationship with the future president” appears to be unreferenced” might be re-worded as ”In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld successfully pushed for Ford to replace William Colby with George H. W. Bush as the Director of Central Intelligence, establishing Cheney's long-term relationship with that future president.”

 Done - I have removed it, for I cannot find a citation. I hope you understand that much of this uncited and poor information came before I began working on this article, and I either didn't catch it or didn't remove it because I did not want to get into any edit wars with any prominent editors of the article (and it turns out there weren't any). My appologies. Happyme22 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense—Budgetary practices

• Is too long and detailed regarding specific weapon systems. Describe and substantiate what he was trying to accomplish during his tenure philosophically with the new mix of materiel and personnel beyond cutting the budget.
  

I have cut out much of the specific weapons systems info. The basic idea of Cheney's economic policies was to downsize the military and the policies were based on that and ultimately reflected much of it. Is that better? Happyme22 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Public perception

• Should summarize both “approve” and “disapprove” numbers, found at http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070718bi.gif. This allows the reader to infer the “no opinion.”

 Done - incorporated into the text. Happyme22 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

B: The following MoS issues should be addressed.
Throughout

• MoS Capital letters—Titles states the following

• When used as titles (that is, followed by a name), items such as president, king and emperor start with a capital letter: President Clinton, not president Clinton. The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun: Hirohito was Emperor of Japan….
• When used generically, such items are in lower case: De Gaulle was a French president
• For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see Honorific prefixes.

Check to confirm proper use of “President” & “Vice President” vs. “president” & “vice president” throughout.

 Done - I'm pretty sure I got them all. Happyme22 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

2: Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

B: The following references are problematical:
-  Done all referencing problems fixed. Happyme22 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Early life and family

• Reference 4 does not appear to support “He subsequently started, but did not finish, doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.” Either substantiate or delete.

 Done - added cite. Happyme22 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early life and family— Marriage and children

• Reference 10 does not appear to support “Mary is one of her father's top campaign aides and closest confidantes.” It does support “she currently lives in Great Falls, Virginia with her longtime partner, Heather Poe.” Either substantiate or delete the first phrase.

 Done I cannot find a citation for it (see my comments regarding poor info above) so I have deleted it. Happyme22 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 12 does not appear to support “Cheney attends the United Methodist Church. According to Lynne Cheney's genealogical research, Cheney and Senator Barack Obama are eighth cousins.” Either substantiate or delete.

 Done - I wanted to delete that from the start. Talk about trivia... Happyme22 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the "cousins" deletion, according to my family tree I am closer kin to either one of them than they are to each other and am directly descended from the Arundel line, calculations show nearly everybody in the USA is within eight cousins of each other, and actually closer to the Tudor dynasty than the Windsors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.51.108 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam War draft

• Reference 13 quotes the Washington Post, which quotes Cheney as saying "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." If possible quote the WP directly. If not, since many other sources have the same quotation, leave it as it is.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early White House appointments

• ”In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld successfully pushed for William Colby to be replaced by George H. W. Bush as the Director of Central Intelligence, forging what would become a long-term relationship with the future president” appears to be unreferenced.

 Done - removed, see above Happyme22 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• “Cheney was campaign manager for Ford's 1976 Presidential Campaign, while James Baker served as Campaign Chairman” appears to be unreferenced.

 Done - found a cite; it's not a very strong one, but it's there. Happyme22 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congress

• ”The Dick Cheney Federal Building in Casper, Wyoming, is one of only two U.S. federal buildings named for a living person” appears to be unreferenced, but see 6, below.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• “In 1978, Cheney was elected to represent Wyoming in the U.S. House of Representatives …. The following year, he was elected House Minority Whip” appears to be unreferenced.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congress—Votes

• Reference 16, supporting “Among the many votes he cast during his tenure in the House, he voted in 1979 with the majority against making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, and again voted with the majority in 1983 when the measure passed” is a quotation from this Wikipedia article and therefore can’t be used as a citation!

 Done - oops! Happyme22 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 21 does not appear to support “He also opposed unilateral sanctions against Communist Cuba, but later in his career he would support multilateral sanctions against Iraq.” Either substantiate or delete.

 Done - removed it. Happyme22 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 25 does not appear to support “…that a ‘cabal of zealots’ in the administration who had ‘disdain for the law’ had violated the statute.” Either substantiate or delete.

 Done - removing. This is more crap that I probably didn't catch. Sorry, Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• ”As a Wyoming Representative, he was also known for his vigorous advocacy of the state's petroleum and coal businesses” appears to be unreferenced.

 Done - reworded and cited. Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense

• Reference 26 does not appear to support “In 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for ‘preserving America's defenses at a time of great change around the world.’” Either substantiate or delete.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense —Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

• ”An estimated 140,000 Iraqi troops quickly took control of Kuwait City and moved on to the Saudi Arabia/Kuwait border.” appears to be unreferenced.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Private sector career

• Reference 43 should link to http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm, instead of http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 44 does not show Cheney to be a signatory to the letter, so “One of the PNAC's positions involved urging the United States to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq, using ‘diplomatic, political and military efforts’” should be removed.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President—2000 Election

• Reference 47 does not appear to support the sentence, “The independently financed transition office worked to fill all important Cabinet-level and sub-Cabinet level positions.”

 Done - since it's already cited with 46, we can just use that. Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President—First term

• Reference 49 appears to be simply a photo and a caption Cheney returning from the “undisclosed location” and does not appear to support the sentence, “For a period Cheney was not seen in public, remaining in an undisclosed location and communicating with the White House via secure video phones.” Please find a more suitable reference to support that post-9/11 period.

 Done - found the "undisclosed location" part, but not the video link part, so i removed that. Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President—Disclosure of documents

• Reference 59 does not appear to support the phrase, “Cheney directed the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).” Please find a reference that does.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 60 does not appear to support the sentences beginning and ending, “Cheney directed the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG)[59] commonly known as the Energy task force…. The NEPDG's report contains several chapters, covering topics such as environmental protection, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy security.” Please find references that do.

 Done - again, this is either poor or made up info. I've removed it. Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence, “After Congressman Rahm Emanuel threatened to attempt to cut off $4.8 million in executive branch funding from Cheney's office, the office stated that Cheney will not pursue any type of arrangement separate from the executive branch” needs a citation.

 Done - see above. Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President—CIA leak scandal

• Reference 63 does not appear to support the sentence, “On October 18, 2005, The Washington Post reported that the Vice President's office was central to the investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal…. On October 28, Libby was indicted on five felony counts.” Please find a reference that does.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President—Hunting incident

• Use reference 66 to cover the sentence-paragraph, “On February 11, 2006, Cheney accidentally[66] shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets from a Perazzi shotgun when he turned to shoot a quail while hunting on a southern Texas ranch.” Reference 67 is commentary. The type of shotgun does not contribute to the article.

As for as I know, commentary can be cited as long as the facts you are looking for are included in it. I've removed the gun, so  Done. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase, “Lewis Black's HBO comedy special Red, White, & Screwed” has no reference.

 Done - trivial; I've removed it. Happyme22 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President— Alleged assassination attempt

• Reference 83 appears to be a dead link. Pleas find a different reference to support, “The cause for Cheney's visit to the region had been to press Pakistan for a united front against the Taliban.”

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Health problems

• Reference 85 is a dead link, please find another to support the paragraph, “As Vice President, Cheney is cared for by the White House Medical Group….[85] He has undergone a number of operations during his tenure.”

 Done - found a cite; as for the number of operations phrase: I added that as a generalization of what was about to come, which was a list of all of Cheney's Vice Presidential operations. Technically, it's common sense. Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented out the George Fuller reference. It was dead before and is dead now. Shouldn't it be removed?--User:HopsonRoad 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 86 is a dead link, please find another to support the sentence, “In 2001, a Holter monitor disclosed brief episodes of (asymptomatic) ectopy. An electrophysiologic study was performed, at which Cheney was found to be inducible. An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was therefore implanted in his left upper anterior chest.”

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reference, supporting, "In 2001, a Holter monitor disclosed brief episodes of (asymptomatic) ectopy. An electrophysiologic study was performed, at which Cheney was found to have an unsteady and potentially fatal heartbeat." really is only appropriate to the sentence following. That's a lot of detail to have arrived without a reference. If we can't find one, it should be deleted.--User:HopsonRoad 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Located in "Dr. Zebra" reference.--User:HopsonRoad 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Public perception

• Reference 89 does not have a proper citation format.

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 90 does not appear to support the phrase, “in addition to his office in the West Wing, his ceremonial office in the Old Executive Office Building, and his Senate offices (one in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and another off the floor of the Senate).” Please find an appropriate reference.

 Done - reordered, as the one from CNN says the House and Senate offices. Found two more cites for the other two. Happyme22 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3: Is it broad in its coverage?

• The article is appropriately broad, but too detailed in the Secretary of Defense—Budgetary practices section.

see above. Happyme22 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

4: Is it neutral?

• The article is apparently NPOV.
  • Why should an article about such a controversial, and recognized ass be neutral? **

Is Hitler's entry neutral? Benedict Arnold's? Sadam's?

You people are insane. Dick Cheney isn't anything like those who you have listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.42.23 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well considering this discussion took place over two months ago, and hasn't changed that much since then, I'd say the article is pretty neutral. Try not to include your own POV in these discussions, though. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • An understandable question, in principle. A quick review of Adolf Hitler gives an example of how someone who is widely reviled receives a neutral article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia philosophy. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 02:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

5: Is it stable?

• The article is apparently stable.
  • Question: Is calling it stable appropriate when it's semi-protected? To me that looks like an indicator of recent instability. But I don't know the story of how that happened. -Pete (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a very public controversial figure, Cheney's article was protected quite a while back, as well as that of President George W. Bush, because of rampant vandalism. There has not been any rampant vandalism at least for the past two mothns; that indicates that the article is stable and the semi-protection only ensures that. I would also like to point out that Ronald Reagan, a featured article is protected due to vandalism, but it is stable because there has not been a lot of vandalism. Happyme22 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this criteria refers to the stability of the content of the article. Wikipedia:What is a good article? states that vandalism is not included in the determination of whether or not an article is stable. - auburnpilot talk 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

6: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

B: The following suggestions pertain to images.
Congress

• ”The Dick Cheney Federal Building in Casper, Wyoming, is one of only two U.S. federal buildings named for a living person” is more trivia than encyclopedia entry, it should probably read simply ”The Dick Cheney Federal Building in Casper, Wyoming.”

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Public perception

• I recommend using the graphic found at http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070718bi.gif under “Fair Use” to save a lot of verbiage in this section. It’s clearly an Excel file, so the image could also be recreated, using the data shown.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea how to do that. Although it would be beneficial, I would actually hold off on a chart of his ratings until the Bush presidency is over. Cheney's approval ratings will likely change in the upcoming year, and a new graph would be required at that time. Again, I would not include a graph until the end of Cheney's vice presidential tenure. Happyme22 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. You could try doing something bulletized, e.g.:

• Fall 2001: X Approve Y Disapprove
• Fall 2002: X Approve Y Disapprove

, etc. or a table to the same effect that could be added on to. The idea is to present the trend clearly. You can note any polls that disagree significantly from the one that you choose. Sincere,--User:HopsonRoad 14:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would go for a chart, like on the Ronald Reagan page in the "legacy" section. I can do that, but I don't think it's a major thing holding this article back from GA. Happyme22 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The main idea is to make it easy for the reader to follow. I'll see what you elect to do. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

7: Overall

• The article is within reach of GA status, since many of these concerns can be readily remedied. I believe, however, that the volume of issues precludes holding the article. Please let me know if assistance or elaboration is needed.

Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 02:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. As most of the problems seem to be citations, I would have found it better if the article had been placed on hold for one week, allowing me to finish all the recommendations rather than it be failed immediately. I hope to be finished with these in the upcoming few days. Happyme22 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we can reverse that, if you feel that you can address the issues in the time frame that you suggest. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot! I'll continue to work on these. --Happyme22 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now "On hold" and registered as such at the nomination page. Thank you for your dedication to improving Wikipedia! Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review follow-up

• I note that Happyme completed the punch-list before the deadline, so I'll be completing the GA review in the next few days. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have been doing wordsmithing up to the section on Private sector career. I've been tightening up the language and making the references in the vertical Template:Citation format. Please look over the work, so far, and make sure that I haven't changed the intent of previous editing or made silly errors, typos, etc. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why did you choose the vertical format over the horizontal one? In my opinion, the horizontal is much easier to edit. Happyme22 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The vertical format is much easier to see that the references are Wiki-compliant. I've found quite a few that are not, which I missed before. I agree that it's at best a toss-up to follow the continuity of text in between, but the article is approaching stability, so that becomes less of an issue. Also, one can keep a tab open with the article for smooth reading and a tab open where one is editing, as well as using "Show preview" before finalizing an edit. I hope that's OK. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have completed extensive editing and fact-checking. I propose that the article receive proof-reading and other review for a week, before I decide on its GA status. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have passed the article after considerable work on improving the writing and repair of the references. I passed it on the basis of including the material covered by the Washington Post series that another reviewer pointed out was missing. Please consider the comments made at the top of this subsection in the review checklist. The article could be further strengthened by including the analysis from books that are published on the Cheney vice presidency. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq, al-Qaeda, and 9/11

I've twice corrected the statement that Cheney had said that Iraq and al-Qaeda had ties before 9/11, as the references have not supported such a statement. Cheney has said that Iraq and al-Qaeda had ties before the invasion of Iraq, which statements are clearly supported by the current references. There's a significant difference in implication between the two statements. Claiming without support that Cheney has said there were ties before 9/11 is an attempt at smearing Cheney, and the article cannot be considered NPOV if such a statement stands. Argyriou (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new subsection on "Policy formulation"

I suggest that the first two paragraphs be moved from "Public perception" to a new, concluding subsection under "Vice President." The new subsection would read:

Policy formulation

Both supporters and detractors of Cheney point to his reputation as a shrewd and knowledgeable politician who knows the functions and intricacies of the federal government. One sign of Cheney's active policy-making role is the fact that the House Speaker Dennis Hastert gave him an office near the House floor in addition to his office in the West Wing, his ceremonial office in the Old Executive Office Building, and his Senate offices (one in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and another off the floor of the Senate).

Cheney has actively promoted an expansion of the powers of the presidency, saying that the Bush administration’s challenges to the laws which Congress passed after Vietnam and Watergate to contain and oversee the executive branch — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the War Powers Resolution — are, in Cheney's words, “a restoration, if you will, of the power and authority of the president.” (End new section)

See references at References on this page

The "Public perception" section could start with: In the beginning of the Bush administration, Cheney's public opinion polls were more favorable than unfavorable. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, both Bush's and Cheney's approval ratings skyrocketed, with Cheney reaching 63% and the president with 90%. The numbers for both figures have steadily declined since that period, however....

Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Anything you can do to improve the article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2000 Election

I have removed the line: "Uncomfortable with the "rope line" receptions of "retail politics" during the campaign, Cheney had a very collegial television debate with Democratic vice-presidential nominee Senator Joseph Lieberman, in stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates," because it is unreferenced and doesn't really say much. I'm replacing it with: "Cheney ran against Al Gore's running mate, Joseph Lieberman in the 2000 presidential election." This area could be developed a bit further with better material. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image

I removed the following image from the War on terrorism section, because it did not illustrate the narrative: [[Image:CHENEYMID.jpg|thumb|right|Cheney meets with Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh [[Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah]] to deliver condolences on the death of the [[Emir of Kuwait]] in 2006.]] Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly alright. If they are not major changes (as this one was not) feel free to be bold and remove it without notifying us here. But thanks :) --Happyme22 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name?

While I've heard the correct pronunciation of "Cheney" discussed on television, I've been unable to locate an authoritative source. Since a citation is needed for the first reference, can anyone supply a reliable source? I've only been able to find blogs by Googling. If a reliable source is unavailable when I finalize my GA review, I'll simply comment out Ref 1, until a source is found.

Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 13:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I would do. I don't think anyone is going to find any souce for it. Remember, almost everything in this article was cited with blogs when I got here, so it probably just came from one of those unreliable sources. Happyme22 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a CNN transcript of a news briefing that quotes Cheney specifically on this issue? See Cheney Holds News Briefing with Republican House Leaders in which he is asked "Mr. Secretary, there seems to be some latter day question about how to correctly pronounce your last name. How do you pronounce it? How do you want us to pronounce it?" and replies "How do I pronounce my last night and how do I want you to pronounce it? Well, the family's always said Cheney with an "e" and that was especially true West growing up. I find, when I came East, that the tendency was to say Cheney with an "a". I'll respond to either. It really doesn't matter." A copy of the same transcript is also found on the American Presidency Project's website.[9] - auburnpilot talk 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-industry policies that supersede environmental concerns

Through a combination of strong ideological positions and a deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, Cheney has had a significant impact on the Bush Republican administration's approach to most environmental matters, ranging from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests.

Yucca Mountain

It has long been the Vice President's aim to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the US repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. The U.S. Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to ascertain its suitability for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (a result of nuclear power generation and national defense programsmes). On July 23, 2002, President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store our nation's nuclear waste, and The Department of Energy is currently in the process of preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository. Getting Bush's signature was, according to Cheney's aides, a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns.

The Vice President's office was also a powerful force behind the White House's decision to rewrite a Clinton-era land-protection measure that had put nearly a third of the national forests off limits to logging, mining and most development, former Cheney staff members told The Washington Post.

Clashes with the judicial branch

Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations has often brought the legislative branch into conflict with the judicial branch. The administration, for example, is appealing the order of a federal judge who reinstated the forest protections after she ruled that officials did not adequately study the environmental consequences of giving states more development authority. And in April 2007, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney:

• It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since the resignation of Christine Todd Whitman, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act;
• The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing this ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that "conflicting viewpoints" remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem.

Working though loyalists

Cheney sometimes makes his environmental views clear in public but generally he prefers to operate with stealth, aided by loyalists who owe him for their careers. One example that can be cited to support this is when the vice president heard about a petition to list the cutthroat trout in Yellowstone National Park as a protected species and turned to one of his former congressional aides, Paul Hoffman, who landed his job as deputy assistant interior secretary for fish and wildlife after Cheney recommended him. In an interview, Hoffman said the vice president knew that listing the cutthroat trout would harm the recreational fishing industry in his home state of Wyoming and that he "followed the issue closely." In 2001 and again in 2006, Hoffman's agency declined to list the trout as threatened.

Hoffman, now in another job at the Interior Department, said: "His (Cheney's) genius is that he builds networks and puts the right people in the right places, and then trusts them to make well-informed decisions that comport with his overall vision."

Pro-Industry stance

Following closely on Bush's 2000 election victory, Vice President Cheney pushed the President to abandon a campaign pledge to impose mandatory reductions on carbon emissions from power plants. And it was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (stated in an interview with The Washington Post) . At stake was a provision of the Clean Air Act known as the New Source Review, which requires that older plants - which produce millions of tons of smog and soot each year - install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in order to decrease emissions. Power generation officials (whose companies had been major donors to the Bush campaign) complained to the White House that even when they had merely performed routine maintenance and repairs, the Clinton administration hit them with violations and multimillion-dollar lawsuits.

Cheney's energy task force ordered the EPA to reconsider the rule, believing that the EPA's regulations were primarily to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants. As Whitman has stated, she "... was upset, mad, offended that there seemed to be so much head-nodding around the table." Whitman said she had to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent Cheney's task force from handing over the job of reforming the New Source Review to the Energy Department, a battle she said she won only after appealing to White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. This was an environmental issue with major implications for air quality and health, she believed, and it shouldn't be driven by a task force primarily concerned with increasing production. Whitman agreed that the exception for routine maintenance and repair needed to be clarified, but not in a way that undercut the ongoing Clinton-era lawsuits - many of which she believed was positive.

Whitman wanted to work a political trade with industry by eliminating the New Source Review in return for support of Bush's upcoming 2002 "Clear Skies" initiative, which outlined a market-based approach to reducing emissions over time. But Clear Skies went nowhere. Whitman said there was never any follow-up and, moreover, there was no reason for industry to embrace even a modest pollution control initiative when the vice president was pushing to change the rules for nothing. Finally summoned to the Oval Office in March 2001, Whitman was prepared to argue but Bush had made up his mind. As she left, she saw Cheney picking up a letter already signed by Bush announcing the decision.

The end result - which Whitman has confirmed written at the direction of the White House and announced in August 2003 - vastly broadened the definition of routine maintenance. It allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls. By that time, Whitman had already announced her resignation, saying she wanted to spend more time with her family. But the real reason, she said, was the new rule which she said she could not sign: "The president has a right to have an administrator who could defend it, and I just couldn't." A federal appeals court has since found that the rule change violated the Clean Air Act. In their ruling, the judges said that the administration had redefined the law in a way that could be valid "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world."

Ivankinsman (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See references at References on this page.

the material would need about four times as many citations as it currently has, to back up the many unsourced claims within it. as it stands, there's far too much unadorned commentary for it to fly, in my opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the topics are suitable. The WP series of articles is a major source of reporting on the subject and should be a prominent part of the article. The writing and referencing needs to be re-tooled for Wikipedia use. If there are credible rebuttals of the series, they should be included, as well.--User:HopsonRoad 04:08, 17 Januar

much of the above would actually qualify as plagiarized material.

Wapo: By combining unwavering ideological positions -- such as the priority of economic interests over protected fish -- with a deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, Cheney has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests.

Here: By combining unwavering ideological positions with a deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, Cheney has had a significant impact on the Bush Republican administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests.

Wapo: Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

Here: Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

Wapo: The vice president also pushed to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's repository for nuclear and radioactive waste, aides said, a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns.

Here: The vice president, for example, pushed to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's repository for nuclear and radioactive waste which was, according to his aides, a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns.

Give me a break. Cut&paste along with the occasional word substitution doesn't prevent this from being plagiarism and a violation of copyright. Anastrophe (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the feeling with Wikipedia that someone feels they 'own' an article, and I am getting this feeling here. As I stated on my talk page ref. this article:

1) I cannot see how this can be considered a 'good article nominee' if the article does not cover this aspect of Cheney's Vice Presidential administration and his anti-environmental stance within the Bush administration.

2) I have also made considerable reference to The Washington Post 'Leave No Tracks' article (as is made clear from the references). Having conducted an extensive review of sources for this topic, this is almost the only - and by far the best - source in the public domain, and so I have quoted from it extensively (I suggest Anastrophe try a search himself/herself to validate what I am saying here). Ivankinsman (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, but you have not 'referenced' the WAPO article, you have posted a slightly modified plagiarized version of a copyrighted article - not a "public domain" article. no 'search' is necessary. i read the article. i read your plagiarized version - see exerpts above. you might consider showing respect for the ownership of that article, while you contemplate whether other editors feel they 'own' this article. Anastrophe (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

eh? You've lost me Ivankinsman (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried once more to insert this section into the main article and once again it has been removed. I also really unappreciate the references being changed - how do I re-insert these as I orginally had them? This anastrophe outfit are acting like f****** thought police - i.e. whatever they don't like immediately gets removed. How can I appeal to a more general policy council than this bunch to get some sort of final ruling on this matter????? Also, anastrophe, please take into account that some people like an relatively 'amateurish' approach to Wikipedia rather than being Wiki nerds like you lot seem to be ... what gives you the right to act God?????? Ivankinsman (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

your comments are extremely uncivil. please stop. i gave my rationale in the edit summary. your addition had no sources in it. it was not formatted for wiki. it broke the formatting of the following sections. i did not 'change the references', you broke them when you inserted the material. yes, i'd like to see your incivility appealed to an appropriate place, it's truly egregious. this is wikipedia - i'm sure you're anxious to see your additions made to the article. however, the public article is not the place to be experimenting. at any given moment, people will be reading it, and having broken, unreferenced material in it is not acceptable. use the sandbox to experiment. once you've fixed the problems, then push it to the public article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have published a request for other editors to consider the content of this topic at the bottom of this discussion page and hope we will be able to get this dispute resolved one way or the other. I feel I am personally being hounded by you - the first time I have ever 'enjoyed' this experience concerning my work carried out on Wikipedia. Ivankinsman (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

actually, your talk page reveals that you've been repeatedly warned and enjoined from posting plagiarized material on wikipedia. neither am i the first or only editor who has expressed concerns about the content and quality of your additions. i welcome outside review, if only of your extremely uncivil commentary here. Anastrophe (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Policy formulation"

I propose adding the following to the Policy formulation subsection in the article:--User:HopsonRoad 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In June of 2007, the Washington Post summarized Cheney’s vice presidency in a four-part series, based in part on interviews with former administration officials. The articles characterized Cheney not as a “shadow” president, but as someone who usually has the last words of counsel to the president on policies, which in many cases would reshape the powers of the presidency. When former vice president Dan Quayle suggested to Cheney that the office was largely ceremonial, Cheney reportedly replied, “I have a different understanding with the president.” The articles described Cheney as having a secretive approach to the tools of government, indicated by the use of his own security classification and three man-sized safes in his offices.

The articles described Cheney’s influence on decisions pertaining to detention of suspected terrorists and the legal limits that apply to their questioning, especially what constitutes torture. They characterized Cheney as having the strongest influence within the administration in shaping budget and tax policy in a manner that assures “conservative orthodoxy.” They also highlighted Cheney’s behind-the-scenes influence on the administration’s environmental policy to ease pollution controls for power plants, facilitate the disposal of nuclear waste, open access to federal timber resources, and avoid federal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, among other issues. The articles characterized his approach to policy formulation as favoring business over the environment.

See references at References on this page.

Comments?

Comment on the proposal, here, please.

• I cast a strong vote for the inclusion of the summary of the Barton Gellman-Jo Becker series of articles from the Washington Post as you have presented them here. They represent essential reading on the subject of this article, and to not cite them would be a critical error of omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.144.14.109 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• the above is certainly a vast improvement over the plagiarized version that precedes it. i think the length may be out of proportion to its notability, and could bump up against giving undue weight to one particular source's interpretation of his influence. Anastrophe (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. It is copyrighted, unnecessary material. Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am 100% certain that this summary should be included as it is an extremely important profile on the VP, and The Washington Post probably ones the best 'political' newspapers in the States Ivankinsman (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i wouldn't go so far as to say it's unnecessary. the source material does appear to be a well-researched article. but i don't think it adds much that isn't already in the article, at least by example. Anastrophe (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Anastrophe, you make some important points about the appropriateness of the above text, regarding notability and weight. The article in question was widely reproduced (even in my Podunk newspaper, the Valley News) and widely cited, often using the term “sensational.” See for example, MSNBC ([here] and here), Newsweek (here), and The New Yorker (here).
  
  As to undue weight, the New York Times reveals the series to be the most significant recent journalistic profile on Cheney. I checked the Washington Times for contemporary stories rebutting the Washington Post article and found none. I have searched unsuccessfully for rebuttals. I can certainly condense the article by eliminating the Quayle quote and combining paragraphs, but I feel that the length is appropriate for the scale of the content that it summarizes.
  
  As to duplicative content, the article to date does not discuss budget and tax policy, Cheney's behind-the-scenes method of working, his penchant for secrecy, or environmental policies. The referenced material should appear in the article in some fashion, if not in the above manner. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheney's view on the environment are irrelevant because he is not the president but rather vice president and cannot implement any of his views. And the previous, copyrighted version that was pasted on this page was very POV, accusing Cheney and giving far too much undo weight to the situation. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find this rather an absurd and illogical statement. As Vice President, he wields considerable influence - he lunches with the President every Thursday, for example. Also, if you look at any photograph of Bush, you will regularly see Cheney standing by his side. As my comments state, Cheney likes to push through his policy viewpoints using his political acolytes. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

let me see if i have this straight. the vice president has lunch with the president weekly, and often appears in photographs with the president. and this is notably different from other VP's exactly how? can you cite how frequently al gore supped with bill clinton, and appeared in photographs with him? how about wheeler and hayes? dawes and coolidge? Anastrophe (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

re his "penchant for secrecy". this can only be inferred, unless cheney himself says "i have a penchant for secrecy". Others could interpret it in a less nefarious light as a "penchant for privacy". since this is a WP:BLP, even reliably sourced material doesn't get carte blanche. true, he's a public figure. but the interpretation of whether he prefers secrecy, or simply privacy, is one that should be left out of a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again this seems a highly subjective and rather irrational response. Since when has secrecy = personal privacy, particularly for a high-profile politician? Come off it, this is being very naive for someone who supposedly knows about Cheney's methods of working and knowledge of the political machine. I quote here from the Washington Post 'Angler' series:

''Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.

In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.

Ivankinsman (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

you seem to have an axe to grind, which is generally not conducive to writing a balanced, NPOV article. Anastrophe (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

well, don't you think exactly the same thing could be said of you? Ivankinsman (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Anastrophe and Ivankinsman, There's no need to impugn each other's motives when one or the other substantiates a point, please let us use published sources to rebut each other's points.
  
  The words that I suggested above are: "The articles described Cheney as having a secretive approach to the tools of government, indicated by the use of his own security classification and three man-sized safes in his offices." It doesn't say "He is secretive." Although there are sufficient other sources in the press to corroborate the statement that he is viewed as being secretive, an observation otherwise missing in the article (see, for example, CBS New and US News & WR).
  
  I disagree with Happyme on minimizing Cheney's influence on policy because the whole point of the WP series is that, although Cheney is vice president, his influence in shaping policy is demonstrably siginificant. This is otherwise ill-documented in the article, but sufficiently substantiated in the press (see, for example, the Guardian and US News & WR). Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• i agree with you regarding discussion of motive, which i certainly should know better. we both probably do have axes to grind, but it's irrelevant to what actually goes in the article. i agree with your analysis above, that cheney's influence within the whitehouse is seemingly more significant than that of the typical vice-president. some coverage of it belongs in the article. i'm still think it's a little longer than appropriate, but that's a minor qualm. but more editorial input is needed, as only a few have weighed in. Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Anastrophe. I'll try re-tooling the segment to be less about the WP article and more about the issues presented, using all the sources that I've found. I'll probably post that in a new sub-section, to preserve the discussion thread. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I posted the "short" version to allow direct editorial input on the page, having seen no more discussion on the topic here. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section on "Portrayal in the press"

I propose adding the following text in a section titled, Portrayal in the press, after the Vice President section in the article:--User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The portrayal of Cheney’s vice presidency in the press has influenced public opinion on the subject. In addition to being one of the primary spokesmen of the administration, Cheney is also adept at working behind the scenes. As early as 2006, U.S. News & World Report portrayed the vice president to be “widely seen as Washington's curmudgeon in chief, a powerful but uncompromising politician with the ear of the president. Cheney is at the very center of the current white-hot debate over the administration's aggressive conduct of the war on terrorism and President Bush's expansion of presidential powers.

Cheney once shot one of his friends in the face.

” The same article reported that Cheney “gets a kick out … spoofs of his secretive ways and his man-behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz reputation.”

In June of 2007, the Washington Post summarized Cheney’s vice presidency in a four-part series, based in part on interviews with former administration officials. The articles characterized Cheney not as a “shadow” president, but as someone who usually has the last words of counsel to the president on policies, which in many cases would reshape the powers of the presidency. When former vice president Dan Quayle suggested to Cheney that the office was largely ceremonial, Cheney reportedly replied, “I have a different understanding with the president.” The articles described Cheney as having a secretive approach to the tools of government, indicated by the use of his own security classification and three man-sized safes in his offices. This perception was picked up in the foreign press, as well. The Guardian suggested that, “…there's a growing consensus in America that it's Dick Cheney who calls the shots at the White House, on everything from the war in Iraq to climate change policy.”

The Washington Post series, which was widely cited at the time, described Cheney’s influence on decisions pertaining to detention of suspected terrorists and the legal limits that apply to their questioning, especially what constitutes torture, echoing earlier reports. The articles characterized Cheney as having the strongest influence within the administration in shaping budget and tax policy in a manner that assures “conservative orthodoxy.” This is evident from his own statements quoted in Time in October 2006 and the New York Times in October 2007, opposing Democratic proposed rollbacks of the Bush tax cuts.

The Washington Post series also highlighted Cheney’s behind-the-scenes influence on the administration’s environmental policy to ease pollution controls for power plants, facilitate the disposal of nuclear waste, open access to federal timber resources, and avoid federal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, among other issues. The series characterized his approach to policy formulation as favoring business over the environment. This characterization is consistent with that of former EPA chief, Christine Todd Whitman, who wrote in a 2005 article for Time, about how she encountered the vice president delivering a draft letter to the president, which the president later signed, opposing the Kyoto Protocol.

See references at References on this page.

Comments?

Comment on the proposal, here, please.

• From what I’ve read, the vice president embraces the broad description of how he works behind the scenes, as portrayed above. This topic is a significant one and segues into the public perception of the vice president. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• While you have expanded on your previously proposed addition to the article by citing some good sorces that corroborate the basic findings of the Gellman-Becker Washington Post series of articles, I think it actually represents a step backward from your original proposal, which I believe is preferable. At a cursory level, it has the advantage of brevity, but more importantly, it doesn't traffic so heavily in the use of words like potrayal, characterization and perception. Their repeated use in your most recent proposal makes it sound like you are trying to distance yourself from the facts as they are known and have been reported from the cited sources, and instead want to make those same facts sound like they are the source of some speculation and are a matter of contention. I presume this is a political calculation within the community of Wikipedia editors to try to maintain consensus and amicability, but it still seems like a step backward from your previous proposal. The cited WaPo articles thoroughly back up each of your more simple, straightforward declarative sentences. If someone else wants to cite countervailing reporting on the same set of issues, they are free to do so. If it was just an either-or proposition, I would opt for your first proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.214.75 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you're right. Anastrophe was looking for less, not more, as well. I thought that media portrayal made a good bridge to public perception, but it's probably not worth the effort!--User:HopsonRoad 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We should a part about how he shot one of his friends in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeucci (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dick Cheney's environmental stance (RfC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

your RFC isn't showing up in the rfc list. i think the formatting is broken, but i don't know how to fix it. Anastrophe (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed this and it is now showing on the RFC list (middle of the page) Ivankinsman (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently met on Wikipedia the phenomenon of self-appointed owners of certain entries. These people have a specific interest in an entry and see fit to impose their ideas on others by removing any edits that clash with their own notions of what the entry should say. Unfortunately, through their tenacity and single-mindedness, they are often able to prevail and dictate the content of the entry.

I am not sure exactly what should be done about this matter, but I would suggest something along the lines of limiting the number of edits a single user can make to a single entry within a fixed period of time. Maybe no more than one edit a week per entry. What do you think? --Drono (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a very good policy indeed! Ivankinsman (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

yawn. Anastrophe (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might say yawn but here you have two experienced editors agreeing on exactly the same thing about you and your approach to Wikipedia. Surely this should be a wake up call to you about how negative your actions can be (and seem to other editors). Ivankinsman (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your recent, staggeringly uncivil comments directed towards me on this very page, you're hardly in a position to be lecturing me on 'negative actions'. Instead of mutually admiring your great ideas for 'new policies', why not learn the current policies, upon which I reverted your recent inclusion to the article? Then perhaps we'll have something of actual substance to discuss. oh, and while you're at it, why not fix this broken RfC, so that some actual third-party C's can be Rf'd?Anastrophe (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say the proposed section, as written, is unacceptable. The issues of plagiarism and WP:Weight are too great to let stand. A shorter, "written-from-scratch" section on the topic seems reasonable and appropriate. Maybe hand out a budget of ~350 words and ensure it's well sourced. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Third opinion: Hey. There's no explanation for the RfC here; can you explain which section on the article page we're talking about, and what the issue is? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I had the same problem, it's up above. Look for "environmental". Hobit (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, this section. The person who created the RfC should add a link to that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, there has been enough time for this Rfc and there has been very little adverse criticism of the proposed insert. As an independent, unbiased editor, I now have the right to insert the enviromental section into this main article. Please can ANASTROPHE restore the reference links that I so painstakingly put in so that this will be included in the reference section of the main article (not on this page). Ivankinsman (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry, since you never submitted an appropriate RfC in the first place, claiming lack of adverse criticism is hardly validation. i did not remove the references from your material, so i'm unclear why i am responsible for fixing your editing difficulties. the plagiarism issue has never been appropriately addressed. i have reverted the addition until you have fixed the problems and responded to the plagiarism challenge. unsourced material must never be inserted into public article space. reversion is the normal and appropriate response on that basis alone. fix your editing problems, then consider posting the text here on the talk page - with sources - then address the plagiarism issues - then perhaps it'll be ready for the public article. Anastrophe (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

LOOK.

1) THIS RFC HAS BEEN CORRECTLY SUBMITTED - check the Rfc (pol) page. THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE OR NO ADVERSE CRITICISM OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME NOW SO THE INSERT CAN GO IN.

2) WHEN I FIRST WROTE THIS SECTION, I INCLUDED THE APPROPRIATE REFERENCES AND THESE WERE ALTERED. I have fixed these references and they show up appropriately in the reference section of the main article. PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THESE.

3) THE PLAGIARISM ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALTH WITH VIA THE RFC SO STOP SAYING THAT IT HAS NOT. I HAVE POST THE TEXT ON THE TALK PAGE FOR EVERYONE INTERESTED TO COMMENT ON. NOW GET OFF MY BACK AND LEAVE THIS INSERT ALONE. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

shouting doesn't get your point across any better. 1.your rfc did not properly link to the section in question, so people coming here to comment had no idea what it referenced. 2. i didn't alter the references. but regardless, it's irrelevant - you cannot just dump this into the article without references. adding them is your responsibility. 3. the plagiarism has most certainly not been dealt with via this rfc. absolutely not. apparently you missed this comment - reproduced here again:

• I'd say the proposed section, as written, is unacceptable. The issues of plagiarism and WP:Weight are too great to let stand. A shorter, "written-from-scratch" section on the topic seems reasonable and appropriate. Maybe hand out a budget of ~350 words and ensure it's well sourced. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

nobody has said "as written, this section is appropriate for inclusion in the article". it is not ready for inclusion in the article. it included zero citations to reliable sources. it broke the formatting of the sections following it. but most damning, large portions are clearly plagiarized from the WAPO article. the material is in no way appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i've reverted again. double-checked. plagiarized material is exactly as before:

Washington Post article:

Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

Ivankinsman's 'version':

Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

that's plagiarism, pure and simple. if you read immediately beneath the 'editing talk: dick cheney' when you prepare to respond, you'll see the very first words are "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted". i've saved you the trouble of violating copyright. you're welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is simple one experienced editor's view against another's. I have attempted to resolve this via this Rfc and you can see the results here - there has been no huge outburst against it. This section has citations to highly reliable sources - you can see them for yourself - and the content is certainly not plagarized (i.e. a verbatim copy of an external text - look the word up in a dictionary!). Ivankinsman (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

it's absolutely plagiarized. but, i'll let other editors weigh in. if you add it back, i'm quite sure it'll be reverted, because WP doesn't allow plagiarism. you have not synthesized a summary of the work, you've copied it verbatim and occasionally changed a word or two here and there. furthermore, it's way, way too long for this article. it gives undue weight to this one particular area. Anastrophe (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, as the Rfcpol is in place, I am quite happy for other independent editors to give their feedback on this issue. This, after all, is what the Rfc is for. If several editors agree with your viewpoint, then a discussion can be held over a potential revert.

Ref. your point about length. Many consider the environment a major political issue in the 21st century and the length of the section regarding Cheney's stance on environmental concerns attempts to reflect this Ivankinsman (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

see WP:UNDUE. it is way out of proportion to the rest of the article. i've started a new rfc to get commentary on the actual issue, rather than the non sequitur "one editor continually deleting the work of another" as the reason on the other RfC. Anastrophe (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

sub section: invankinsman commits plagiarism to bolster argument against his plagiarism

this just blew me away, and it deserves note: i just reviewed the above rfc comments - and then i noticed that the comments by user Drono didn't have a normal, wikilinked signature - you can't click on 'Drono' to go to the user page. i found that curious. so i checked the edit history. Drono has never added comments to this page. Drono's left his comments on ivankinsman's user talk page. and invankinsman cut & pasted them in here - into the RfC comments - in support of his position. so, he plagiarized Drono in order to fake greater support for his position here. this strikes me as a pretty grievous offense. i checked invankinsman's user talk page, and he's been warned by other editors in the past about plagiarism. now we have plagiarism committed in order to subvert the RfC process. this is unacceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

((tiny followup to note that i am aware that it's not technically plagiarism that's been committed in the above instance - it's 'merely' falsification of comments for the RfC)) Anastrophe (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Plagiarized Washington Post article

Please see immediately above, or for the full, ugly details, section 13 above. user has taken a long washington post article, changed a few words around occasionally (but by no means always), and claims this mitigates the plagiarism concerns. a gullible sixth grade teacher pre-internet era might fall for it, but wikipedia is neither, and WAPO would have a good claim of copyright infringement. there are other problems with the added materials ( WP:UNDUE ), but the most damning is the plagiarism. i look forward to other editors reviewing the wapo article, then reviewing this material. Anastrophe (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Ivankinsman's edits as nothing more than a copy/pasted insert of copyrighted text. Changing one or two words every few sentences doesn't avoid plagiarism. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there needs to be specific evidence shown here of plagiarism. And there needs to be more input from several editors (not just one) on this issue for a revert to take place.

As I have previously stated, there is absolutely no public information AVAILABLE other than the sources I have quoted for this section (please try an on-line search yourself and this will verify my statement). As such, the sources need to be referred to extensively and I have put in references where appropriate. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivankinsman (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

there are virtually no actual quotes within the material. you can't say "the sources I have quoted" if you aren't actually including quotes. furthermore, i have provided very clear, specific evidence of the plagiarism above - how can you possibly claim none has been provided!? secondly, when there is only one source available, that calls into question the material, and whether the post article is accurate. it also brings into play notability, as lacking other sources suggests that the issues are not really as significant as the washington post portrays them. but worst of all, you've yet again added the material, including your plea that it be included: "[I would like to insert a section on this topic. I would like to know from an editor how I might do this. The following information is what I would like to include but obviously it may have to be tidied up in order to be suitable for this article on Dick Cheney:]". that certainly looks horrible in the public encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not acceptable content or behavior. Happyme22 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Have decided to pull out of this one. Think it has got to a stage where people who have too much time on their hands are bickering over trivialities. Also, I don't think including this environmental section or not is really going to change the world. Adios amigos. Ivankinsman (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References on this page

All references cited on this page are found here:

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheneysnotes.jpg

Image:Cheneysnotes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A superior PDF-format version of the same basic file can be downloaded directly from the U.S. Department of Justice website for free non-commercial use at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/exhibits/0214/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plausible to deny (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the image with a JPEG version of the the DOJ Special Counsel evidence pertaining to the Libby Trial: "Cheney's annotated copy of Wilson article "What I Didn't Find in Africa" July 6, 2003."--User:HopsonRoad 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Retirement Plans' Section

I'm not clear on why my citation of the Cheneys' new home in McLean was removed simply because someone thought it should say something else. There was precious little to the citation aside from the facts of the situation. Perhaps remove the specific address from the entry, but the image gallery is documentation of a public record. Certainly there's plenty of speculation about the President's retirement plans, even by the President himself. Why should this be any different? If someone follows the Wiki guidelines (relevance, neutral POV, documentation, citations, etc), it seems out of bounds for someone to arbitrarily decide it doesn't belong. Scott.ripley (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable. Certainly not notable enough to justify a whole paragraph and pictures. Obviously the Cheneys have begun to plan for next year; precisely what plans they have made is of no interest. When they do move, one sentence will suffice to say where they will then be living. -- Zsero (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most people wouldn't agree with your judgment, as evidenced by the existence of things such as "lifestyles of the rich and famous". I'm sure many readers are interested in Cheney's new residence. --Afed (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They may be interested, but they shouldn't be looking to an encyclopedia for such information. It may be newsworthy, but it certainly doesn't merit its own section and a gallery of images on this page. - auburnpilot talk 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When he is out of office, then we can say where his new house is. Happyme22 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

please forgive a metacomment, but i just love the reference to how the house is within 2500 feet of the CIA. because, as we all know, darth vader must remain near the deathstar, that he may revitalize himself with ease by visiting the source of the dark side. Anastrophe (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would the Assasination attempt be "Alleged" if a taliban spokesman said it was an attempt?

?

Good question. Happyme22 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Info

I thought Controversies were suppost to be included in the "lede" paragraph, according to Wikipedia: Lede, I am trying to figure out why my edit was reverted. Dwilso 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, you said that Whittington was shot and killed, which is demonstrably false -- considering he went on a press conference later and said he thought Cheney was a good guy. heh... Or maybe that was a CYBORG WHITTINGTON!

Even if it was fixed to be correct, though, you might have trouble keeping that in the intro. To quote WP:LEDE: When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm. (emphasis added) Can you really tell me with a straight face that with all the Iraq/Halliburton/etc. mess that Cheney is in, that the hunting accident is really one of the main controversies about this guy? I'm very skeptical about that. Personally, I'd be a little more concerned about a deliberate decision that led to thousands of deaths vs. an accident that led to a single injury... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you blanked other good content, making the intro hard to read. You also put the word "accidentally" in quotation marks, which is not a particularly neutral way of presenting the info. So even if there were consensus to put that info in the lede paragraph, I count at least three significant problems with your previous edit that would make it unusable anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) According to WP:LEAD, notable controversies should be described briefly. However, the shooting incident isn't a controversy but a personal mishap/incident/whatever you really wish to call it, that shouldn't be cherry-picked for the lead section (even if you wish to call it a controversy). There are notable controversies, such as allegations of impropriety related to his Haliburton past, the CIA leak scandal, or the "Disclosure of documents" controversy, but the shooting accident isn't one of them. Additionally, placing quotes around "accidentally" is foolishness. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute jeapordizes Good Article status

Both this article and George H. W. Bush are undergoing an edit dispute regarding the content of infoboxes. There is currently a discussion at Talk:George H. W. Bush. The Bush article is a good article nominee and I've put the nomination on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. If, after that discussion, this article continues to be subject to this edit dispute, I will ask for a GA reassessment. There is no point in asking for a reassessment before the discussion on Talk:George H. W. Bush winds down. Hopefully, the result of that discussion will be respected here, the article will remain stable, and it will continue to meet all GA criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is a minor dispute over infoboxes is surely no reason to question this article's GA status, nor the pending GA status of GHWB. Please see FA Barack Obama, which was fully protected at least four times last month regarding edit warring and was not delisted. Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

7.3.3 Hunting Accident

Footnoted source material doesn't support second assertion that "Cheney re-iterated that it was an honest accident" He may have; but nowhere in the source material does such a statement appear. Please remove until appropriate sourcing is listed.--Textmatters (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

VP documents, etc.

How is this particularly notable? I reverted it on the grounds of WP:RECENTISM and its total relevance to the subject. Let's start with RECENTISM: This appears to be only a day old. WP:RECENTISM advises against inserting material hot off the press, which is exactly what this is. Not placing the date in the article (as was attempted in the second version, here) won't do it, as the sources clearly indicate that this is a new story. Secondly we have to ask ourselves, is this material vital to our overall understanding of Dick Cheney in a biography about Dick Cheney? The answer is as of now, no. In the future, further details may come up and this story may be one of national prominence, however it is not as of now and realy serves no purpose in this article when compared to vital information, such as his stance in the war on terror, etc.

Fair enough; your opinion has been registered. The actual filing of the lawsuit is admittedly a new event, but it is the logical culmination of the long-standing dispute between Cheney and other government agencies regarding his statutory need to disclose documents related to discharging his duties as vice president, whether those duties fall under the realm of the executive or legislative branches of government. How it relates to "our overall understanding of Dick Cheney" has to do with his penchant for secrecy and his belief in greatly expanded (and largely unchecked) powers for the executive branch.

Perhaps the summary of the story I cited was inelegant, but I was stiving to be non-provcative. Here is the actual first paragraph of the Washington Post story that is cited in the first footnote: "Months before the Bush administration ends, historians and open-government advocates are concerned that Vice President Cheney, who has long bristled at requirements to disclose his records, will destroy or withhold key documents that illustrate his role in forming U.S. policy for the past 7 1/2 years." Given everything leading up to the one-sentence mention of the lawsuit under the heading of this subsection of the article entitled "Disclosure of documents," it is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the material that precedes it.

Given our opposing viewpoints, I would be interested in the opinions of other editors who don't have quite as much personal editing history on this article as the two of us do. Plausible to deny (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general note: not every recent story regarding Dick Cheney that appears in the press qualifies for inclusion in this article. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite agreed. I would not try to insert anything regarding Cheney's recent diplomatic mission to Georgia or other foreign travels into a biographical article about him personally, and would stand by any other editor who removed any attempt to include such extraneous events into this article. Plausible to deny (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

==

April 1994 C-SPAN interview mention is inadequate

The mention of the April 1994 C-SPAN interview where Dick gave a detailed list of why going after Saddam in Gulf War I was a mistake is way too short. His answer to the question should be quoted in full, as it accurately predicted what would happen in 2003-2008, when he seemingly forgot his prior wisdom and instead promoted a first-strike against a country that did not pose a threat and had no connection to the September 11th attack.

It should also be noted that the C-SPAN clip was not aired during 2002-2003 during the Iraq war buildup, nor was it aired prior to the 2004 election. In both cases it could have changed the outcome. (Perhaps a mention in the C-SPAN article noting its failure to know the contents of its own archives would be good too.)

As it is now, the mention of the interview is so short, I would conclude that it was written by a partisan of Cheney. OldManCalif (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

The layout of the vp succession box implies that he's been Acting president since July 21, 2007 which is wrong. he was acting president for a few hours on that day. It needs to be fixed to remove the "- present" entirely but I can't figure out the best way to reorganize the templates. If someone could look into this I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is showing up as "-present" because that is not included in the text. It could be because he is listed as the incumbent VP, but I'm not sure. Happyme22 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Turns out there's a hidden parameter in Template:Incumbent succession box called "footnote_marker", that you can only see if you view the source. I didn't notice it until I went to create a new version of the template that would have just such a parameter. -- Zsero (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Zsero! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The indictment

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6119394.html. the houston chronicle has just reported that Vice President Cheney has been indicted along with Alberto Gonzalez. This is real and NOT vandalism. Ericl (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Nowhere does your source even hint at the suggestion that Cheney has been indicted for murder. The article states Cheney has been accused of "a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults"". Quite a bit different, no? - auburnpilot talk 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-added with another source. It's utterly notable, for a sitting VP to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Removing it for an error in wording is a bit overkill. rootology (C)(T) 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think that stating incorrectly that a BLP has been indicted for murder is a good thing? Sorry, bud, that gets removed on sight. I have no objection to the accurate, sourced information that has been added. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not what I said in any capacity, please don't attribute that I have some sort of disrespect for BLPs. It's no secret that in some venues (RFAR, offsite) I've been among the screamers for it to be done "right". I simply said that it could have been fixed, rather than removing it. That's a big difference. rootology (C)(T) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but the fact remains, that the indictment of a sitting vice president hasn't happened since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in 1803. The closest was Sprio Agnew in 1973. This is damn major,Ericl (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but, as of now, it's not really that notable either. If anything comes of this then sure we can report it, but this has too many elements of WP:RECENTISM in it. Again, if anything comes of it then we can include it. The murder charge was simply false. Happyme22 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If a United States executive hasn't been indicted on the Federal level since the 1800s, then it's absolutely notable. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but to me this is like Dennis Kucinich introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush -- there was little chance that those articles would actually pass. Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are right there. ON the other hand it's a real indictment and a perp walk would be grand. The Vanguard group is a Limited Liability mutual fund, and It's going to be quashed for sure [I could have sworn that murder was part of the indictment, but I'm probably wrong]. However, the first indictment of a sitting vice president in over 200 years in notable, even though it's probably BSEricl (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate statement: "On November 18, 2008, Cheney became the first vice president since Aaron Burr in 1803 to be indicted by a Federal grand jury." Cheney has not been indicted by a federal grand jury. He was indicted on state charges by a state grand jury. Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/cheney-gonale-indicted/): "Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on state charges involving federal prisons in a South Texas county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles under the outgoing prosecutor." 67.142.130.26 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding as category

Added waterboarding as category, justified by recent news reports indicating that the subject of this article admitted having approved this method of torture.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? To call it torture is your own POV, too. Happyme22 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is torture, and Cheney discussed it in a recent interview on one of the national networks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, torture is only a single POV. "Enhanced interogration technique" more properly defines it. Saying that he discussed it in a recent interview is not a reliable source. Do we have a url link? Happyme22 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

...on ABC [10] and obviously Cheney doesn't consider it torture, but he states that he approves of waterboarding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the description of how waterboarding is done is accurate, maybe you could give us your own POV on how nearly drowning someone does not constitute torture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My final statement on the discussion that is not related in any way to the subject of this article: It is not drowning someone, it is a drowning simulation that has helped keep American lives safe. Alas, my friend -- I am now done :)

On a more serious note: of course Cheney supports waterboarding. Thanks for providing the source, as it is indeed very interesting, but now that we have the information, we need to judge the overall relevancy to the subject. In this case, it seems that adding the category "waterboarding" simply because he supports it is pointless and unhelpful to readers and those trying to navigate through Wikipedia pages. That's like putting the category "car" inside the article Judith Sheindlin because she drives one. What would be appropriate is to, hypothetically, place the category "waterboarding" in an article on the person who came up with the method. Do you see where I am coming from? It's rightfully not at George W. Bush either. See Wikipedia:CAT#When_to_use_categories for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If Judge Judy were using a car as a torture device, it would be relevant. So, since you consider this a harmless interrogation method, you would have no issues with enemy interrogators using it on American troops, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the waterboarding article itself, the only other entry for the category was Cheney, so it's obviously POV-pushing and doesn't belong. It's sufficient to post his defense of waterboarding, within the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune reported today that Dick Cheney acknowledges his direct involvment in severe interrogation technigues including water boarding. "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involed in helping get the process cleared," Cheney stated in an interview on ABC News. Asked if he thought waterboarding was appropriate, he replied, "I do." Chicago Tribune Newspaper, Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Section 1, page 7, "Cheney OKd CIA Waterboarding" by Greg Miller, Washington Bureau.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 07:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The arguement should not be whether or not water boarding is right or wrong, a POV or even who came up with it. The question is should it be included in a section on formulation of policy. Clearly, Cheney was involved early and was a major force in shaping and implementing that policy and it should be mentioned. Whether it was right or wrong is another question.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the interview I cited earlier in this section. The question here was about a category. Since there were only 2 entries in the category, it was obviously POV-pushing. If you want to include the reference to the interview and to the Trib's commentary on it, that could be in the article. The category is not needed, unless everyone ever connected with waterboarding is also included. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick response to our somewhat-comical ongoing waterboarding discussion: I never said it was harmless (mentally, that is). It simulates drowning, which has gotten terrorists to talk. And it's only been used on three people. American troops would be lucky if terrorists used waterboarding on them -- the evil dogs use far more sinister tactics that absolutely abhor me.

As for the category: I completely agree with you, Bugs. The category should not be placed here, but Cheney's support of waterboarding and other enhanced interogration techniques should be documented in the article. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Happyme22, Cheny's support of enhanced interoggation should be included in the section Policy Formulation. But your statement that Americans would be lucky to be only waterboarded misses the point. The US is supposed to be better than they are, not reduced to their level.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the waterboarding article's most signifigant discussion on whether waterboarding is torture or not here. While every expert's opinion seem to fall under the line that it is indeed torture and the other argument doesn't even move up to the much vaunted WP:Fringe level, some POV pushes can continue to attempt to assess otherwise. Just to note, President Clinton and President-Elect Obama also consider it torture, so Waterboarding has been considered Torture in the US except for 2001-2008. It needs to be included if Cheny authorized it. It deserves its own catergory because its going to be notable in 10 years because it sets precidents. RTRimmel (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's torture. The problem is (or was) that the category had only Cheney and waterboarding itself, like he invented it or something. Unless you're going to list everyone in the world who has ever either used or supported waterboarding, it's nothing more than POV-pushing against Cheney. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this logic is that because he was instrumental in the allowance of torture, he has set up a considerable number of legal precidents that are going to be felt long after he has left office. Because of that it is more noteworthy and I'd argue that its noteworthy enough to merit its own section. Twenty years from now, another US president is going to be able to torture prisioners because of actions Cheney did while in office. We can have a balanced catergory involving Cheney and waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques. The Hunting Incident gets its own section and its capacity to stand the 10 year test is dubious at best. I'm not saying that the existing waterboarding catergory was good, but I do believe that a catergory for Cheney and the enhanced interrogation (torture) should be here because its part of his enduring legacy. RTRimmel (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't know that. There is already talk of investigating criminal activity under the Bush administration - and this is one element that might come under serious scrutiny. Either way it goes, it's a part of his career, and is already covered in the article. But to have a "category" consisting of just him and the subject article is ridiculous. As for the hunting story, it was mostly comic relief, as the guy didn't get seriously hurt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we added categories for comic relief elements. As for it adding precedents, its already being cited by our enemies as one of the many issues they have with the US. What about a section about enhanced interrogation techniques as a whole then, Cheney was part of the administration that coined that onerous term. RTRimmel (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting off topic, it doesn't matter in its slightest whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture or not, even though the answer to many of you to that question would be obvious. As of the time of this posting, Cheney's approval of waterboarding is mentioned nowhere in the article. It doesn't matter whether or not waterboarding is torture, what is important is that we include this somewhere in the article as his approval of waterboarding was a significant revelation in his foreign policy stance. Or national security. That doesn't matter either, you just have to put it somewhere in the article. If you want to discuss waterboarding, discuss it in its own article. --Hamster X 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

metacomment: the article until recently mentioned cheney's support of waterboarding. i removed it. why? it had been dumped into the public perception section of the article, with zero references supporting that his stance on waterboarding in some way pertained to his public perception. this is detailed below. the material is certainly on-topic to this article, but was dramatically off-topic to that section. it can probably worked into his policy positions sections. Anastrophe (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)