Dick Cheney has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Wyoming This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Archives

August 2003 – July 2005 July 2005 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2007 November 2007 – January 2009 January 2009 – December 2010

Dick Cheney will leave vice-presidential office on January 20, 2009 and will be succeeded by Delaware Senator Joe Biden. Cheney will return to Wyoming on this official date. President George W. Bush will return to Texas also on January 20, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... was there a question or point in there? Happyme22 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just wanted to be sure we knew about it. Some of us are a little behind the news curve. Either that, or he just likes hitting the "[" and "]" keys a lot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview tonight (1-14-2009) with Jim Lehrer, Dick Cheney commented that he had seriously considered running for President in the 1996 election, going so far as to solicit over $1 million in campaign funds, before ultimately deciding against it. Do any of you who know this part of Cheney's life have an interest in creating a section on this topic? (I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to do it myself). Baileypalblue (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC) he's a loser baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.245.194 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having just removed a recent addition of joe biden's comments regarding dick cheney, under the section "public perception" (biden's personal opinion is not citable as an example of cheney's "public perception"), i noticed that immediately preceding that material is the following:

Cheney has often created controversy, mostly from his role in shaping the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and the war on terrorism. In one instance, the vice president was recorded as apparently supporting waterboarding, widely regarded as a form of torture, as an interrogation technique for questioning suspected terrorists.[122] The following day, the White House denied that Cheney was referring to waterboarding or torture.[123]

while it is properly sourced, how is that an example of cheney's public perception?

likewise the following:

On April 24, 2007, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio presented articles of impeachment against Cheney, as House Resolution 333.[127][128][129] It was not initially cosponsored, and was immediately referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken.[130] The resolution has acquired 24 Democratic cosponsors since its introduction, six of whom are members of the House Judiciary Committee.[131][132] After six months without a debate or vote, Kucinich re-introduced identical content as a new resolution, House Resolution 799, on November 6, 2007.[133] This was also referred to the House Judiciary Committee.[134]

again, it's well-referenced, but it has nothing to do with cheney's public perception.

i would recommend this material either be removed, or worked into more appropriate sections of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been discussed his use of totally unprofessional profanity ("go f*ck yourself") on the Senate floor against Patrick Lehey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to update the Gallup figures for Cheney's popularity but the page is locked. The Gallup poll from May 29-31, 2009, indicates Cheney is at 37% Favorable, 54% Unfavorable, 9% No Opinion. -- Original Pinyl (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cheney's history of cardiac trouble: I remember reading a 2006 article in Vanity Fair which mentioned that Cheney was observed to eat a buffalo steak by cutting the steak up into bite-size pieces and then salting each side of the piece of meat before putting it into his mouth (see here). I recognise that this is a relatively trivial piece of information, but I think it might have some small relevance to his heart trouble. Lexo (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the Vice President strained his back on January 21, forcing him to attend the inauguration (on January 20) in a wheelchair. 69.177.92.242 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)J. Parodi[reply]

Yes, a closer look at the article says: "the Vice-President will be in a wheelchair for the next couple of days, including for tomorrow's inauguration." That implies the incident occurred on the 19th. The article is dated the 21st. The wording needs to be changed. Above comment is correct. Change date to 19th 68.38.16.244 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thank you for pointing this out. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism? On a lesser part of the internet someone claimed DC has a couple of DUI convictions, and might in fact be an alcoholic. Is there any truth to this? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney has taken the legal position that the vice president is not part of the executive branch, but it is apart of the legislative branch. The courts have ruled in favor of Cheney in the lawsuit brought by groups who wants records kept by Cheney and his staff to be archived.

Please review this article (link is below) for further detail. I would edit the page; however, I do not have access to do so. May someone follow up with this. I feel proper evidence for an addition to the 'disclosure of documents' section has been provided. Thank you.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEUbGeyMLv1e6G_sD5VC_l_P0okAD95QI1EO0

Pallacydenial (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Article 2 of the US Constitution seem relevant here? I do believe that it provides a position for the VP and specifically grants him the right to succession should the President be unable to fulfill his term in office. Cheney supposedly swore to uphold and defend this document. I assume he read it !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.130.235 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article should have a specific section specifically listing Cheney's specific accomplishments during his 8-year tenure. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.251.159 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is amazingly neutral considering that most people are so polarized in their opinions of Dick Cheney. My congrats to all the editors that keep Wikipedia about the facts and not the propaganda. In my humble opinion, Dick Cheney is evil incarnate. But this is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. So a section on his "accomplishments" is inherently biased in favor of Dick Cheney / Republicans, etc. Just as an article of his "crimes" would be inherently biased against Dick Cheny / Republicans, etc. So leave it alone. The article is fine how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a section on his accomplishments would be biased in an overtly-pro Cheney manner. It is best to incorporate things he did well and things he didn't do so well into relevant sections of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney owned 433,333 Halliburton stock options throughout the duration of his Vice-presidency.[1] On the onset he declared that he would sell the stock after his time in office was finished. Any proceeds from this sale would go to charity.[2] Does anyone know if this actually happened? -- Esemono (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, though he allegedly donated 77% of his AGI to charity, so it's very possible. MSNBC --64.9.97.44 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that in the linked article? -- Esemono (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity." followed by "The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney’s books". that makes for 77% of their AGI going to charity (actually closer to 78%). Anastrophe (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGI? What is that? Where is it mentioned in the article? That article is from 2006 so that means he sold his Halliburton stock in 2006? -- Esemono (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's what factcheck.org has to say from 2004

another article i found about it

I can't seem to find anything current though 76.31.233.29 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He "remained a very public and controversial figure"?

This article does not accurately reflect the public perception Mr. Cheney had during his time in office. His poll numbers have steadily declined and he was awarded an honorary doctorate from BYU? Nothing is said of the common perception of the 46th Vice President as a man-sized-safe-owning, friend-face-shooting Dr. Strangelove, which all must agree is easily the most common perception of the man, whether they feel it is a mischaracterization or not. I mean, the jokes that were made when he was rolled out to the inauguration in a wheel chair.

I know that the hunting incident is mentioned during the section on his vice presidency, but it is obviously a matter relating to his public perception, not his service as vice president. It just happened while he was vice president, it has nothing to do with his policy decisions and so forth. The public perception section needs to be enormously improved; this is definitely not a good article without what is an essential aspect of Mr. Cheney's life and his role in national politics.

Also, the "War on Terrorism" section is rather biased. I have retitled it "Iraq War," as that is what it is actually about (which is unequivocally understood as having only dubious connections to any attempt to combat terrorism), but its contents remain problematic. Other than a claim made by Senator Kerry that Cheney lacks credibility and a "despite" caveat, it does not include the essential facts that Mr. Cheney's claims have all been shown to be without any basis whatsoever.

I do not personally have the time to address these issues, but this is clearly not a "good article" and I hope someone will do so at once. Atropos (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that there are many references in the article that are still in the present tense, as if Cheney were still in office.

For what it's worth, I also agree with Atropos' comments above. Brian Eisley (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed one to present tense sentence in the public perceptions section, but I'm blocked from fixing it. -Wervo (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw only once such instance, and fixed it. If there are others, please note here and I'll fix them, too. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody going to write anything about Cheney's assassination squads that go to foreign countries and execute people without presidential or congressional oversight?

Feel free to do it yourself. Seymour Hersh, the source on this matter, was clear in an interview here [3] that he had presidential approval. (Also, he was clear that he had already written about parts of this program in the New Yorker before...) By contrast, Congress didn't know about the operations, so it is inconsistent to lump them both together with the vague term "oversight." -Wervo (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to forget about it. That is not appropriate at all for a BLP. Happyme22 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. As WP does not censor, how is it inappropriate? -Wervo (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking, "Happyme22"? Talk about neocon spin, why don't you elaborate on why exactly this isn't valid criticism that should be included.71.131.7.89 (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice don't use names, be more WP:CIVIL please. -Wervo (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do it yourself. -User:MTL 23:35, 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.191.252 (talk)

(outdent) Enough with the personal attacks IP 71 and MTL. Stay WP:CIVIL. Wervo, I don't believe that allegations alleging that Cheney sent squads of people to go to foreign countries and murder mass amounts of people is suitable for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. It would need to be common knowledge and you would need multiple citations. Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, we could clearly mention something about Dick Cheny being a constant "joke" on shows like the Daily Show (but also others like Letterman, Jay Leno etc.) Including a man sized safe in his office, assassin squads etc etc. In accordance with what appears to be the standard here on Wikipedia, repeatedly and diverse media mentions are clearly relevant to a biography.

In some episodes Jon Stewart goes so far as to equate him, through visual approximation only, to Satan the prince of darkness himself. A "popular media" section seems relevant, this coincidentily avoids the problem with the actual factuality of the acts. If noone else does, I will. Sourcing it will be cake and thedailyshow.com for one provides a searchable clip engine for free on their site.

213.141.89.20 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when dealing with the darker side of any political symbol, finding "facts" available to public are hard to come by. Nevertheless, phrases like "mass mounts of people" and reference to "common knowledge" asserts that you don't care about the facts, just the message. Very little about the man's life is common knowledge, hence why people come to this site expecting a full rounded description of him. Allegations have been made that Cheney was a key figure in an assassination ring which operated on a level beyond even CIA administration. If you care about the truth which you seem to crusade for so vehemently, perhaps it would help to pursue the entire horizon of news sources available. -Justin Villapando

My current thinking is that it is notable and verifiable that JSOC operated in countries under Cheney's supervision without checking in with CIA and without any Congressional oversight.[4] Perhaps the old Hersh article should be used, as the Asia times treats it as completely new news (as I mention above it is not). Hersh now regrets his use of the word assassinate.[5] I assume because it was misconstrued as shocking "new news." -Wervo (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth including, but you have to make sure the references are accurate and verifiable. Kylelovesyou (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to an NYT editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html?th&emc=th), Cheney "wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy...." Is this relevant enough to include if true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, if others agree. It is true that it was blocked, but not so sure if the second part was true that it was to "keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy". Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a section on Cheney post vice presidential life, especially since he's so active and vocal Darth Kalwejt (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph in the lead is confusing.

Cheney joined the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000, who selected him as his running mate. After becoming Vice President, Cheney remained a very public and controversial figure.

This seems to suggest that Cheney was both public and controversial before and after becoming VP. However, I don't recall him being either public or controversial prior to being VP. He certainly wasn't very public during his time as VP, and was only really controversial during the second term as VP. He is now however much more public and probably more controversal after leaving office. Arzel (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question the neutrality of this section in particular, and the article in general. It looks to me like whoever wrote the section on his voting record was setting out to make Cheney look ridiculous. Some more general comments on his voting record are entirely appropriate, but I think that highlighting his policy changes over the years is a little over the top. a lot of the other stuff is iffy, too. The same amount of coverage for five draft deferments (the same as Biden), and for all of his service in the Ford White House? One Wheel (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for offering a friendly reminder to the editors of this article:

A recent set of changes and reverts gives good examples of these events:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Let's leave it as is, OK? Neither version appears partisan to me. Both versions seem grammatically correct and supported by the citations. There's nothing to prove here - perhaps a break from the article, or finding some substantive improvements, are in order? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is a difference between ownership and common sense. There seems to be an effort to label the coal and gas industry as the fossil fuel industry. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel industry. Yes, coal is a fossil fuel, the others are not technically fossil fuels. There are many sources of Oil and Gas that are not the product of millions of years, and are not technically fossils of plant and animal matter. Arzel (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technicalities don't matter, the fact of the matter is is that the oil and gas industry are referred to as the fossil fuel industry by many, just as many referred to Proposition 8 as Prop 8. I realize that a google search, and blogs, are not reliable sources, but in what they are being sourced for, in that many do refer to the industry as what was previously stated, at least, many common people, with regards to the media.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 solid paragraphs about the 2007 Washington Post article in the VP section, policy subsection. This is too long a section about a peripheral topic and over-reliance on one source. It must be re-written in order to be objective. I will not guide the re-writing in order to be objective nor will I say what is wrong with the current version. I will only say that undue weight from one source is bad unless it is an unimportant and obscure article which is given more slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User F203 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A four-day series of articles from a reputable author, which material became an authoritative book on the subject, contain material that had not been introduced before and was essential to the article achieving WP:GA status. The use of this material is consistent with good WP practice. User:HopsonRoad 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the two editors who are edit warring over "oil and gas"/"fossil fuel" please start talking instead of just reverting each other's edits. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a better common noun for petroleum and coal than fossil fuel. So this is what I've used. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just leaving it as petroleum and coal is a valid compromise? "Fossil fuel" is currently recognized as a bit of a misnomer (albeit one in common use). And combining both Petroleum and Coal into one "industry" does not work -- the two industries are quite competitive with one another. Having no real reason to combine the two - let's just leave them separate. Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father worked in both the coal industry and the gas and oil industry for over 15 years. I never heard anyone refer to either as a fossil fuel industry. I have many relatives that currently work in the oil industry and none of them say ther work in the fossil fuel industry. For a point of logic look at the definition of sets. Fossil Fuels are a set than encompass all forms of energy derived from the fossilization of plants and animals. Oil is a set which intersects fossil fuels as not all oils are fossil fuels, and many oils are derived from numerous sources which are not the result of fossilization. Coal is a fossil fuel, however Coal and Crude Oil are not the only fossil fuels. Using the descriptor of Fossil Fuel industry is simply not a logical connection. Perhaps Lapsed Pacifist should explain why the desire to combine two perfectly good and seperate industries (Coal and Oil) into one non-existant and incorrect word? Arzel (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What type of petroleum is not a fossil fuel? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try all of the synthetics, as a start. Work from there. Collect (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is synthetic oil a significant part of the industry in Wyoming? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take that as a no? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Incorrect Link --

This page has a section discussing an investment scandal with a prison operating company. The company named is the Vanguard Group. There may be a company by this name involved; but is not the same company that the link connects to.

The Vanguard Group that the link connects to is a mutual fund company, which may possibly own some shares of prison companies, but is by no means in the business of operating prisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewortiz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I couldn't find anything about the prisons but I did end up investing in one of Vanguard's funds so I guess it was worth it for me. Should be updated to reflect the facts though. - Original Pinyl (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Typo --

Under "Health Problems," we see: "Cheney was cared for by the White House Medical Unit (WHMU).[126] Staff from the WHMG accompany the president and the vice president" "WHMG" should be "WHMU," right?

It turns out (follow the links backwards) that Carole Lombard and Dick Cheney are related, both having a common ancestor in John Cheney who settled in Massachusetts in 1635.

It is worth mentioning that, while definitely a prominent GOP supporter of ssm, as indicated in the article, he is not THE most prominent Republican supporter of ssm. That title goes to President Gerald R. Ford who supported as far back as in 1998 in a Larry King episode. Former President is more prominent than former VP. Agree?

The article says "one of the most prominent." --Happyme22 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the head of the CIA has now publicly stated that Mr. Cheney violated US law by ordering the CIA to conceal a counter-terrorism plan from Congress.

Should this be included in his article? I mean, it seems kind of relevant?

Mardiste (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add it, this article needs some mention of Satan's Death Squads 76.252.41.225 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any statement from the CIA that "that Mr. Cheney violated US law". If you have a reputable source you can cite, I'm sure many would like to see it. Barring that, I would not support any mention in the article of this controversy. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/17/congress.cia/index.html#cnnSTCText Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read every line of the referenced article. The closest it gets to the statement at the top of this section "the CIA has now publicly stated that Mr. Cheney violated US law" is that there will be probe of "possible violations of federal law" - and that's not very close. Accuracy is important, please. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Why is there no mention of the well-known fact that Cheney used the F-word against senator Patrick Leahy on the senate floor? and that Cheney has been fingered by Leahy w.r.t. secrecy issues:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5153305.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.235 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty non notable. Was this a big deal outside the UK? --Tom (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn't seem that it was a big deal and, put simply, it lacks notability. In addition, the burden is on the editor who wishes to add contested material to take their case to the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, I can see where this is going. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunting Incident doesn't have anything to do with his career as Vice President, so I'm going to move it into the Personal Life section. Friginator (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a comment by President Reagan's son, Ron Reagan, is notable.

he called Dick Cheney an "unindicted war criminal" [9] Reliefappearance (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While his father was one of the leaders of the conservative movement, Ron Reagan is a committed liberal whose views of Cheney are going to be negative. There is no credible evidence from reliable sources to support Dick Cheney being an "unindicted war criminal," thus in accordance with our BLP policy, the information should not go in. Happyme22 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there is no evidence that is credible in your opinion. Right? Reliefappearance (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more sources with similar allegations? If not, there is nothing to talk about. InnerParty (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Reliefappearance, I mean that there is no credible evidence, period. Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. I find no non-partisan WP:RS that describes Cheney as a "war criminal". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No, you mean there is no credible evidence in your opinion, as a Cheney supporter. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to find more sources with similar allegations? InnerParty (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? [10]Reliefappearance (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:AGF. I have no problem with an addition based on properly reliable sources. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin-Madison, M.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.166.68 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't vice-president supposed to be hyphenated? I did this and was reverted. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is supposed to be capitalized though. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that on? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney appeared on the ABC's This Week and confessed to waterboarding.

KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.55.10 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Cheney, approved of Enhanced interrogation techniques by the Army and CIA. They didn't flinch. This is not discussed much in this article, yet should be. www.thisweek.com, February 17, 2010, "Cheney: Confessed war criminal?" Richrakh````

I'm not sure where you got the idea that WP articles were here for "discussion". Please RTFM.Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...well, how about, "report," "mention," or "record?" Do any of these words suit you better? The fact is, Cheney is proud of his actions and said so. It should be so "stated" in the article. Richrakh````

It is quite notable that Cheney explicitly condones torture. And that source does satisfy WP:RS and WP:V on the matter. So the way I see it there's really no question as to whether it should be in the article or not. The only question is how to word it in respect to WP:NPOV and WP:BOLP. Kevin Baas^talk 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have missed it thus far in the discussion, but please describe in detail which source says that Cheney "explicitly condones torture".Jarhed (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that..." -Dick Cheney, ABC's "This Week". Kevin Baas^talk 21:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I am still missing the mention of "torture".Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now of course since the Bush Administration, Fox News, and the RNC's campagin to sanitize the term waterboarding, it's now "controversial" whether making someone feel like they're drowning is cruel or not. So we'd have to dilly-dally around that a bit. Also, it's not obvious that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for methods that aren't conventionally considered "acceptable", to use yet another euphemism. Even though these things are popularly recognized in the historical context. So that would be another example of where we'd have to be careful with the wording to present both sides according to WP:NPOV. Kevin Baas^talk 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"dilly-dally"? Do you mean like when you say "cruel" when you are trying express the concept "torture"? Such euphemistic posturing is unnecessary. Find a reliable source for "war crimes" and we have something to work with. Find a reliable source for "torture" and we can go from there. Until then, dilly-dally all you wish.--Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Torture.
• War_crime.

When I say cruel I mean quite simply "cruel". I am intentionally leaving expressing the concept of "torture" to the relevant laws and literature on the subject. I am saying that it is precisely the "cruel" element that they intended to make disappear. Kevin Baas^talk 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's something a little more specifically relevant: List_of_war_crimes#2001-present:_September_11th.2C_and_the_.22War_on_Terrorism.22 Kevin Baas^talk 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<== Oh please, spare me your childish lectures. Yap about war crimes all you wish, but if you want a mention in this particular BLP, please provide a reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to "find me a reliable source": I believe the whole point of this is that we have direct notable quotes from Dick Cheney on ABC. A reliable source, no? As regards reliable sources for "cheney supports torture" or anything like that I have specifically stated twice that we should avoid synthesis so you should have realized by now that you're, as they say, "preaching to the choir".

And I don't remember the last time I heard a "child" discuss current events and international law. Esp. while citing sources and specifics and being eruditely deliberate in their choice of words. thus I find your "childish lectures" remark to be completely ridiculous / off-the-wall - even laughable, in addition to being offensive and inappropriate. (Which might I say, is, ironically, well... you get the picture.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me as if we have consensus then.Jarhed (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm happy with things. Forgive me for getting a little carried away at the end of my last response. Kevin Baas^talk 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for knee-jerking a little there, I think it was the "war crimes" mention that put me off. I propose the following as the 2nd para of the Dick_cheney#Criticism_of_President_Obama section:

During a February 14, 2010 appearance on ABC's This Week, Cheney reiterated his criticism of the Obama administration's "mindset" of treating "terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war". He also reiterated his strong support of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, "I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program."^[1]

Jarhed (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the first sentence be placed in Criticism of President Obama. The second sentence should be reworded slightly and placed at the end of the Iraq War section, when the events occured or in the Policy Fomulation section after footnote #98 which already mentions Interrogation and can be elaborated on. Cheney has supported his stand on interrogation long before he started criticizing Obama. Richrakh````

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that several editors were very emotional about getting some mention of this interview into the article. What I hear you saying is that everything Cheney said in the interview was old news. If that is what you are saying, I agree, and I vote no change to the article.Jarhed (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Cheney said in the ABC interview is NOT old news. The ABC interview in 2010 is the first time that I know of that Cheney has actually said, "I was and remain a strong proponent, etc..." It could be mentioned in the section "Irag War" when the events occurred or in the section "Policy Formulation" which currently states "...Cheney's influence on decisions pertaining to...what constitutes torture." From that sentence one could construe that Cheney is AGAINST enhanced interrogation, or maybe that Cheney only DISCUSSED what constitutes torture. We now know, as he stated for the first time to ABC, that "I WAS AND REMAIN A STRONG PROPONENT..." Nowhere in the current article is this mentioned or even hinted at. It should be. Your sentence on criticism of Obama is fine. But I feel the second sentence would be more useful placed within the context of the Irag War or Policy Formulation sections. Which does not make it old news, just more information on old events. Richrakh````

<== Fine, I made the edits as you suggested. I hope you're happy now.Jarhed (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No, I'm not particularly happy....but Dick Cheney is. He was finally guoted correctly. You seem to have a problem with it though. Why? Richrakh````

Sorry about that. I would have put one of these things in, but I always screw them up: :*&  :@# --Jarhed (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard just tonight on TV that Dick Cheney has been hospitalized (First time in 2010s) at the George Washington University Hospital with chest pains, and is resting comfortably, according to his staff. CNN.com article RYAN 3000 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prove it or remove this utter nonsense from the article. prove that Cheney was too young to be drafted in viet nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Evidently, Cheney kept getting college deferments until he got married and had a kid making him a hardship case and thus ineligable. The Selective Service did NOT take only older men. Richrakh````