For example, they point out that Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburtons, has a contract to control oil fires in Iraq if the well heads are set on fire. As Vice President, Cheney currently receives up to US $1,000,000 in deferred salary payments from Halliburton, which are arranged and insured so Cheney will receive the same deferred payment amounts regardless of Halliburton's fortunes. Cheney also sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8 million. He arranged to pay any profits to charity.

I removed this until the orginal author balances this with something positive about the Veep. — 64.12.96.135

This is the balance: "supporters of Vice President Cheney point to his reputation for knowledge and character." If you think more is needed, add it. If you or someone else doesn't soon, I'm putting the above back in. There's no use hiding from the truth. --Jiang 19:53, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I thought the policy for wikipedia was the orginal author needed to present a balance view see JoeM user page. I don't see how a one sentence of how his supporters say he a honorable guy is balance by a paragraph about his oil deals. I have no problem with the truth by only part of the truth it just seems that it quite selective what gets put in some articles. — 64.12.96.135

Jiang, I think he has a point. The "character" aspect of the article is not particularly neutral because the detail given to fringe and unattributed allegations makes it seem like something illegal was done, even though nobody credible has alleged any ethics violations or violations of the law (which does happen: James Traficant, Dan Rostenkowski [1], Richard Nixon). The previous version of the article was only one step away from alleging that Cheney was out setting oil fires himself (and the fact remains that oil fires have not been a very big problem). That being said, it's not the burden of the original author to provide balance, it can be done by anyone. The current article is more balanced than the previous version, though, I think it's better now. — Daniel Quinlan 21:47, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

I agree the original was a bit too biased to making a financial link with Cheney and an "appearance" of helping out Halliburton. So I've tried putting in a more balanced version for size. And by the way, one should be very cautious about using JoeM as a yardstick for anything, much less politics and the military. - Fuzheado 04:50, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ikariotis: Why did you delete the information about Cheney donating profits from his stock options to charity? Also, don't you think it's somewhat selective to mention that Cheney is earning deferred salary without mentioning the associated insurance policy that he set up to avoid a financial conflict of interest? It seems you did a lot of research, so that seems very unbalanced. Perhaps as a new user you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy of presenting a neutral point of view? Daniel Quinlan 05:17, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't really think the article is very neutral now either. There is plenty of evidence of conflict of interest for this character. However, the article downplays the conflict of interest. I think it's not a coincidence that his "former" company is now accepting 2 billion dollar no-bid deals. Plus, the "charities" he has donated to are dubious. He has been criticized for his stingy contributions to charitable causes. Last year, Cheney gave $40,000 to charity. That amounts to 1 percent of his 1999 earnings. If I gave one percent of my earnings to charity that would be 300 dollars a year. That's nothing. The money to charity was only given after he was exposed to considerable pressure because of his conflict of interest. If you are going to write about the charity, admit that he was basically forced to do it, instead of trying to make him seem like some kind of a good guy. Furthermore, the reference to his good character is someone's opinion, not fact and should be removed from the article. As a result of the Iraq war, he will become considerably richer (albeit after his term in office is over). But do what you wish, I think the conservatives here on Wikipedia will make sure the article makes him seem better then he is. Respectfully, Ikariotis

There's nothing positive to say about this sick mother[expletive]. He's the real dictator of the United States at the moment (why we see so little of him and so much of Bush), and has used Bush as a frontman to divert attention from himself--considering that that would most likely immediately lead to investigation of his corporate corruption. He's nothing but a power-driven, genocidal, cold-blooded, inhuman [expletive]nut who deserves to be put behind bars. Khranus

Yeah, but the idea is that this should be portrayed objectively so that anyone coming here blind will come to the same conclusion driven by dispassionate evaluation of the evidence, rather than see the page as an obvious hatchet job by somebody with an axe to grind, no matter how well earned that axe might be. (Not that I'm saying that the page looks like a hatchet job now, just a general statement)Gzuckier 15:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be something mentioned about his heal problems (heart attacks, allergy to pomegranates, etc).

IMHO such things only need to be mentioned if they affect his professional life, like if he needs to be out of office for weeks because of the health problems. But an allergy for one fruit isn't much problem in every-day life, so I would consider that one irrelevant for an encyclopedia - except if a terrorist manages to kill him with pomegranates... andy 17:20, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One thing that may want to be edited is the "Opponents and detractors accuse him of being too closely tied and beholden to the oil industry," portion. It would seem to me that many also accuse him of now being the "missing VP." While he may have been one of the most involved before 9-11, he seems to have dissapeared since then. Would this be applicable to add? --Wolf530 08:01, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've never read any Democrat accuse Cheney of being "missing" except immediately after September 11th for security reasons. Can you substantiate those claims? Maybe should go under Anti-Cheney links with the rest of the conspiracies. Maybe you should add to Kerry's page that he missed 70% of the possible 612 Votes In The 108th Senate from 1/1/03-7/6/04? --Ryan Knoll 03:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to leave a note and thank the changes made by 67.42.128.231 around July 9, the fixes are excellent and fair - plus perfect grammar fixes, word choices and paragraph constructs. I hope that person sticks around and helps out some more. --Ryan Knoll 03:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This section is messy and unorganized. Furthermore, the negative bias is substantial because it focuses almost exclusively on draft deferments and DWI. I'm going to try and reorganize it so it is at least chronologically in order. Any comments? Please put below to discuss.

--Ryan Knoll 05:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Cheney is a bit blurred in that pic, but he's sort of well known for pushing the Iraq war. WhisperToMe 05:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to add some info about the "frank exchange of views" that Cheney had with Patrick Leahy. Or as Leno called it, Cheney's potty mouth.

JesseG 01:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Jesse. Cheney's screaming obscenities at Senator Leahy anywhere would be major, but to do so the the halls of the United States Senate is astonishing. Such arrogance, such lack of respect, is shocking to any true American patriots and must horrify foreigners when they learn about it. More "quod licet jovi, non licet bovi". I wonder whether it makes sense for Wikipedia to use the somewhat prissy "f***" instead of spelling out the word? After all the Vice President of the United States now feels free to use that word in the Senate?

Everything after the first sentence about the N.E.P.D.G. has nothing to do with Cheney. It be better to cut everything after that first sentence and create a new page with the contents. Maybe move that first sentence to the end of the paragraph mentioning P&G.

Here are the changes I made in individual form for discussion:

• (cur) (last) 14:27, 9 Jul 2004 Texture (Anti-Cheny - pick one article form Salon.com - we are not an ad for them nor should we link to every portion of their website)
• (cur) (last) 14:26, 9 Jul 2004 Texture (Anti-Cheny - Neutral description of last link)
• (cur) (last) 14:25, 9 Jul 2004 Texture (Anti-Cheny - one at a time - This is inflammatory and biased - stick to the original text)

Any comments on my changes? - Tεxτurε 19:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One more:

• (cur) (last) 14:30, 9 Jul 2004 Texture (Pro-Cheney - rm - don't link to individual's web sites - not a valid reference - contrived just so you can claim a balanced "pro-cheney" site)

I don't believe in adding a single junk link just so you can say that the several anti-cheney links are balanced by the one junk "we love cheney" link. - Tεxτurε 19:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want to balance them go right ahead. Put in a thousand Cheney love links. I wont stop you. StoptheBus18 19:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One problem with that assumption. I am not pro-Cheney. Please address the individual concerns. - Tεxτurε 19:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS youre fancy user name is an eyesore

Personal attacks are not appropriate here and are against Wikipedia policy. Any further discussion on this should be done on either your user page or mine. - Tεxτurε 19:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The number of anti-Cheney links is silly. Links to political cartoons? I thought Wikipedia was a serious encyclopedia that people take pride in? Look at Al Gore's page for example, there are no hate or conspiracy sites listed, a few debunking the silly claim that related to inventing the Internet, but that's it. Even though there are plenty of embarrasing and attacking articles about Gore, nobody linked to them. I propose to delete all the Anti-Cheney links, or maybe let Stopthebus18 who posted them all pick one. --Ryan Knoll 03:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The same thing happen to the George W. Bush Wikipedia article. Both of the pro-Bush and anti-Bush links had "questionable references" and were removed. [2] Plus, most of the anti-Cheney links are just links to Salon articles that require to pay money to view the article. -- DraQue Star

I didn't mean to undo the NPOV wording of the last link. Thats fine. Also I wasn't implying that you were pro-Cheney, all I was saying was that if you felt these links were unbalanced, you could balance them with pro-Cheney links (if you were so inclined). StoptheBus18 19:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I deleted 3 Anti Cheney links. One was the political cartoon, next was an opinion piece about Wal-Mart and using that opinion to attack Cheney (doesn't add to Cheney bio at all), and last was a link to a short 3 paragraph article about his smile (or author's opinion that his smile is a scowl) which adds no biographical value. Comment here if you think the articles should go back or if you think more should be removed. --Ryan Knoll 21:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to eventually add some pro-Cheney links to counterbalance the conspiracy theories under Anti-Cheney using the same format and style. See above comment about deleting all the Anit-Cheney links. --Ryan Knoll 21:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The picture of Cheney and Abdullah strikes me as a POV addition playing into the Fahrenheit 9/11 stereotype. I'm not aware of a single president or VP who hasn't met with a member of the Saudi royal family since FDR. It's obviously not a coincidence that Cheney is the only VP featured along with a Saudi royal in his WP bio piece. I replaced it with a photo of Cheney with his grandson on 7/2/04 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ (public domain), which is more appropriate for a biographical piece. 172 12:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This Dick Cheney "page" is horibbly biased and is even containing blatant propaganda. The vast use of spinful language is disturbing. You are destroying Wiki's credibility.

Thanks for giving us some examples, anon, and thanks for visiting. --Golbez 01:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Someone identified only by an IP number rv'd perfectly good language about the controversy Cheney's daughter has created by being a lesbian. If you ask me, the person wishes to water down the facts that the Republican Party, led by George Bush, has sought to amend the constitution to phohibit gay marriage and that conversative elements of the Republican Party do in fact think homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural. The latter was backed up with a link to an article about Alan Keyes calling Mary a "selfish hedonist" and that she needs to pray to God.

I'm going to rv again. If the person disagrees with the language, we can discuss it here. --Nysus 03:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)