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)

Please discuss any changes I made to this section hear or they will likely be reverted. I believe I have been extraordinarily fair and judicious. Cheney's bio isn't a place to debate Democrat or Republican gay marriage issues or extreme views by either party. --Ryan Knoll 04:17, 9 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 provides reasons for the attention Cheney's daughter has received because of her sexuality. The original language 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. The original sentence has also been further supplemented with another citation to an article that states the Republican Party's platform includes support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

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)

I removed both our statements characterizing his daughter's public attention for being lesbian - visitors can view these details on her page. This isn't a marriage debate page so let's both give up on this and just leave the lesbianism generic like this without any limiting characterizations:

"Mary is a lesbian and her sexual orientation occasionally becomes the focus of public attention." --Ryan Knoll 04:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, from your comments above, I don't think you understand. Mary is not getting attention because she is lesbian, she is getting attention because she is lesbian and her father is a prominent Republican. Do you not see the distinction here? --Nysus 06:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what do you mean "limiting characterizations?" Everything I've stated is fact and backed up with citations. If they are facts, and they are, and they are pertinent to an article about Dick Cheney, and they are, then my sentence should be left in. Can you give one good reason why my sentence should be taken out? The reason you gave, "limiting characterizations," just doesn't cut it for me. --Nysus 05:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You calling an unconventional usually extremist like Keyes a 'social conservative', is your characterization of his political views that many would say is too light. You use the word "ban" in regards to gays marrying each other, no Republican or Democratic proposal or amendment talks about 'banning' gays, polygamists, or whoever from participating in gov't endorse marriage (they can marry opposite sex). The focus is on preventing judges deciding defintions of marriage and leaving it to citizens to decide. --Ryan Knoll 06:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, so please suggest some compromise language. There is no reason to completely remove a legitimate sentence because you don't agree with my langauge choice. Also, in the language you reverted, I linked to a respected newspaper article that uses the word "ban" quite frequently. The term is quite common because it is accurate and concise. Also, if you look at the citation in my reverted language below, the Republican Party has it in their platform a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The focus is not on preventing judges from deciding. It's on changing the constitution to, yes, ban gay marriage. --Nysus 06:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree. She gets most of the attention because she is a lesbian daughter of a prominent political figure. The attention would be the same if it was Al Gore's daughter or Dick Cheney's daughter. Some of it is because of the current events like judges changing marriage and triggering state/national Constitutional Amendments. Some is because various groups or people hurl miscellaneous attacks or criticisms at her or Dick Cheney. To try and qualify the various types of attention seems silly and pointless. It already says she is a lesbian. If people want more info that is more controversial or more indepth, they can click on her name and see much more. --68.77.26.173 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The attention would be the same if it was Al Gore's daughter or Dick Cheney's daughter." I respectfully disagree. But neither of us can prove our respective assertions so we must discount this argument and a waste of time to argue the point. It's pure speculation and it's not even relevant to the debate. I have no idea why you would bring it up.

But another statement you make, an editorial judgement call, deserves discussion. You said "If people want more info that is more controversial or more indepth, they can click on her name and see much more." As I've pointed out, Dick Cheney has had to address her sexuality and it has been a source controversy for Dick Cheney. Clearly, then, if it affects Dick Cheney, then her sexuality deserves mention and the article should also provide at least some basic reasons why it has been a source of controversy. And, if Al Gore's daughter's sexuality was a source of controversy for him, I would have no problem at all putting that in an article about Al Gore. --Nysus 21:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Cheney bio shouldn't include a debate on whether 'ban' is an accurate term to be used in describing a general Republican view on marriage. Considering Missouri passed by 76% a man/woman marriage Amendment, it hardly qualifies as a Republican or Democratic issue, especially since not a single Congressman from either has specifically endorsed same sex marriage, not even John Kerry. --68.77.26.173 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, your reasoning seems a bit two-face to me. You added language about Mary and Elizabeth's professions and education into the paragraph that really don't have anything to do with Dick Cheney. Yet, your argument to me about the facts I mentioned that are relevant to Dick Cheney is that "visitors can view these details on her page." Can you explain this? It seems like a double standard to me. If I were a cynic, I'd say you were trying to sweep any controversy under the rug because it might reflect bad upon your favored political party. But, as you know, that's not a good reason to hide good, relevant facts. --Nysus 05:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added a short, non-controversial background sentence on each daughter's edu/job which seems appropriate considering it is a "Early Life and Family" section. If I went beyond a descriptive sentence, I'd agree with you that it is too much and deserves its own wikipage. I don't mind controversial issues as all so long as they're presented fairly and are relevant to the bio. That's why I kept in the mention of lesbian and that it draws attention. Debating how and why the lesbian controversies plays out seems not worth the debate, do you agree and really want to debate this out? --Ryan Knoll 06:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I have already said, this isn't about just Mary and her lesbianism, this is very much about Dick Cheney and the Republican Party which he leads. Her being a lesbian is not controversial. It's not 1952 anymore. What is controversial is that her Dad is a leader of the Republican Party which has a lot to say about gays and lesbians. As I already stated, he has had to publicly defend her sexuality and reconcile it publicly with the stance of the Republican Party. This fact shouldn't just be swept under the rug. --Nysus 06:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See my above comments. Lesbian daughter of prominent official = attention of people for many reasons and motivations. It becomes extremely innaccurate and sloppy to try and summarize all the different types of media attention she gets on her father's page. This isn't supposed to be a biased New York Times Op Ed piece, it's supposed to be as neutral as possible. Feel free to add it to her page if it is important. --68.77.26.173 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You repeat yourself so I will repeat myself: Dick Cheney has had to address her sexuality and it has been a source controversy for Dick Cheney. Clearly, then, if it affects Dick Cheney, then her sexuality deserves mention and the article should also provide at least some basic reasons why it has been a source of controversy. And, if Al Gore's daughter's sexuality was a source of controversy for him, I would have no problem at all putting that in an article about Al Gore. --Nysus 02:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See proposed language 2, it is updated.

The pure fact she is a lesbian generates media attention for many reason, motivations and causes. You can argue including her sexual oriention in her father's bio is pointless, but I compromised and left it in and even that it generates attention. Is that not a fair and unbiased compromise?

One helpful hint: it's kind of bad form to rv an edit once a discussion in talk has been initiated about the langauge in question. --Nysus 05:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to put in a RfC and see what others think. --Nysus 06:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise OK, I'm going to throw out the following. Any objections? Mary, a lesbian, has been a source of controversy for Dick Cheney, who has had to publicly reconcile his daughter's sexuality with the Republican Party's attempts to prevent gay marriage with a constitutional amendement[3] and with other elements of the Republican Party who condemn homosexuality as immoral or unnatural.[4] --Nysus 15:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object. Using an inflammatory statement by a guy who extremist and fringey views like Keyes is the grossly misrepresentative, and besides HE IS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL!! Neither Republicans or Democrats has stated they want the government to endorse and encourage same-sex marriage. The word 'reconcile' is misleading, how does having a gay daughter need reconciling when defining marriage between a man and woman? You are implying the marriage amendment is somehow anti-gay! Likewise, Reuters and AP are generally very slanted as well and using the provocative word 'ban' is inaccurate and just sexy journalism. I know of no elected national Republican figure who says gays shouldn't marry because of morals alone. Like I said above, the attention is because of her lesbianism generally and has increased in attention because of what is going on in the marriage debates at the state and national leve. Much debate is generated from the gay activists trying to argue for gay marriage. --68.77.26.173 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Next you are going to tell me that the religious right doesn't exist, right? Come off it, guy! Your position is ludicrous. Millions upon millions upon millions of religious right Rebpublicans, a HUGE component of the Republican Party, are against gay marriage and think it is immoral and unnatural. Keyes is just one strong and clear example of one of these millions of people and that's why I included the article. It also mentions Mary Cheney, too. But I could produce countless articles that document the religious right's moral objections to gay marriage and homosexuality. --Nysus 02:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are very religiuos people on the right and left. People who may think having gay sex is unnatural and immoral is not a Republican or Democratic issue and is debate for the gay marriage page, not Dick Cheney's page. Both parties are composed of people with very diverse views. Should we include the many Democratic opinions that Dick Cheney is racist and son of Satan? Though it is implied in the anti-Cheney links, I think it is silly to put these in a Vice President's biography. --Ryan Knoll 22:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SUGGESTED COMPROMISE 2 Mary is a lesbian and her sexual orientation occasionally becomes the focus of increasing public attention in light the recent [marriage] controversies and the Bush administration's support to define marriage as between one man and one woman. (UPDATED 5:15PM EST, 9-9-2004) by --Ryan Knoll 21:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) The above is general, not qualifying any words or using extreme views from the left or right, and links to the Wikipedia marriage page where much of what we're debating is hashed out and presented. I say the attention is instigated from State courts changing the definition of marriage causing a flurry of proposed legislation, etc. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a blog for latest activist group so let's not turn this into one. It should be a distinguished and factual representation of a VP of the USA. Maybe you want to add to Mary Cheney's page your links and opinions on marriage? --68.77.26.173 19:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For our convenience, I've pasted my sentence that you reverted below:

REVERTED LANGUAGE IN DISPUTE

Their daughter Mary, a lesbian, has attracted media attention because of the Republican Party's platform to ban gay marriage[5] and because her sexuality places her at odds with socially conservative Republicans who condemn homosexuality as immoral or unnatural.[6] --Nysus 05:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surely Ryan's objections to using the phrase "ban on gay marriage" show us where he's coming from. Nysus's suggested version looks fine to me. john k 16:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm mirroring what the Amendment proposal(s) says and what Cheney says, not how people like to spin it or make it sound negative. Look at what you're saying. That's like saying when the gov't defines what qualifies as a charity, it is banning benefits for day-care centers. It is misleading and slanted. The marriage amendment allows everyone to participate in gov't sponsored marriage with one person from the opposite sex (this supports creating and raising children, etc.). The amendment says on one male, one female relationships are worthy of gov't support, understand? I changed the Proposed Language 2 to reflect more information. --Ryan Knoll 21:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, come on. Whatever you think of gay marriage, gay marriage, it does not mean gay people marrying members of the opposite sex. The constitutional amendment would ban gay marriage. If you think gay marriage is wrong, and should be banned, that's fine, but don't give us this nonsense. john k 23:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, I understand why you apparently honestly believe it is a ban. If the Amendment singled out gays and said "No two people of the same-sex may marry each other and are hereby banned from marriage.", then I'd say yes, that is the negative language warranting characterization as a ban. But, many different relationships are not included in the marriage definition, you are singling out gays. Maybe because I'm a lawyer I'm more used to piercing through ambigous and double-meaning language, that's why it is so obvious to me, I don't know. --Ryan Knoll 22:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fact that Mary's sexual orientation is perceived as being a factor in Dick Cheney's opposition to the republican party and GWB's view on marriage warrants being mentioned in the Dick Cheney article. The language in dispute quote above is relevant. While you might try to tone down the wording, the text, at the very least, should mention how Mary's sexual orientation is perceived to have influenced Dick Cheney's position on the marriage issue.

Again, where has Cheney said he is for the government sponsoring same-sex couples to marry? He has said he supports his administrations position and doesn't want courts defining marriage. He has said people should be free to enter into any relationship, he didn't say any relationships should be sanctioned by the government through marriage. I or anyone else shouldn't try to put words in people's mouths --Ryan Knoll 21:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current article text:

Mary is a lesbian and her sexual orientation occasionally becomes the focus of public attention.

is bad because it is overly vague. A reader might mistake the nature of the media attention. As far as I can tell, the sole focus of media attention on Mary Cheney is due to her (perceived) influence on Dick Cheney's (personal) opposition to a constitutional marriage amendment.

I added more, take a look please. --Ryan Knoll 01:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Funkyj 20:31, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

The public's attention (not just media attention) states it comes from the marriage controversy and GWB's support of defining marriage. Fair enough now? Throwing words in like ban, immoral, etc. that aren't in any proposals should be left the marriage TALK page, not Cheney's bio.--Ryan Knoll 21:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

no, not fair enough.

First: here is a CNN article [7] in which Dick Cheney expresses his personal opinion that he is against a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

* That's not what Cheney's words are. He said courts are interfering with the state legislators ability to define marriage. He sees the Federal Amendment as a valid way to protect those state's rights. --Ryan Knoll 01:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, if States Legislatures want to legalise gay marriage, they will be able to under this amendment, right? Wrong. So, is Cheney being duplicitous or just plain stupid? Proposed addition to article: "Cheney's assertion that the Federal Amendment is a valid way of protecting States' Rights is categorically wrong. This suggests that Cheney is either intentionally misleading the people of America, or an idiot who is unable to understand the very simple language of the amendment." 172.186.179.97 08:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but your logic is off because no state population has ever, or forseeably will ever, expanded marriage to include anything but one man and one woman. So state's rights are protected by the Fed Amendment. Only judges have recently tried to interfere and force new marriage definitions for society. Therefore, the Federal Amendment, which needs to be ratified by the states anyway, would protect and maintain what always was the unanimous definition of marriage from judges' interference.--Ryan Knoll 12:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

second: removing "ban, immoral, etc" is worthy of consideration. Should inclusion of this terminology be contingent on it appearing in official Republican authored documents, e.g. the platform or the proposed amendment?

* Yes, because that is what Cheney supports and the reasons given. --Ryan Knoll 01:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Third: as far as I have seen, Mary has maintained media silence on the issue of a constitutional marriage amendment where as Dick Cheney has publicly addressed the issue. Combine this fact with the fact that this is the Dick Cheney article and it should be clear that what this article should focus on is how Mary's life style has affected Dick Cheney. Any mention of Mary (or Elizabeth) in the Dick Cheney article should be directly relevant to Dick Cheney. Other topics (e.g. talking about how the media scrutiny has affected Mary) belongs in a Mary Cheney or Elizabeth Cheney article.

* To say Cheney believes the government should endorse marriages other than hetero is a lie. --Ryan Knoll 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Funkyj 23:09, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Ryan Knoll is completely ridiculous. How does an amendment which does not allow any state to legalize marriage between members of the same sex not constitute a ban on gay marriage? There is no point in trying to come to a consensus with someone spouting such nonsense. john k 23:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because it is misleading, gays can marry the opposite sex if the want to. Why do you oppose using the terminology used by Republicans and Dick Cheney? See my comments above about this issue. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand for people and why using a word like 'ban' is so important when no Republican or Cheney uses it? Banning is a buzz word the media uses because it sounds provocative to say. How can you ban something that was never allowed in the first place?

to wit. This CNN article [8] again:

A proposed constitutional amendment that would have effectively banned same-sex marriage failed on a procedural vote in the Senate in July on a 48-50 vote -- well short of the two-thirds majority needed for amendments to be sent to the states for ratification.

Funkyj 23:22, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

All reporters inject there biases in articles routinely. They try to grab headlines and attention, sex sells and saying banning sounds provocative --Ryan Knoll 00:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ryan, you have excellent trolling skills. Really! What part of the CNN report is reporter injected bias? Are you suggesting that the proposed amendment would not have banned same sex marriage? What was its purpose then? Do tell as I could use another good laugh. --Funkyj 00:42, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not trolling, is it? The word BAN is not in any Republican or Democratic statement, therein lies my problem by people characterizing it as a ban on certain groups. It doesn't say, "we are banning gay, polygamists, incest, beastiality relationships", it defines it to only the tradition form of marriage. The CNN article is fair except for saying it singles out same-sex and doesn't mention polygamists, incest, etc who may also want to marry. A big bias was in the Reuters article above infusing the word banning throughout.

Ryan, I think we need to be careful here. This is very similar to the debate over the term "partial birth abortion". Politicians are very adept at using language in a way that favors their particlar side of the debate. It's our job as editors to call a spade a spade, however. We can't be restricted to using the Republican's terminology or argumentation just because they use it. We must try to be objective and use language that most accurately and objectively describes the reality of those policies. WARNING: The following is just an example and is not meant to be a comparison between the Republicans and Nazis. I'm sure Hitler didn't call his mass extermination of Jews the "Holocaust." He probably gave his policy to kill Jews some nice sounding name like the "National Purification Program". --Nysus 04:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus: The example is very extreme, yes. However, here I'm trying to present the facts or policy without implying any value judgements or double-meanings. I'm trying to strip out anybody's opinion, state what is black and white, and save conservative and liberal opinions to the wikipage links where the issue debate is appropriate. --Ryan Knoll 22:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, what the language I put in the compromise language in #2 seems more than fair and is 100% consistent with proposals and statements made by Cheney. I'll add that tonight unless someone has a compelling reason why is not far enough. It focuses the controversy on the marriage debate and Republican stance on it.

PLEASE, THIS BOX ONLY FOR RYAN'S COMMENTS.

Ryan, before you do that, please state very specifically what portions of the following sentence is untrue and why it doesn't belong in an article about Dick Cheney. You seemed to have completely ignored it earlier. Here it is again, slightly revised:

Mary, a lesbian, has been a source of controversy for Dick Cheney, who has had to publicly reconcile his daughter's sexuality with the Republican Party's attempts to prohibit same-sex marriage with a constitutional amendement[3] (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6082853) and with other elements of the Republican Party who condemn homosexuality as immoral or unnatural.

That is slightly better than what you previously had. But, here are my problems with it: calling it a 'controversey' when it really isn't, implying there is a conflict in his position by saying he had to 'reconcile', gay relationships is but one type of relationship that does not fall under the definition of the FMA, condemning homosexuality is not any part of the Republican party. --Ryan Knoll 04:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this: - Mary's sexual orientation as a lesbian has become a source of increasing public attention for Dick Cheney in light of the recent same-sex marriage debate and Cheney's support of a Federal Marriage Amendment which would not allow Mary to marry a same-sex person. --Ryan Knoll 04:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) - :: This better? --Ryan Knoll 04:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't really like that last phrase after 'which would...' but oh well. I see no reason for stating the immoral or unnatural part considering Keyes is not a public official and his comments weren't directed specifically to Cheney's daughter which the reporter tried to make it out to be. --Ryan Knoll 04:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) =

OK, I think we are making progress toward an agreement and a good compromise. We've got the part about how it affects Dick Cheney which is really the reason it should be in the article. However, I think there is still some work to be done. I have to get to bed now, though. Look for counter proposal some time tomorrow, please. --Nysus 04:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears you want to continue working on the language, Nysus. What information do you believe is essential yet still left out? --Ryan Knoll 18:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, please answer the following question, TRUE or FALSE.

1. Dick Cheney recently addressed issues surrounding his daughter's sexuality in public.

• True. He never addressed anything about it being immoral or unnatural though. --Ryan Knoll 04:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In response to:

"How does an amendment which does not allow any state to legalize marriage between members of the same sex not constitute a ban on gay marriage?" john

Ryan Knoll says:

"Because it is misleading, gays can marry the opposite sex if the [sic] want to."

That sums things up nicely. What more can one say? --Funkyj 00:57, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Can we get an admin here to help Ryan find the exit? --12.7.173.34 02:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ryan says: The CNN article is fair except for saying it singles out same-sex and doesn't mention polygamists, incest, etc who may also want to marry.

Besides the fact that the anti-gay marriage amendment would, so far as I can tell, not have any effect on possible incestuous marriages (It doesn't say that "marriage is between a man and a woman who are no more closely related than second cousin," does it?), this is just ridiculous - the sponsors of the amendment have made it very clearly that their primary interest is preventing people from marrying people the same sex as them. They are honest about what they are trying to do (although they will bring in bestiality, et al, as slippery slope arguments), so why all this ridiculous obfuscation? john k 02:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The amendment is not 'anti-gay' as you characterize it. That is exactly the reason we shouldn't even be debating the gay marriage topic on a Dick Cheney bio page or using words that invoke alternate meanings or false implications. Just state the basics and the links. I think we're very close to compromise. See section called PLEASE, THIS BOX ONLY FOR RYAN'S COMMENTS above. --Ryan Knoll 04:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gah. I didn't say it was "anti-gay." I said it was "anti-gay marriage". This is true. This is the whole purpose of the amendment, as described by its own supporters. You are a ridiculous person. john k 06:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just because some relationships (gay, polygamist, etc.) aren't included in a government definition, doesn't mean it is 'anti' anything. Is a definition of what businesses can qualify as a charity 'anti' mom-and-pop stores since they are for-profit? Of course not. It sounds like you prefer embracing the victimization perspective. --Ryan Knoll 22:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any referrences to it ought to be brief. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is very irrelavant given the man's extensive and diverse career, and any reference, if any, should be a minimum. --Ryan Knoll 22:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like her lesbianism came up when Cheney was debating Edwards or during the presidential debate. Plus, it's best just sweep it under the carpet because it's kind of embarrassing to the man. Nysus 05:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Cheney clearly says he has a gay daughter, it's not swept under the rug or ignored. Keep in mind the issue in context of the man's distinguished 30+ year career. The recent attention is because of the temporary political climate and judges instigating the marriage debate, it'd be a shame for a wikipedia biography of a US Vice President to turn into an opinion or special-interest blog. But if you think it is necessary to insert more information on the topic, I'm more than open to it when it is simple facts and non-biased language. See what I suggested above, I repasted it below with the wikilinks. --Ryan Knoll 06:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mary's sexual orientation as a lesbian has become a source of increasing public attention for Dick Cheney in light of the recent same-sex marriage debate and Cheney's support of a Federal Marriage Amendment which would not allow Mary to marry a same-sex person. --Ryan Knoll 06:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That language is fine by me. But although your argument about the signifigance of her sexuality is valid, it is not consistent. For example, please explain why you are not making the same argument about the historically insignificant "go fuck yourself" incident which receives 239 words worth of attention. Do you really think someting like that is more important than his daughter's lesbianism which has become an issue in the 2004 election and in the gay marriage debate? Nysus 14:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is too much written on the "go fuck yourself" comment myself, and I tried to delete some of it a while back but I understand that there is no other place to list the topic but on Cheney's own page. Here, the lesbianism the issue is with his daughter who has her own wikipage.--Ryan Knoll 15:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the CNN article, Cheney doesn't support a Federal Marriage Amendment, though. He seems to believe that marriage should be a state decision, but that for the purposes of federal law (such as income tax filing status) same-sex marriages will not be recognized. That was an informative article, so I'd suggest any compromise wording include that link. anthony (see warning) 14:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reporter is trying to conclude that Cheney and Bush fundamentally disagree, which isn't an honest conclusion. Cheney said he beleives it is an issue for the states citizens to decide, just like the President believes, but courts are stepping in to make the decision for the people, which neither the Pres or VP want. And the President believes the best way to handle that is the Fed Marriage Amen, which must be ratified by the states. Cheney never disagreed with this solution.

On another note, why isn't there a section here for Dick Cheney's political positions? anthony (see warning)

Good find, Anthony. And good question. I think that this definitely should be include in the article. It's very interesting and relevant. Nysus 15:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Ryan's wording is mostly fine, although "would not allow Mary to marry a same-sex person" seems needlessly oblique. Why not "would not allow Mary Cheney [don't want too many "Mary/marry's" in a row] to marry her partner"? What in the world is a "same-sex person"? As to Cheney and the FMA, he has suggested that he does not personally support the amendment, but he supports the administration's decisions in general, specifically including the FMA. That is to say, he disapproves personally, but politically supports the amendment. john k 20:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that did sound a bit clunky, your word choice using partner instead of person is better. I'll go ahead and add it to the article in a day or two unless someone else wants to comment on it.

To definitely say Cheney doesn't support the FMA personally isn't accurate. Cheney said he beleives it is an issue for the states citizens to decide, just like the President believes, but courts are stepping in to make the decision for the people, which neither the Pres or VP want. And the President believes the best way to handle that is the FMA, which must be ratified by the states. Cheney never disagreed with this solution. Ryan Knoll 15:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

I propose that we delete the entire Dick Cheney article and let Ryan (attorney at law) write it from scratch. As we can see from this discussion he is well versed (as an attorney would be) in modes of argument, knowledgeable on the topic of Dick Cheney and eloquent on top of all that. All in favor say "aye". --Funkyj 22:44, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Aye! Just kidding. Let's just get back to the proposed wording, it seems we are very close to a mutually reasonable wording and we can both get back to something more important and productive in our lives. --Ryan Knoll 23:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A passage in a recent speech could be interpreted as a terrorist threat. Should this be put in the article? I noticed that his swearing was in the article.

The relevant passage is

"...it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd,
we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the
danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be
devastating from the standpoint of the United States..."

-daesotho

It is not a signficant quote (repeats his position that Bush administration has a more effective strategy than Kerry to protect the USA) and is already listed in the wikiquote archive. Just so you know, the quote is incomplete and not in context to understand that he is talking about the danger of falling into the "pre-911 mindset" and so on. --Ryan Knoll 08:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article states:

Cheney is in the unusual position of having been Secretary of Defense during a war with Iraq, heading a company (Halliburton) which sold equipment through foreign subsidiaries to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure, then serving as Vice President during another war with Iraq.

How is this an "unusual position", and on what grounds is it unusual? I think the subtext here is that there is some potential for a conflict of interest -- but if that's the case, this point has already been made earlier in the article. Neilc 11:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Dick Cheney's career timeline is outlined elsewhere in the article. The sentence crams a 20 year carrer into a short sentence to infer a conflict of interest, and the word "unusual position" is too suggestive. Should be changed. --Ryan Knoll 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I decided to remove the content rather than to salvage it because the information in the paragraph was redundant with information already contained in the article -- brevity is good. Neilc 13:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can someone put {{US Vice Presidents}} on this page? I couldn't do it because it's protected, and I'm not an administrator.

Cheney's two DUI's in 1962-63 should probably be included in this article (a sentence would probably do). See The Smoking Gun archive for source material. Gwimpey 01:56, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is already in the article with the smoking gun links.