Jump to content

Talk:Dick Cheney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anastrophe (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 27 December 2007 (→‎Precedents for not seeking nomination: grammar r us). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reaction by others

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

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

I've always thought this article was awful. Anything you want to do to improve it, you have my support. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and thank you. I've already fixed up some formatting but it could use a facelift. Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readiness for GA status?

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

  • Early White House appointments (2 para)
 Done - will try to add more as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votes (1 para)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early tenure (does the citation also apply to the last sentence?)
 Done - yes. Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • US and world reaction (1rst para has a quote)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath (1 para)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2000 Election (1 para)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure of documents (1 para, does the last sentence have a citation?)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunting incident (quote is unreferenced here)
 Done - removed quote. Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future as Vice President (1 para)
 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health problems (2nd para--last sentence)
 Done - this is cited with all the refs below it. It pretty much generalizes what comes after it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been working extensively on this article over the past week and a half, cleaning it up and expanding it. It can use more cites, and I will begin working on those. I do feel it is ready for GA status, and doing this will push it over the edge. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the recommended tasks. Would you consider proceeding into a full-on review? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

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

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

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

The article has been plenty stable. I think this is the least of our worries and I do not feel it is necessary to wait until New Year's on the grounds of stability only. I have also readded that sentence added by User:Mantion and cited it. --Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll give it a looksee after Christmas with a goal of completion by New Year's.--User:HopsonRoad 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a deal. Happyme22 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Statements and Positions

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

Apparent support of Waterboarding and White House Denial

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

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

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

I'll take a look at those in a little bit. It sounds as if it would be contradicting statements, not so much controversial. Happyme22 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually controversy involves contradiction between parties, although contradiction may not involve controversy. I was merely trying to illustrate an instance where something the Vice President said drew attention, criticism and defense. I expect that there are many examples, some of them apocryphal, that could be found (e.g. with Google), sampled, and reported. If there are many statements and criticisms of them on a given topic, then a summary of the issue could be rendered, as I believe you have done with respect to his position of support on the Iraq war. Other cases may just be a spike in notoriety/notability, as with the question of water boarding. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After your explanation I think this example merits inclusion, possibly in the "public perception" section. It appears to only be one example, so I can create an "umbrella sentence", if you will, stating that there have been controversial (and contradicting) statements made by Cheney and the White House and use this as an example. I will get on that in a little bit. Thanks for the prompt. Happyme22 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it in the newly redone "public perception" section. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about a deletion

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

Comparison of approval ratings with Harry Reid

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

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

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

I actually found Al Gore's approval rating from January 31, 1999 here. Considering that Clinton's term ended two years later, and Cheney only has about a year to go, this comparison might be beneficial. Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Washington Post article from a couple years back compares Cheney's then 18% approval rating with a number of public figures, noting only Paris Hilton as having a lower one (but not OJ, MJ, etc.) Also, American Research Group polls from last summer and this month both found that a majority of Americans, of Democrats, and of Independents believed that Cheney had committed impeachable offenses. The findings of those polls could be presented in a number of ways; some version should probably be included. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the two polls are at different times and we don't know what questions were asked, I feel that it's a more apt comparison VP to VP, as long as the reader can find the source of each and the different times in the term are noted. I'd report both the positive and negative numbers, if possible.--User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
public opinion polls aren't terribly notable for the most part, i would think. now, if people were asked "whose sex tape was more offensive, dick cheney's or paris hilton's?", then you might be on to something. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, compare to the other VP. Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that you've been diligent in looking for comparisons with Gore. For now, I think it's sufficient to have dropped the apples/oranges comparison with Reid. I didn't find any discussion of ratings in the Al Gore article, although I feel that it would be appropriate there, too.
As to approval and disapproval ratings, I feel that both are important and allow one to infer the size of the "don't know" category. I believe that your current references allow you to do that. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about it in public perception. Please tweak or fix if necessary. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents for not seeking nomination

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

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

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

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

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

Why not start by finding a citation? It's probably true, but there is no way to know without a cite. Happyme22 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia does not speculate even on 'foregone conclusions'. first, it is not an event, rather it is a non-event. he has stated his intentions, it's likely he will remain true to his intentions, but politicians have been known to backtrack. heck, it was barely two years ago that barack obama said that he had no plans to run for president. regarding the invalid contention - you cannot say that someone will be the first "not to win" if they don't run in the first place. by this logic, i could say that i didn't win the 2004 olympic decathlon; neither did i win the illinois lottery. both contentions are true, but both are irrational, as i participated in neither. Anastrophe (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney&oldid=180380096"