Talk:Dick Cheney hunting accident

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

Satire?[edit]

I've read somewhere that one of those "offensive T-shirt" companies is marketing shirts proclaiming "Dick Cheney shot me" as a continuation of a series of shirts stating "I killed Kennedy" and "John Hinckley tried to impress me". Anybody else heard of this?

There are alot of these, go to www.cafepress.com/cp/info/, and seach for "Cheney". Also check out the political cartoons at http://www.cagle.com/news/CheneyShoots/main.asp --Leinart 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP's in combat[edit]

I've removed the following from the article: {Since Burr's duel with Hamilton, there have been only eight additional sitting or former Vice Presidents who have shot another person. The more well known of these include Richard Mentor Johnson (credited with killing the Shawnee leader Tecumseh), John C. Breckinridge (who joined the Confederate States of America where he fought in many battles, was wounded twice, and led the famous charge of the VMI cadets at the Battle of New Market), Theodore Roosevelt (who received the Medal of Honor leading the Rough Riders), and George H. W. Bush (a decorated WWII naval aviator)).

The reason is that only one of them Richard Mentor Johnson is even claimed to have shot anyone, and it was before he was VP. Our article on him even says that the claim is doubtful. None of the others are credited with shooting anyone, as far as I see from their articles here. Just because they were leading a cavalry charge, doesn't mean they shot anyone, they may very well have just been waving a sword around. Same for flying a plane.

These names should stay out of the article unless we have good evidence any of them actually shot someone. Johntex\talk 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant[edit]

The "Related themes" and "See also" sections seem pretty redundant as they are. Makemi 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of Extramarital Affair Cover-up Rumor?[edit]

But is mentioned in the Pamela Willeford article:

Some are speculating that the delay in reporting the incident is to hide a possible extramarital affair with the Vice President [1]

[2].

But it is mentioned, very near the end. Makemi 00:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way we can use blog opinions in place of facts. These blog authors simply speculate and don't provide evidence or witnesses. Compare this with the Dan Rather affair. At least with that one, the bloggers were able to provide evidence of forgery above and beyond mere speculation. This is an encyclopedia and not the (insert name of disreputable weekly here). Let's stick to fact finding. Rklawton 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can stomach seeing the National Enquirer or Weekly World News quoted as source material easier than unsubstantiated backbiting from some partisan blog. Wikipedia has enough credibility problems without the introduction of biased conspiracy theories lacking in factual support. Also, many props to leinart for the excellent job he did initially compiling the information for this article.KSchwartz 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UT-

there is no cover up - the VP is a man of charachter and truth. It was an accident and the man should be left alone.

Oh, PUH-lease! The man is Darth Haliburton! 208.63.63.94 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of pellets[edit]

Doctors had decided to leave six to 200 pieces of birdshot pellets lodged in his body rather than try to remove them.

Six to 200? Can we get any more accurate? What is the source for this? --Dforest 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today (Feb. 17) all the sources are saying "up to 200" so I've changed it. If you just look at the photos of his face, you can see he was hit by more than six pellets.
On a completely unrelated note, my grandfather was in a very similar incident a number of years ago, and he says that since he was at a distance of about 30 yards, none of the pellets could get through his clothes (let alone pierce all the way to his heart), and the only ones which caused damage were on his unprotected face. Hm, interesting. Makemi 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
one radio show alleged that the shotgun shell used by Cheney only contains a total of approximately 200 pellets to begin with, which argues for the close range of the blast, and argues for a cover-up of some kind, either due to Cheney's drinking.
The Harry Whittington Wikipedia entry says 30 pellets. This is sourced to the Washington Post article that is reference #4 for this entry. The 200 pellet count seems unsourced. Reference #3 is a dead link. This discrepancy should be corrected. 30 pellets seems more reasonable to me. Becalmed (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I lowered the pellet count to 30 as per the Wapo story. I also added a line about Whittington's voice still being affect by a pellet that was left in his body as per the same story. Unfortunately, my cat hit "Enter" before I could enter my reasons for the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becalmed (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "incident" in page title is wrong - sheriff's official word is "accident"[edit]

Per WAPO 02.17.06: "The report, written by Chief Deputy Gilbert San Miguel Jr., quotes Cheney and Whittington as saying the shooting was an accident." [3]

Merecat 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to come here and note that. Shouldn't this be moved to hunting accident? Also, what's with the random Alex Jones "ballistic tests?" He wasn't even there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title is more accurate, since it discusses not only the event of the shooting (The Accident, if you will), but also the events surrounding it, such as the possible consumption of alcohol, the delayed release of info to the press, etc., making the whole smorgasborg an "incident". Makemi 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The term incident refers to the whole affair, while the term accident would refer only to the shooting itself. Given the media coverage on this thing, I'd say the accident has become an incident. Glowimperial 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak is right (as is GI). That's a shame, bcz once this dies down, the current title may well be considered to apply roughly equally to the other Cheney hunting incident, where he went hunting with a justice who would soon be ruling on Cheney's secret meetings with oil barons. (When he was out with Scalia, there was no accident, and, uh, part of the issue in that incident is the suspicion that he, uh, came away knowing it would not be in his interest to, uh, let Scalia get hurt. But seriously, "accident" would have done a good job of distinguishing this incident from the Scalia one, if accident had accurately reflected the scope of the topic.) How about
Dick Cheney hunting incident's contents --> Dick Cheney shooting incident
and
Dick Cheney hunting incident become a Dab
between this topic and our best coverage of the Chaney-Scalia incident, whether that is an article or a section within some broader article? (Sadly, at the moment that seems to mean the fourth ("On Comedy Central...") bullet point in Duck Hunt#Trivia.)
--Jerzy•t 02:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a rural Texas deputy were entitled to any presumption of speaking w/o PoV in describing a politically high-powered incident where all the witnesses are people who should be presumed to be lying until proven otherwise, his competence stops with the determination of whether there was a crime or an accident, and is completely irrelevant to how the article should be titled.
--Jerzy•t 02:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Jerzy's idea of naming this article "shooting incident", and having "hunting incident" be a dab. Makemi 04:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Renaming this article "shooting incident" would help differentiate it from the Scalia/Chaney hunting controversy. Do we need a dab though? Glowimperial 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually believe this was an accident? If you know anything about quail hunting, that alone would convince you it was done on purpose. Would it really be libellous to put scare quotes around "accident" when the word is used to refer to the obvious attempted murder? Let's face it. He got away with it because he was the vice president, not because it was an "accident."50.130.10.152 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so Vice President,
to our embarrassement,
declares the incident
to be an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.185.55 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Paragraph[edit]

I don't think the following paragraph belongs in "Investigation". Could someone move it to a more appropriate place?

While he has a Texas non-resident hunting license, a report from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department states that Cheney was in violation of Texas law in that he did not have a US $7 "upland game bird stamp."[1]
A warning citation, which state officials described as routine and carries no fine or penalty, will be issued to Cheney, because the requirement is new. Cheney has since sent a $7 check to the Texas Fish and Wildlife Department to cover the cost of the missing stamp. [2]

Thanks! --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 15:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference smokinggun_incident_report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Statement by the Office of the Vice President 13 February 2006.

Controversy section[edit]

Added a 'controversy' section to summarize the discrepancies in the offical account which were scattered in the 'comments and satire' section.

--Agree. This piece is not complete without an airing of the controversy about the problems with the official story. If Bush lovers continue to remove it, they should be restricted. Using the phrase CONSPIRACY THEORIES and including wild theories about affairs are ways to delegitimize real problems with the constantly changing official story, and are typical Rovian tactics.--

As this will no doubt be quickly purged by Karl Rove's brown shirt brigade, e.g. KSchwarz, I have copied it here for reference:

Controversy regarding the official account of the incident includes the following: the actual range of the victim from the shooter, whether Cheney was in fact the shooter or whether it was his female companion, whether Cheney was intoxicated at the time of the shooting, whether the reason for Cheney refusing to meet with the local sheriff when they first visited the ranch was due to his intoxication, the lack of a corroborating account from Cheney's female companion.
Alex Jones recreates the incident mythbusters style and concludes, through shot pattern and penetration, that Vice President Cheney could not have shot Mr. Whittington at 90 feet, as stated in the police report. He characterizes the shooting as "close range," 15 to 18 feet, and presents the test as evidence of a government cover-up. infowarscom/video/clips/ballistics_test/qt_mdm_universe.htm [unreliable fringe source?] Others familiar with quail hunting have also argued that the range was much closer than alleged. [4]
"Can a 1/11” pellet (#7½ load in 28 gauge shell), penetrate to the heart from 90 ft? A 90ft test shot on a lifesize human cutout by Caller-Times photog George Gongora shows a spread from the waist to the top of the head, whereas the filled in damage profile of the Parks-Wildlife report shows impacts from the mouth to just below the sternum entirely on the left side in a far more concentrated pattern. This would indicate a much closer distance, although some shotguns have a choke that controls the spread. A normal spread pattern at 90 ft. is a 44” circle, almost 4 ft. Even fully choked, the spread circle at that distance is 26”, whereas the Parks-Wildlife drawing of Whittington shows a tight circle of about 12-13”. [5]
A Sirius radio host Alex Bennett suggested that the delay in reporting is to hide a possible extramarital affair with U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Pamela Pitzer Willeford [6] [7].
The shotgun that Cheney used while hunting is the same model that Sen. John Kerry was teased about using during the 2004 presidential campaign. [8]. (It is a model intended for use by women, leading to speculation that Cheney may be covering up for Pamela Willeford).
When you say "Karl Rove's brownshirt brigade", you really mean "anyone interested in seeing the integrity of the article preserved by not polluting it with unsupported, whackjob conspiracy theories from dubious, unreliable sources", right? KSchwartz 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mr. Anonymous, it would seem that you, um, "inadvertently" deleted my previous response to your ridiculous comments. Don't worry -- for your convenience I've went ahead and reinserted said response. I'm sure it was merely an accident on your part, else it would appear that you are so cognizant of the shakiness and lack of credibility of your own words and ideals that you desire to forcefully squelch and silence all opposing them (hmmm... rather a "brownshirtish" tactic, huh?) And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I would hate to think that a fellow Wikipedia user is devoid of integrity and intellectual honesty! Love and kisses, my "free speech-lovin'" friend! KSchwartz 19:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - ::::Whoopsie, our little friend at 70.231.255.157 seems to have YET AGAIN "accidentally" deleted all my comments in response to his slavering little rant. It is rare that you get to see such bald, unrestrained hyocrisy. Thankfully rare. KSchwartz 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC) -[reply]

Isn't the section header Conspiracy theories presented during media feeding frenzy a bad faith edit? While I don't consider Alex Jones particularily credible (I barely consider him a journalist, and it says a lot about the state of blogging that many bloggers and their readers apparently consider him a reliable source), and I certainly don't have any reason to believe that Cheney was out in the bush to shag one of his hunting partners while his 80 year old buddy played third wheel, the various spins on the situation deserve a slightly less ridiculous section header. I'm changing it to Conspiracy theories but I don't really feel that that's much better than either of the previous section headers, how about Dissatisfaction with official account of the incident? Glowimperial 19:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Conspiracy theories" is about the fairest section header you can ask for considering the dubious nature of the baseless accusations contained therein. KSchwartz 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, yes. I have a feeling, however that there are going to be a lot of articles coming out of more reputable journalistic institutions that question the range of the shot as indicated by the spread pattern on Whittington's body, and they should go into this section. Explaining how the choke on a shotgun works may take some time for some people, I have a feeling most folks imagine that shot comes out of a hunting shotgun at 45 degree angels or something equally absurd, and that those more technical and reputable debates need to go in this section. Glowimperial 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, an article from a credible journalist or scientist in a legitimate publication would merit a mention. Reading the cited article, however, the extent of this Jones fellow's qualifications is that he is a "local quail hunter" from Chicago. Feh. Regardless, I would be VERY surprised if anything mention-worthy evolved from the rest of the easily recognized political smear spewed in this section; e.g. Cheney's taking the fall for the ambassador to Switzerland, Cheney's hiding an extramarital affair, etc. That's just tabloid garbage that merits neither respect nor recognition.

Remarks Removed[edit]

I have removed two comments from this section that could be considered personal attacks. They had no bearing on the discussion of this article. I have also warned both parties on their talk pages that similar behavior in the future may result in their being blocked or banned. Let's all keep in mind Wikipedia:Civility and work together to improve this article, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. Johntex\talk 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles an encyclopedia really needs:[edit]

George W. Bush Pretzel incident, Mickael Jackson baby balcony incident, Madonna kisses Britney incident, Bag of rice overbalance in China incident and soo many others. This is how we make the million, and we can be so proud about it! 84.59.103.180 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article serves an important purpose, tons of whackjobs search every day and want ammunition about important events such as a sitting vice president whom I dont like accidentally shot someone with birdshot. What if this old lawyer dies on impact or later in the heart attack? This is not an insignificant event and it deserves its article many times over. Ecostaz 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation[edit]

This article has two sections entitled "Investigation" that cover the same information. They need to be consolidated and one needs to go. Anyone up to the task? KSchwartz 18:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current section stuff has conclusions and unrelated material, I suggest removing: "the news of the shooting wasn't released to the press for 21 hours until 1:48 p.m. (07:48) Sunday, February 12. Kathryn Garcia, a reporter for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, broke the story after receiving a call from Armstrong at 11am, after confirming it with the White House and hospital."; it's just about breaking the news, not the investigation. The paragraph on the hunting license is about a consequence (the fine) and a conclusion (he didn't have a license).

If this section is about the investigation, I'd suggest summarizing the investigative action documented in the Sheriff's report, something like this: (very abbreviated): Captain Charles Kirk heard about the shooting somehow, drove to the gate, was stopped, talked to Sheriff Salinas on the phone. Salinas made a few calls, told Kirk to go home, sent Officer Miguel out the next morning. Miguel interviewed Cheney and Armstrong. Miguel went to the hospital and interviewed Whittington. Miguel went to the shooting scene with Gerardo Medellin (who was not in the hunting party) and talked about the shooting. Case closed on Wednesday.Mattks 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of revising this section in the way I mentioned above. [I do realize I'm wrong about my Medellin statement] Any comments?Mattks 08:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence about the timing of the announcement should be removed on the grounds that it's obviously in error. You can not both have the news released at 1:48 p.m. and also at 11:00 a.m. The information was released at 11:00 a.m. to the media -- or at least a very limited subset of the media in Corpus Christi. Once any reporter has the information, then the information has technically been "released to the press." The White House press corps is not the only 'press' that matters in this country, and news is released when a reporter receives it, not when the reporter publishes it. If it seems worth keeping, then I'd at least suggest that these 'local times' be tagged with their timezones. 66.124.70.108 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy vs Conspiracy[edit]

all reference to controversy has conveniently been expunged from the article in favor of the pejorative conspiracy theories. this strikes me as a biased attempt at sanitizing the article. Questions remain, was Cheney drunk? Did he obstruct the sheriff investigation until his intoxication wore off? Was Willeford the actual shooter? Where is the account from Willeford?

According to the official reports, no, no, no, and not sure why it's relelvant. Few are seriously considering these questions as actual controversies outside of the usual suspects. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There must be a DOUBTS SECTION. It is not speculation or rumors, although defenders of realm want to say that to discredit it, loading it up with the charged word conspiracy and the rumour that Cheney was having an affair with Willeford. The shotgun pattern and penetration is simple impossible from 90 ft. and there are multiple other problems with the official story. The question is, for Wikipedia, if dittoheads are going to take over this media too, carefully pruning all negative information on the Administration. This article is impossible to find searching "Chenney shooting" or even "Cheney hunting accident". By definition any gunshot accident is negligence, but for days they put forward the insane notion that the victim was at fault.

Most of these "conspiracy theories" are being advanced by people who make a living aggressively critisising the white house. When anything other than pure speculation is behind these theories, they could become controversial, but right now they have little to no weight. This is just a "shit happens" situation. Glowimperial 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove the shot pattern is impossible. Lets see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.118.38 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased/Uninformed Triva[edit]

Smaller and lighter shotguns are more favorable in quail hunting due to the increased maneuverability needed for close ranges and fast prey. A longer and heavier shotgun is better suited for hunting larer waterfowl such as duck and geese that need to be fired upon at greater ranges. This bit of trivia implies that Cheney should be made fun of for using a "women's" shotgun, when in fact Kerry was the the fool all by himself. Haizum 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why using the appropriate tool (in this case a "women's" model of shotgun) would be either worth mentioning. The "trivial" fact that John Kerry used the same model as a "media prop" during the last election should be mentioned, as it's an intersting fact. How is this text - The shotgun involved in the incident was the same model that Senator and Democratic Party Presidential candidate John Kerry was teased about using during the 2004 presidential campaign. Is that better? It clarifies who John Kerry is (for future generations of Wikipedians!), puts the sentence into past tense and at the same time eliminates the "women's shotgun" element, which is IMHO irrelevant. Glowimperial 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of updating the text, as there seemed to be no objections. Glowimperial 21:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to leave some reference to the gun as "a woman's gun", since this appraisal may have been one reason why the "affair cover-up" conspiracy theory, mentioned elsewhere in the article, gained momentum. The apprasial of the gun as "a woman's gun" was universal enough to be raised against Kerry. Therefore, to remove an assessment of the shotgun as "a woman's gun" from this article would be to remove our NPOV and replace it with a pro-conservative / anti-liberal double standard.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Teased"? Ridicule is more accurate. Teasing is usually done in person. Merecat 08:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event?[edit]

How much longer is this a current event? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably only a week or two longer, unless something really dramatic happens, such as the death of Whittington, or any of the less fantastic speculations turning out to be true. Glowimperial 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
such as a truly patriotic Secret Service agent coming clean for the good of the country about their cover-up of Cheney's inebriation, and felony offense of hunting while intoxicated and interfering with a sheriff's investigation of the event.
I would certainly agree with you 100% if it were a real Secret Service agent and eyewitness who had said that rather than some imaginary figure conjured up in the mind of some delusional partisan hack who doubles as a lying sack of shit. KSchwartz 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you referring to, with your erudite prose, Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue? [9],
"Despite what the naysayers claim, we get it first and get it right. We reported on Bush's temper tantrums a full year before it appeared in Newsweek. We revealed Bush's executive order allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans on June 7, 2004 -- 18 months before the New York Times printed the story. Last week we revealed President Bush ordered Vice President Cheney to go public about his hunting "accident." Time got around to it a few days later. I have no doubt that more information about Cheney's drinking will surface down the line and confirm what we reported Wednesday." [10]

Commentary and Satire section[edit]

Can we cut this section by about 75%? Every time a public official messes up, it's going to be the butt of jokes on late-night talk shows. These are funny when they happen, but I don't think they're that important unless ongoing. Makemi 16:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittington Injury Picture[edit]

The screenshot image from CNN is a little fuzzy and does not show the full extent of the damage to Whittington's face because of the poor photo quality as well as his distance from the camera. I found a great close-up of Whittington's face and think it would be great if the CNN screenshot could be replaced with it (site follows).

Better picture

You are correct that visually it is a better picture and has more information. The problem is that it is copyrighted, I believe by the Associated Press, so unfortunately we can't use it. Thanks for your help, Mak (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the page, we could link to the page-context of thatcopyrighted image, then.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs a proper lead[edit]

This article begins with a confusing mass of information, telling a story, rather than a simple concise summary of the event, for example, "On XXXX Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face with a 28-gauge shotgun in a hunting accident." We need a proper lead section to get the basic facts laid out before we launch into the details. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

007 Administration?[edit]

Folks, read the first paragraph and edit.

As far as I know, James Bond and MI6 don't have anything to do with this.

Commentary and satire removal[edit]

This section is way too big. It should be noted that the incident was lampooned, and maybe even have one or two high profile examples, but as it stands this is overkill. I suppose if everyone feels that having an enormous amount of jokes in the article is good, then we should start working on the Lewinsky scandal because it doesn't have ANY jokes, and to this day Jay Leno still makes a few references in his opening. Cjosefy 07:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be, at the very most, a section in Cheney's article. This is quite a large, and awkward, article for such a "small" topic. --Mrmiscellanious 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be expanded if anything and this topic is anything but small. This man shot by Cheney was very close to death indeed. A pellet lodged into his heart causing him to suffer a heart attack. This is an important topic and all aspects should be covered including the media response even if it was mostly satire and jokes. Ecostaz 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Black aslo satired the case in his HBO special "Red white & screwed". please mention it.

It should say that Dick Cheney accidently shot...[edit]

I changed the first sentence to say that Cheney accidently shot his friend and somebody removed the "accidently." Common, there is no doubt that this was an accident. I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwads (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much tv[edit]

Is it a copy of The Sopranos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.158.141 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmdc.jpg[edit]

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic link[edit]

Removed a link titled 'information on gun used' that would open a window to a pornographic link192.206.151.130 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Vibes[edit]

This whole article reads like a damn conspiracy theory. Everything it focuses on are incongruities in various accounts and all it does is paint suspicions about Cheney. With that coquettish smile, I can't say I blame the authors- but really, can we leave this stuff out? It ought to be an explanation of events without the , "however, Cheney later said this..." and "even though bla bla bla recalled that..." --72.205.63.176 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

I don't know much about this, but surely Cheney shoudl be tried for manslaughter if he shot a man accidentally? Why is this not the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.212 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the crime of manslaughter can only be charged if he actually killed someone. Whittington lived. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whittington could sue Cheney in civil court, it he wanted to. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I feel that I really should mention that if Cheney had wanted someone killed he probably would have found a better way to do so. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HWhittington.jpg[edit]

The image Image:HWhittington.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious[edit]

Why is there no link to Funeralgate here? - Sparky (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the connection. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption[edit]

Questions have been raised regarding the shooting, even as Kenedy County Sheriff's Office documents support the official story by Cheney and his party.[27] Sounds a bit POV. This is titled as an incident not an accident (though it wouldn't surprise me if Cheney used the old duffer for target practice. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Proposal[edit]

This article needs to be consolidated into encyclopedic prose. As it is now, it reads like editors were piecing together news reports and putting them in as they came out (please see WP:RECENTISM) The list sections should be completely removed since this isn't a police report. A few subsections should be completely removed. "Information release" should be used to update "Incident". "Controversial points" is barely noteworthy but it could easily be put into a section involving "Incident". "Hunting safety" has its own article somewhere and is not needed here. Any concerns?Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Just for fun, check out Chappaquiddick incident and compare the amount of kb devoted.Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting safety[edit]

Any way to work this back in the prose?

In an Associated Press report, hunting safety experts said that it is the shooter's responsibility to assess the surroundings and situation to ensure that it is safe to shoot.[1] According to Texas state Parks and Wildlife Department, in 2005 there were 30 accidents and two hunting deaths in Texas. At the national level, according to the International Hunter Education Association, there were 744 shooting accidents with 74 deaths in 2002.[1] Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference forbes_13feb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Horrible[edit]

What a horribly sourced article. I went through and removed several Non-RS citations to The Smoking Gun. Also there are several dead links in the article. Furthermore, the popular culture section is almost completely unsourced. This article needs some major re-writing. Arzel (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I searched "mother's day shooting" to see if we had a NOTNEWSPAPER article on the New Orleans one yet, and this was the top result. Turns out, this subtle insinuation of Cheney's involvement (which isn't too subtle for conspiracy nuts to pick up on) was caused by an unsourced Pop Culture reference about Charlene's mother. Or Amanda's. It isn't even clear if you've never heard of the show. I'm deleting it as a matter of national security (and no source). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Dick Cheney hunting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dick Cheney hunting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Cheney hunting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dick Cheney hunting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dick Cheney hunting incident → Dick Cheney hunting accident – Nearly all reliable sources have referred to this as a "hunting accident" or used some variation on the term "accident" to describe this in the past decade. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Dick Cheney shooting incident or perhaps Dick Cheney shotgun incident, if anything – the only real problem I see with the title is that it doesn't tell the reader what the topic really is. Cheney shot somebody in the face, neck and chest with a shotgun. That's what was newsworthy about it. Any relationship to hunting is a secondary (or tertiary) matter. As for whether to use "incident" or "accident", titles should be neutral. We should express conclusions and explanations inside the article, not in the title. The use of the word "incident" is also consistent with the similarly unusual stories of the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident and the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: It's not a "secondary matter" that it was related to hunting. It's the entire reason the accident happened. Yes, Cheney shot someone in the face. But a significant part of the reason it occurred was because a group of people were using guns to try and shoot other things in the woods. It's not like Cheney accidentally shot someone in the Rose Garden or his house. It was during an activity where people shoot at difficult to see animals. And "hunting accident" *is* a more neutral title, as nearly all reliable sources agree that this was an accident so labeling it as an "incident" and having an infobox labeling Cheney as the "perpetrator" implies that there is disagreement on whether this was intentional or not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It was a hunting accident (they aren't rare and neither is the term). 98.143.70.197 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The current title is an embarrassing holdover from the virulent days of the mid-2000s when the accident was considered potentially malicious by some staunch left-wing editors. A little bit of distance has hopefully cooled down the fiery hatred of Dick Cheney and we can talk about this like adults. Red Slash 16:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a better title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I feel like incident better covers the whole event. It was no mere hunting accident, it was also a mild political scandal and the artical goes into depth regarding the investigation, follow-up and legacy. I feel like "incident" better captures the event, and encourages people to read the article. Pogedenguin (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While a mild political scandal, it is also nearly universally considered an accident. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Dick Cheney isn't dead yet, so BLP applies here. Accusing someone of violent assault with a firearm is a serious statement and the article currently implies that reliable sources are in disagreement over whether this was intentional or not. Dick Cheney is no longer considered suspected of any criminal wrongdoing and the article needs to reflect that by definitively stating that this was an accident. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More emphasis should be given to the fact that the victim apologized[edit]

That the victim apologized for getting shot is one of the most noteworthy aspects of this story, but the fact is nowhere mentioned in the intro and a search for "apology" or "apologize" delivers a grand total of one result in the entry, which is several paragraphs deep.Rafe87 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

The article is heavily loaded with lengthy stretches of narrative, with not a single source included. Due to the relentless confusion about whether a 'cite needed' tag refers to merely the sentence it's after, or the entire paragraph if it's at the end of same, I'm thinking it may be best to just cull these lengthy unsourced segments, and see if others will be bothered to actually find sources. I'm not inclined to do so - this is a tempest in a teapot, and barely warrants its own article. It's rife with recentism, which - fifteen years later - looks rather ridiculous. But I digress. Anastrophe (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Cheney_hunting_accident&oldid=1206964745"