Talk:Dick Cheney hunting accident

Satire?

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 http://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)

VP's in combat

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)

Redundant

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

No Mention of Extramarital Affair Cover-up Rumor?

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)

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)

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)

Number of pellets

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)

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)

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 word "incident" in page title is wrong - sheriff's official word is "accident"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Placement of Paragraph

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."

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.

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

Controversy section

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

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. [4] Others familiar with quail hunting have also argued that the range was much closer than alleged. [5]

"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”. [6]

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 [7] [8].

The shotgun that Cheney used while hunting is the same model that Sen. John Kerry was teased about using during the 2004 presidential campaign. [9]. (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Articles an encyclopedia really needs:

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)

Investigation

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)