Talk:Dick Cheney

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dick Cheney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 4 months

	Dick Cheney was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 2, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 4, 2025. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Bush family (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Biography: Politics and Government Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Business Low‑importance Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress High‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American High‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism Mid‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Franco-Americans / Nebraska / Presidential elections / Wyoming Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Franco-Americans (assessed as Low-importance). Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Top-importance). Gerald Ford (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gerald Ford, a project which is currently considered to be defunct. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for Dick Cheney (48 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 14,367 14,367 565 565 Early life and education 9,263 9,263 486 486 Early career 2,015 2,015 149 149 White House chief of staff 1,906 1,906 47 47 U.S. House of Representatives (1979–1989) 157 8,257 4 422 Elections 655 655 36 36 Tenure 13 5,659 0 323 Leadership 456 456 55 55 Votes 5,190 5,190 268 268 Committee assignments 1,786 1,786 59 59 Secretary of Defense (1989–1993) 3,007 24,045 242 2,117 Early tenure 484 484 49 49 Budgetary practices 4,380 4,380 312 312 Political climate and agenda 2,466 2,466 253 253 International situations 3,092 13,708 215 1,261 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 1,639 10,616 95 1,046 U.S. and world reaction 1,623 1,623 208 208 Military action 2,543 2,543 235 235 Aftermath 4,811 4,811 508 508 Private-sector career 8,328 8,328 335 335 2000 presidential election 4,657 4,657 298 298 Vice presidency (2001–2009) 75 41,890 0 2,007 First term (2001–2005) 3,015 8,534 126 428 Iraq War 5,519 5,519 302 302 Second term (2005–2009) 4,866 33,281 240 1,579 Disclosure of documents 5,912 5,912 210 210 CIA leak scandal 6,202 6,202 262 262 Assassination attempt 2,320 2,320 139 139 Policy formulation 13,981 13,981 728 728 Post-vice presidency (2009–2025) 40 27,776 0 1,236 Political activity 11,871 11,871 508 508 Views on President Obama 4,232 4,232 267 267 Memoir 1,974 1,974 81 81 Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America 2,680 2,680 116 116 Views on President Trump 6,979 6,979 264 264 Political positions 1,295 1,295 9 9 Public perception and legacy 13,307 13,307 548 548 In popular culture 5,853 5,853 13 13 Personal life 2,606 24,457 145 1,105 Residences 2,688 2,688 142 142 Health problems 15,487 15,487 599 599 Hunting and fishing 3,676 3,676 219 219 Death and funeral 13,347 13,347 576 576 Works 2,463 2,463 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 1,125 1,125 0 0 Bibliography 3,637 3,637 0 0 External links 6,108 6,108 0 0 Total 214,120 214,120 9,913 9,913

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: November 2 to 8, 2025 (6th)

This article was nominated for merging with Vice presidency of Dick Cheney on November 4, 2025. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Not merged.

GA Reassessment

Dick Cheney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many short one-or-two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This makes the information difficult to read, and I am not sure that all of them are necessary in the article. These should be formatted better or evaluated for their inclusion. There is not much information about his early political career before his election to the House of Representatives. Is there any important information about the House campaign that should be included? The "Aftermath" section is almost entirely block quotes, which lowers readability for readers. I suggest that this information be summarised and removed or reduced. There is uncited prose throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive Linking

This article is way too long and convoluted as it is, and I was wondering if we really need to link 'strained' and 'back' to their respective pages, from the 'Health' section? Thebritishsenator (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias in "Views on President Trump"

This article spends 4 lines on Chaney's supposed criticism of Trump and zero lines quoting from either one of Chaney's own books. ~2025-31237-65 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add some quotes from his books? Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can't, the article is semiprotected. Temporary account, can you please post in this thread the exact words you would like added to the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Merge Vice presidency of Dick Cheney into Dick Cheney. The content is completely WP:REDUNDANT. The former also has undue focus on controversies. Coverage on the more complete page ensures better context and NPOV. There's no need for a separate article. Longhornsg (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sincere apologies to everyone; i dont know the proper format, but i vote Against. this'd cause a cascade and debate about all the vice presidency pages; and could cause a domino effect of erasing tons of writing, sources, .etc. i think it would be much better just to work on the vice presidency page so it can be more unbiased and encyclopedic. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 23:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second point, it seems to be a mixture of a what-about-x-ism and the slippery slope fallacy. Other vice presidents, if their vice presidency is notable enough, would be safe from deletion. Not a comment on this page, though. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Longhornsg (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote in the affirmative as the office he held was apart of him and therefore belongs in his wiki page Dr.JamesIV (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information can be spread across multiple articles, like on the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which includes significant information on Hurricanes Erin, Imelda, and Melissa. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Against ~2025-31306-33 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment, as this is going to be a highly visible page for newcomers, do note that discussions on Wikipedia are decided not through voting, but through reasoning. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against There's more than enough information to have the vice presidency to have his own separate article. Rager7 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST

Rewrite the article lil bro Monopurpose account (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against. His vice presidency was one of the more consequential in recent history and there’s so many complexities and controversies regarding his power and the ramifications it had on foreign policy that it deserves its own article. Nasdaqpic (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% against: This discussion should be closed immediately. This CANNOT be a serious proposal. Every single Vice President in recent years has had their own page for their Vice Presidency. Only counting after Dick Cheney, these pages here exist for the following Vice Presidents: JD Vance, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, and Joe Biden. Why is Dick Cheney, a man who was more powerful than the actual POTUS of that time, an exception to this rule? MountainJew6150 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Against - Given his vice presidency being considered the most influential in history, and has a lot of information on its own article, it should remain independent. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v ~2025-31367-49 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly vote against. The Cheney vice presidency is known to be among the most impactful in American history, and given Cheney's major effect on executive power, his VP page should remain separate. Pennyelizabeth (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against: There is simply no need for this. Saitzken (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg oppose both articles have independent subjects, one is about a person and the other is about the vice presidency of the person, e.g. should we merge presidency of Donald trump and Donald Trump (no). X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg hmmmm. MASCOUTAHILLINOIS (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad proposal. Pages for 'Vice Presidency of ________' exist for every United States Vice President, no matter how short their terms were. This proposal would remove perhaps the most notable of all the Vice Presidents in Dick Cheney's to be part of his own personal page - looking at the argument of Quxyz, you can't say that other Vice Presidents will be safe from deletion. If this proposal goes ahead, it should be done for every U.S. Vice President as their Presidencies are at most equal to the ntoability of Cheney's. It goes into detail that is not needed on Dick Cheney's page but is still encyclopaedic and relevant to his Vice Presidency. It is by no means WP:REDUNDANT because of the high level of detail that page should theoretically hold, and if the page does not have sufficient detail, it should be expanded. As to the allegation that the page has an undue focus on controversies, he is a political figure and the events that will give the most coverage to a Vice President will be controversies. When you are widely considered the architect of a major war, that will lead to coverage of controversies. The Voivodeship King (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on WP:MERGE arguments. I must have missed Vice presidency of John Garner. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should have said that the vast majority of Vice Presidents have pages specifically pertaining to their Vice Presidencies. Nonetheless, it is not redundant because it focuses on a specific section of Cheney's career and theoretically in a level of detail inappropriate or ungainly to put on Cheney's page. If the current Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney page doesn't have that, then more detail needs to be added. You also cite that there is undue focus on controversies, when Cheney is considered the 'architect of the Iraq War, a highly controversial event. If you think the article focuses too much on controversies, then build upon the article by adding notable but non-controversial events.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion that there is no need for a separate article when so many exist for other Vice Presidents who's terms were less notable that Cheney's. I remain firmly Against the proposal and would like to see arguments for why an article that focuses on controversies does not deserve to remain an article, or why this page specifically is redundant when these pages exist for so many other Vice Presidents. The Voivodeship King (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg, if it's WP:REDUNDANT, then your argument that it focuses unduly on criticism of his administration wouldn't stand because the information would already be covered thoroughly in this article, which would therein be the focus of your critique (and, from what I can tell, it isn't). I'd point you to WP:BIAS in that regard, as I think you should remember that accurate reporting of reliable secondary sources doesn't always leave an issue looking perfectly and cleanly neutral. Almost every article cited in the legacy section that was created today accounts for the fact that Cheney's Vice presidential administration was exceptionally powerful and extraordinarily influential in comparison to those of all of his predecessors. If the sourcing exists, it's absolutely justified to have it as a separate article. I suggest you go look at Vice presidency of Al Gore and Vice presidency of Joe Biden before making that the crux of your argument. Against

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I should have said that the vast majority of Vice Presidents have pages specifically pertaining to their Vice Presidencies." This is not true actually. The vast majority of vice presidents do not have articles about their vice presidency. Only 11 vice presidents actually have separate articles about it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, the VP page is more detailed about 8 years in which he held a senior office and details his roles in the events of that time, this page details his life in general. This would then set a precedent which would need other similar pages (e.g. Vice presidency of Joe Biden or Vice presidency of Mike Pence) to be merged. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against As every other VP has their own "Vice Presidency of ________", it wouldn't make sense for Cheney to not have his own. Also, if Cheney's own is merged into the main article, why not do it for the other VPs? Nicholas656437829 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the article is sufficient on its own. QalasQalas (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As of this writing, the word count of the Dick Cheney article is 8,741 words and the length of the Vice presidency of Dick Cheney article is 3,046 words. At its current length, the biography article is at a length where the article size guideline would suggest that the article "May need to be divided or trimmed". Combined, the two articles would be at likely be at a length that the guideline recommends that an article would "Probably need to be divided or trimmed". While Dick Cheney and the Vice presidency of Dick Cheney are topics with overlap per the merging information page, they are not the exact same subject or synonyms per the non-dictionary policy, and the vice presidency article appears to satisfy the general notability guideline. Except for William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield, we have a separate biography articles and Presidency of articles for each President of the United States, so having separate articles for vice presidencies apart from the biographies of vice presidents is not unusual. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also voting AGAINST. AUC2012 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Silly argument for a merge. Cleary a separate article is needed for his vice presidency. Thriley (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Every other VP has a "VP of ____" article and Cheney's was arguably one of the most influential. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All these other votes seem to suggest this is heading towards a WP:SNOW close. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest we block Longhornsg Monopurpose account (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In “Vice Presidency 2001-2009” remove ] by Osama Bin Laden in Assassination Attempt sub article Ausablename (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add (2009-2025) To Post Vice Presidency On The Dick Cheney Article NateTheHistoryMan (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, that wasn't a job title. There was a reason that 2009-present, for example, wasn't used in '24 or '23, etc. OmegaAOLtalk? 11:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions about his death

After getting my account unconstitutionally banned for 31 hours, Wikipedia declared the truth about Dick.

"some notable figures denounced Cheney as a mass murderer and war criminal who faced no prosecution while alive."

It was obvious if Fox news who kept cheering for him mentioned that he is a war criminal, how about CNN and NBC?

Some comments were showing clearly "I'm feeling sorry for the devil because the devil will have to deal with him eternally"

Cartoons and caricatures are showing hell or vampires next to him ~2025-31333-03 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"unconstitutionally" Oh, really? And which constitution gives you the right to post inflammatory comments in Wikipedia? Dimadick (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post

I copied from fox news, not even from yahoo. ~2025-31333-03 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for those of you who didn't pay attention in civics class, the First Amendment is designed to protect Americans from government retribution over speech. It has no bearing on Wikipedia's ban/block policies. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death update

Cheney died at his home in McLean, Virginia.

• https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/11/04/mclean-resident-who-advocated-for-invading-iraq-dies-at-84/

~2025-34770-65 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “Vice President JD Vance did not make a statement” to “Vice President JD Vance made a statement on the day of the funeral” ~2025-35061-05 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid semi-protection reason.

The semi-protection reason for this article says, "This article is semi-protected to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons." This is no longer valid because Dick Cheney is no longer living. Minermatt122514 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Minermatt122514 (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “ President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance did not issue a statement after his death was announced.” to “ President Donald Trump did not issue a statement after his death was announced, and Vice President JD Vance waited until the day of the funeral to make a statement ^[1] ~2025-36759-03 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. https://people.com/donald-trump-reacts-to-the-news-of-dick-cheney-death-11842871