Talk:Dick Cheney: Difference between revisions

	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

Section size for Dick Cheney (46 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 14,727 14,727 576 576 Early life and education 9,132 9,132 448 448 Early career 2,011 2,011 149 149 White House chief of staff 2,055 2,055 48 48 U.S. House of Representatives (1979–1989) 157 8,958 4 438 Elections 654 654 36 36 Tenure 13 6,361 0 339 Leadership 781 781 55 55 Votes 5,567 5,567 284 284 Committee assignments 1,786 1,786 59 59 Secretary of Defense (1989–1993) 3,044 23,921 242 2,124 Early tenure 484 484 49 49 Budgetary practices 4,325 4,325 320 320 Political climate and agenda 2,440 2,440 253 253 International situations 3,025 13,628 214 1,260 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 1,637 10,603 95 1,046 U.S. and world reaction 1,623 1,623 208 208 Military action 2,543 2,543 235 235 Aftermath 4,800 4,800 508 508 Private sector career 8,160 8,160 318 318 2000 presidential election 4,661 4,661 299 299 Vice presidency (2001–2009) 75 41,889 0 2,008 First term (2001–2005) 3,043 8,562 127 429 Iraq War 5,519 5,519 302 302 Second term (2005–2009) 4,866 33,252 240 1,579 Disclosure of documents 5,912 5,912 210 210 CIA leak scandal 6,171 6,171 262 262 Assassination attempt 2,327 2,327 139 139 Policy formulation 13,976 13,976 728 728 Post–vice presidency 1,026 28,336 42 1,270 Political activity 11,862 11,862 509 509 Views on President Obama 4,232 4,232 267 267 Memoir 1,922 1,922 81 81 Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America 2,624 2,624 116 116 Views on President Trump 6,670 6,670 255 255 Public perception and legacy 14,416 14,416 560 560 In popular culture 5,857 5,857 13 13 Personal life 3,455 25,299 146 1,126 Health problems 14,313 14,313 568 568 Hunting incident 7,531 7,531 412 412 Death 4,038 4,038 188 188 Works 2,463 2,463 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 1,125 1,125 0 0 Bibliography 3,631 3,631 0 0 External links 5,954 5,954 0 0 Total 206,657 206,657 9,565 9,565

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]

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 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 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]

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]