Talk:Kevin McCarthy

Reputation in Congress

These comments, made by fellow Republican congressman Justin Amash, are relevant to the article as they convey McCarthy’s reputation within Congress. But I will post them here prior to editing the article in case someone is able to point out a credible reason to exclude this information.

"I met a lot of duplicitous people in Congress but none more conniving and fundamentally dishonest than Kevin McCarthy. He will say or do whatever he thinks is necessary at a particular moment to obtain or maintain power."

https://www.businessinsider.com/justin-amash-kevin-mccarthy-conniving-and-fundamentally-dishonest-2022-4 Harmlesshumanist (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The comments of one former member, especially given his particular history with the Republican Party, is WP:UNDUE weight. We would need much more than one comment from one representative who switched to a third party to properly assess his "reputation". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu, this falls under WP:BLP protections specifically WP:REDFLAG. Eruditess (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick update. It's not going so well for Mr. McCarthy. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Kevin McCarthy.. There is a consensus that this subject is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Kevin McCarthy (California politician) → Kevin McCarthy (politician) – The House Minority Leader is the clear primary topic for the politician, even if it is not the primary topic for the person. Interstellarity (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose obviously. @Interstellarity: do you understand how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works? We have three Kevin McCarthy (California politician) Kevin McCarthy (Iowa politician) and Kevin A. McCarthy so we cannot have a Primary Topic with a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. the form "Kevin McCarthy (politician)" is indeed incomplete disambiguation and should redirect, as it currently does, to the Kevin McCarthy#Politicians disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin McCarthy as the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. He's had 80% or more of the pageviews for a while now, and it's only heading up with his likely election as Speaker. Move the dab page to Kevin McCarthy (disambiguation). - Station1 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Stand alone primary, this Kevin McCarthy has been the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives for years, and now is poised to be Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Yes, per Station, the page views show that he is primary and that seems long lasting, putting a DAB page together and making this page primary seems the logical solution to this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Primary We've had three previous RMs where the suggested target was Kevin McCarthy. Why this proposal goes backwards to the incomplete disambiguation I cannot understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• If this page moves to primary then the actor should gain first spot in a hatnote, followed by the dab page. The classical and popular actor should also feature more prominently and higher on the dab page. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Primary per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:RECENTISM. Shwcz (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The status quo is fine and unambiguous. And not primary given the notability of the actor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• This page has averaged 3,414 views a day over the last 90 days (rising now per events) and the notable actor averaged 560 over the last 90 days. Primary for this page seems obvious, even though the actor has a deserved following long after his death. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• As we all know, pageviews are not the be all and end all of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• They account for half (or maybe less, depending on how an editor weighs historical long-term significance. Pretty definitive page views though, no?). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's one of many markers though. The WP:GHITS are 1.1 million for "Kevin McCarthy actor" and 9.7 million for "Kevin McCarthy politician". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That is pure WP:RECENTISM. Someone currently active, especially in politics, entertainment or sport, is almost always going to beat someone who is not on ghits and pageviews. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Recentism worked in the 2015 renaming attempt, and for a few years after that. Now, not so much. Speaker of the House in the U.S. (although that's WP:CRYSTAL for now, maybe this should wait to be moved after the January House leadership election and swearing in) ain't beanbag, as the politicans say. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither is Secretary of State for Defence in the UK, but Mr Wallace has to compete with a basketball player! Being a politician holding an important post doesn't necessarily mean you beat everyone else on notability. I must say that I have never heard of the House minority leader, but I have heard of the actor. And yes, I'm aware that personal experience is irrelevant, but it does show that notability is not universal in other countries just because someone is a well-known politician in one country. It usually is the case with heads of state and government of major countries, but not necessarily with those lower down the pecking order. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, he's clearly PRIMARY at least for politicians.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• I support the proposal by Randy Kryn above: Keep the title where it is for now, since at this point "California politician" is adequate, but move to the primary title Kevin McCarthy in January when he becomes (assuming he does become) Speaker of the House. That's IMPORTANT. It's not just another title; it's second in line in the presidential succession. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin McCarthy Even if he doesn't become speaker in 2023, he's already the clear primary per detail above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin McCarthy per above comments. Corky 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Primary When I first started reading this thread, I thought that Kevin McCarthy (actor) must have been some actor famous in an Anglophone country other than the United States. But no. He was born in Seattle and had a good supporting actor role in a respected 1951 film. Then, he had a starring role in a low budget horror movie in 1956 that has become a bit of a cult classic. Then a long series of bit roles in minor films. I am 70 years ago and was entirely unfamiliar with this actor until today. Nobody has ever sat around and said to their buddies "Hey, did you see that new Kevin McCarthy movie?" On the other hand, the California politician has met WP:NPOL for 20 years, and has been at the very center of US politics as leader of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives for the last eight years. If this is recentism, then Wikipedia itself is recentism. Centuries from now, people will be studying Trump's inner circle, including the person that Trump dubbed "my Kevin", just as we now study figures like Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, 250 years after they came to prominence. Personally, I do not like this man, but I want our readers to find his biography as easily as possible, as opposed to the biography of the star of the 1956 B movie called Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Primary He will be the House Speaker! PA-811 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Primary. It's possible he might not be the speaker, but he's clearly the most notable person with the name. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader: what does "Primary" mean? It could be primary for the whole topic, or just amongst politicians. For clarity, Votes should take the form of "Support", "Oppose" or "Move to _______" if you favour a move other than the one proposed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Make the GOP leader (and potential future speaker) the primary topic. I'm just basing it off of everybody else and how they phrased it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Kevin McCarthy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support moving to Kevin McCarthy. He is going to be Speaker of the House, neither the Iowa politician nor the actor will be as notable as the subject of this article. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Move to Kevin McCarthy per above Jaystjohn (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support a move to Kevin McCarthy. It is simply misleading to call him a "California politician" (which implies not only that he is from California, but that he is a state-level politician, e.g. a member of the California State Assembly), when he has been a politician on the national stage since 2004 (after his election to the U.S. House of Representatives). Both other "Kevin McCarthy" politicians are state-level politicians. This move is necessary due to his higher prominence, political significance, and per WP:COMMONNAME. Arguments that it's "too early to judge" or recentism are flawed; even if he was forced to resign tomorrow due to a scandal (let's say), he'd still be more notable than the other two politicians who share his name. DFlhb (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin McCarthy. It does look like he's the overall primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Kevin McCarthy. Clear primary topic per pageviews and Cullen328's argument about the actor. Yeeno (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Kevin McCarthy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other excellent arguments relayed above by several editors. Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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 20 November 2022

Mccarthy isn't speaker yet?? Why does it say he is 69.80.22.185 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted User:Arclic1980 change with the speaker position as the 118th United States Congress is not yet seated and McCarthy's election to speaker is not certain. --Mvqr (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

55th Speaker of the US House

So there's no confusion. If McCarthy does get elected Speaker of the House, he'll be sworn in as the 55th Speaker. Remember that Pelosi was/is 52nd, Boehner was the 53rd & Ryan was the 54th. The speakers are counted only once, regardless of whether they serve consecutive terms or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you for this info. Eruditess (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Kevin McCarthy → Kevin McCarthy (California politician) – The previous move was premature. There is still a chance that he does not become Speaker of the House. [1] [2]. The page views are just the result of WP:RECENTISM because he is in the news. Suggest that the move be reverted and be moved back to the original title until he actually becomes Speaker. Unless he wins, he lacks long-term significance to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shwcz (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The successful RM was not predicated on him becoming speaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Further, recommend speedy close as the RM was closed 17 days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment The whole reason why that move was initiated was because he is predicted (not guaranteed) to be Speaker. The timing is suspect. If he does not become Speaker he loses the notability to be PRIMARYTOPIC. Shwcz (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  No it wasn't, or at least the initial RM proposal made no such mention of a potential speakership. Most comments did not reference a speakership, and I see one say "Move to Kevin McCarthy Even if he doesn't become speaker in 2023" and another say "It's possible he might not be the speaker, but he's clearly the most notable person with the name." Commenters above were clear that as House Minority Leader, he has become the primary topic and I stand by that even if he loses the speakership in January. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  He lacks long-term significance over the Golden Globe Award-winning actor. Shwcz (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  We just discussed this three weeks ago and nothing has changed to overturn the consensus that this KMc is the primary topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  That was when his chances for Speakership was guaranteed. He wasn’t primary when he became Minority Leader. Shwcz (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  His speakership was never considered "guaranteed". I'm not responding here any more. You're not presenting any RS or other policy arguments that suggest the last RM was wrongly decided. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  The previous RM was won by a WP:VOTE not by sound policy. If he is truly the primary topic, he could win again with a better argument. Shwcz (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if he does not become speaker, he will still have more long term notability than the actor.

Derpytoucan (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Evidence? The actor won a Golden Globe Award and has decades worth of work in film. Shwcz (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• what has changed in the last two weeks?—blindlynx 00:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no opinion on moving or not, but the previous RM was closed ~3 weeks ago. Maybe a discussion on the closer's talk page and a MR would've been a better option then another RM? ^Clyde!_Franklin! 00:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Someone didn't read WP:MRNOT. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 00:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. The previous RM discussion determined that he is the primary topic. Regardless on whether or not he eventually becomes speaker, this new RM was opened way too soon after the previous one. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This individual is the primary topic for "Kevin McCarthy" regardless of whether he becomes Speaker of the House or not. He's held high-ranking positions in his party and the U.S. Congress for over a decade, and his lead in pageviews over Kevin McCarthy (actor) has been steadily growing for years. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This RM is a waste of time, and way too soon. The politician is the primary topic. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The likely incoming Speaker of the US House of Representatives, is going to be the primary topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Please revert removal of source

Could you please revert this unexplained removal of source, especially since it didn't remove the material it was supporting. Since the page is locked, I cannot 2001:8003:34A3:800:3991:1F5E:E9FA:485F (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

good eye, returned the reference Keitsist (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Lack of mention of attendance at the World Economic Forum?

Why does this article not mention Mr. McCarthy's attendance at the World Economic Forum? Given the influence of this organization, it would make sense for it to at least be mentioned.

Sources: https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2016/sessions/priorities-for-the-united-states-in-2016 https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Media/AM16/AM16_Programme.pdf https://www.weforum.org/people/kevin-mccarthy https://rollcall.com/2016/01/22/mccarthy-discusses-the-economy-in-davos/ https://www.crunchbase.com/person/kevin-mccarthy-6 2601:43:200:A8C0:46FC:2D0B:58AC:76AB (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

Saying Trump's question about the 2020 election as "false" is inappropriate for wikipedia.org. Remove the word "false" in paragraph 4, line 2. Wikipedia must not make judgements about issues like this. 2601:8C0:381:1410:C5DC:6FA0:B56F:856C (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Saying Trump's question about the 2020 election as "false" is inappropriate for wikipedia.org.

 Not done: Why exactly can Wikipedia not call something false "false"? Wikipedia has not "made judgments" on it, the lawyers, judges, and reliable sources have. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Current event tag

Given that McCarthy is currently in the process of becoming the Speaker of the House, would it be appropriate to add the {{Current person}} tag? GuardianH (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

He hasn't been sworn in yet, but oh well. He will be within a half-hour, so no sense in getting into an edit-spat, which would become moot shortly. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The tag is for articles being rapidly updated, not "someone in the news". It's not necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we wait until he's 'sworn in'?

Ok, I know I'm being too nit-picky. But shouldn't we wait until he's sworn in as the 55th Speaker? At the rate they're going in the House chamber, is seems like it's gonna take a half-hour or more. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe he is sworn in now. Eruditess (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Republican/Majority Leader links now lead to other members' pages

* Specific text to be added or removed: Remove Republican Leader, Majority Leader * Reason for the change: Steve Scalise is now Republican Leader, any social or web links to Republican Leader/Majority Leader are not accurate for Speaker McCarthy and ultimately lead to other members' pages. Only Speaker.gov, @SpeakerMcCarthy are correct across socials * References supporting change: https://www.majorityleader.gov/ https://www.speaker.gov/

Goatcheeseisgoat (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Link in external links section updated to the speaker one. Let us know if there are other holdovers. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Goatcheeseisgoat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Position as House Republican Chief Deputy Whip

I'm not sure why it was removed from the infobox but I added it back in, feel free to let me know if I made a mistake, but it seems appropriate to include it. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Trump's false denial of Biden's victory" - McCarthy support

The line "After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory" is not supported by the citation; in fact the cited article is to the contrary. The citation is to a Business Insider piece that criticizes McCarthy for declaring Trump the winner at a time when no winner had yet been called (this was on Thursday of election week). The text in this piece changes that to " *After Joe Biden won*". Suggesting, as this sentence does, that McCarthy made the statement after Biden had been declared the winner is highly misleading at best, and flatly false at worst. Dougmock (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, the phrasing makes it sound like the denial itself was false, even though the intent of the writing was to say that the claim that Biden lost the election was false. It should be sufficient to say "...Trump's denial of Biden's victory", as the veracity of Biden's victory is already well established. entropyandvodka | talk 02:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong ‘there’ in article

Sentence ‘After the January 6 United States Capitol attack, McCarthy blamed Trump for the riot and reversed his previous comments on their being voter fraud in the election’.

Should be there not their, tried to correct but article is locked. 2A00:23C7:FA4:4701:2D26:1ED9:8960:2F96 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Station1 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Release of January 6 footage to Tucker Carlson

Sentence 'In February 2023, McCarthy leaked thousands of hours of CCTV footage of the January 6 Capitol attack to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.'

The word 'leaked' incorrectly implies that the release of the footage was illicit or surreptitious. It should be replaced with 'released.' YeshayaRoth (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• McCarthy-Ryan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Lede wording on the debt default crisis

"As speaker, he worked with the Biden administration to resolve the 2023 debt-ceiling crisis and prevent what would have been a first-ever national default."

This seems like fluff/highly imprecise wording. It leads to the impression that McCarthy played no-role in establishing the crisis to begin with. It makes it sound like that crisis is something that just happened that McCarthy resolved, rather than a stand-off between McCarthy and Biden which was negotiated to an end. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just made an attempt to make it more precise, but still feel it isn't great. SecretName101 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

Under House Minority Leader make Nancy Pelosi's name a link. Basically, adding Nancy Pelosi Jvrucker (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:LINKONCE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Historical significance

It struck me reading the article, particularly today, that it omits an important fact about McCarthy: He is surely the most effective House Speaker in American history, and indeed many observers consider him to be so.2601:285:200:CD60:9D81:87AE:5351:1527 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you have ideas for an edit, please suggest them and provide reliable sources. The claim McCarthy is the most effective House Speaker in American history is a subjective one, and not in step with encyclopedic tone. entropyandvodka | talk 03:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Kevin McCarthy is a current Congressman. He is not Speaker of the House of Representatives. KentStraith (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Additionally, this article already reflects the recent change. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Kevin Owen McCarthy is no longer the Speaker of the House since today, as it happened live on television. SkylarArte (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The article reflects this LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Closing given response by LegalSmeagolian and that the article already reflects this. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023 (2)

He is no longer speaker of the house 2603:6010:4BF0:270:93DB:7CEE:40FC:2A46 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

First time in History

"No House speaker has ever before been ousted through the passage of a resolution to remove them." - [3]. This is a historical remove. As we can see, the source is CNN. 2620:10D:C090:500:0:0:5:6F39 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of lead, it is stated that it the first time in history thst this occurs. Cwater1 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

New Article?

I feel McCarthy being ousted is worthy enough for its own article. TheCorrectPanda (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It does: Removal of Kevin McCarthy Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker and Speaker pro tempore are different offices.

Technically, the office of Speaker and the position of Speaker pro tempore are not the same office. The US Constitution requires the Speaker to gain a majority vote to assume office, therefore the office of Speaker is vacant. I think this is imporant enough to put on McCarthy's infobox instead of listing McHenry as the successor pro tempore.

My suggestion was to put the successor as Vacant, and then but an explanatory footnote explaining everything.

WezouskyMike (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The events are unfolding, and while I agree, I think putting that note itself into a footnote might be better instead, at least until we have an actual Speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGreatUsernameChoice (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker of the House is not an Office that Constitutionally requires an Immediate transition of power. Listing it as "Vacant" would be redundant. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sleyece:,

I understand. However, that proves my point that the office is vacant because the Constitution does not require an immediate transition of power.

WezouskyMike (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker Pro Tempore is not a Constitutional Office. It's just a thing they made up, so yeah, I'd say yeah, you're correct. I'm gonna bold edit then. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sleyece:

Good luck. I also just edited McHenry's infobox so I can help with the footnote once you put the office as vacant.

WezouskyMike (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

change his party to democrat

he said on cnn he is now a democrat 24.205.76.134 (talk) 24.205.76.134 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose -- Sleyece (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@24.205.76.134 Can you provide a source for this? Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Source: IP User made it up. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The source in question Owellorthanothy (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I died laughing. That link shook me. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

While it would be entertaining to see this, I don't think there is any reliable source to support your suggested change as such news would be widely reported across several reliable news sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

New tag added

The presence of this new banner format is meant to convey the historical significance of the article being read. It was met with positive reception by numerous users on X, the social media website formerly known as Twitter, and helps set the tone of the Wikipedia reading experience. The banner is entirely separate from the “current event” banner, and should be treated as such. Please do not remove this without consulting me on my account talk page. Thank you KillaTrav87 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You should not have added it and it was correctly taken down. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@KillaTrav87: I have reverted it per WP:NOTNEWS. The way it works is not that I need to consult you on your talk page before removing it, but rather that after your WP:BOLD edit, I challenge it by reverting it and now you need to discuss it. This is the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Wikipedia isn't a news source and we are not in charge of designating what is historical or not. We also avoid WP:SENSATIONAL.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen from going to KillaTrav's talk page that they were blocked briefly for edit warring by inserting this "announcement", an admin unblocked them, and they just did it again. Continuing this behavior will surely lead to a longer block. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe KillaTrav is simply doing exactly what they were doing the first time Admins blocked them. There has been no change in the user's behavior except for the fun addition that you "need" to go on KillaTrav's talk page and request permission to revert edits. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Brevity of speakership

Some facts that illustrate the unique brevity of McCarthy’s tenure as speaker. One or more of these might be worth adding, if property sourced.

If my research is correct:

• He is the first single-term speaker to leave office mid-term for reasons other than death in office or resigning in order to take office as vice president.
• He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Byrnes Sr. in the 1930s to serve less than a full term, and the first since Byrnes not to be elected to more than one term as speaker.
• He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Martin Sr. in the 1950s not to be elected consecutively to more than one term.
• He is the first speaker since John Boehner in 2015 to leave office mid-term. SecretName101 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In general, I think these are kind of factoid-y, but AEI had a webinar where someone (I think Wallach) details the first bullet earlyish in the video. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably better to stick to the less trivia-ish fact that he is the only speaker to lose the position via a motion to vacate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong Agree -- Sleyece (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

(current)

Even though McCarthy had been removed as speaker, as of more than two weeks after his ouster, he refused to leave the physical premises of the office he had occupied in that role.

(change to)

McCarthy has remained in use of the speaker's office during the vacancy of the speakership position.

Reason: It may be a good idea to write the statement in a more neutral, less charged way with additional sources (and fixed formatting for current source). Worth noting that there are other articles that mention this fact in peripheral, to note how people have been meeting in his speaker's office to strategize during the ongoing speaker election process. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Your proposed text is definitely neutral while the text in the article was not. But, I took it out as it seems trivial to this whole situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

After winning the speakership in his acceptance speach Mike Johnson refered to Kevin McCarthy as "Our Speaker Emeritus" granting him the honorable title Jhartman087 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WanderingMorpheme 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Resignation in the lead twice

His resignation from the House should be in the lead once, summarizing a longer entry somewhere in the body. It shouldn't be in the lead twice and nowhere in the body. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Post-speakership (& Resignation!) section is mis-placed

Am I missing something here? It appears that the "Post-speakership" section is horribly out of place, and should also be subtitled to show his perfunctory resignation from Congress(!) I'm going to move it to where I think it should go; if I'm not taking something into account, here, somebody with a better understanding of the situation can revert the edit. Chachap (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Article focused on Republican legislative problems/Republican-Democrat informal coalition

I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft, Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)