Wikipedia

Talk:Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House/Archive 1

< Talk:Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Walt Yoder in topic Requested move 3 October 2023
Archive 1

Requested move 3 October 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago72 comments57 people in discussion
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: (non-admin closure) Not moved - there is a clear consensus against this proposed move. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Kevin McCarthy → Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the US House of Representatives –
Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy? I feel like an elementary school teach for saying from what? I think the article requires a better name. Proposing Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the US House of Representatives. It's long, but I think we need a clearer and more descriptive name, the current one is pretty insider baseball. Open to suggestions. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose — Titles are not required to be extremely descriptive. The proposed title disambiguates as if there were attempts to remove McCarthy as representative or minority leader. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed; also opposed to the present title - Could easily be construed as efforts to remove him from the house rather than just as speaker. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Even just "Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker [of the House]" would be okay. There's really no need to say U.S. House of Representatives as there's no ambiguity with any other Kevin McCarthys. Anyone who doesn't know what country's house he is speaker of will learn quickly from the lede. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Good job! 163.246.0.65 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Wait until we know the results of the motion to vacate. I do think that House Speaker should be in the title somewhere. Maybe Efforts to remove House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Comment - well, I've messed up the formatting by including the period in the proposed new name, since fixed but I wanted to add that I support the recent recommendations as to Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives as below per BarrelProof. Thanks, MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Fixed the period, since obvious and acknowledged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as the proposed title is unnecessarily long per WP:CONCISE. I am not a fan of the current name, and believe that it should be renamed to be more clear. However, the proposed title is too descriptive. Retroity (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because the title is a bit too unwieldy but I do agree that it should be changed. I agree with the suggestion "Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker [of the House]"
NateNate60 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Also oppose renaming SecretName101 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose wtf is that title, too long. if you want a description of what the article is about read the lead section not the title of the article. Sebbog13 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Support Ousting of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House because it is concise, recognizable, and consistent with terminology found in reliable English-language sources. I would also support using removal instead of ousting, though it seems clear that ousting is used more often in reliable sources and is more precise. Qono (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support BarrelProof's propossal I was thinking of planning of suggesting similar. The current title is too vague as to what the removal is from and the word "efforts" implies failure or a future event. It may edge at the borders of WP:CONCISE, but I can't think of anything shorter while also informative. Please call me Blue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, he has already been removed so there would be no point in saying "efforts". RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, move to Kevin McCarthyeet. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I know this is a joke but I absolutely love this I so wish this is what they called it. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed title in the nom. HappyWith (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and Rename to "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Speaker of the House of Representatives" as Wikipedia must be concise while also portraying information the way it really is. The reason why this article was created was because McCarthy was actually removed from his position, not because some people put in some "effort" to try to remove him. The effort is relevant only because it had the result it did. Had it not resulted in McCarthy's actual removal from the Speaker role, this page would have probably not even existed to begin with. Also, the title I am proposing is slightly more precise and quite relevant as McCarthy's removal from the Speaker role is a historic one and must be recognized as such. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    For a bit of seriousness, I'd support this proposal as the most sensible one. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
That's a pretty long name and not straight to the point, a better title could be "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from the US House of Representatives Speakership" — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedGigachad (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional support I am ok with changing the name to whatever consensus determines to be most encyclopedic. However, the title should focus on the vacating of the Speaker’s chair. For the first time in U.S. history, a sitting speaker was ousted. That clearly meets notability guidelines, and will stand the test of time. I support consensus on whatever title the Wikipedia community agrees on. I would vigorously oppose any attempt at AfD, or redirect to a more general article that does not recognize the historical significance of removing the first Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I don't believe that the proposed title is overly long and it is a better description of the action than the current title. While titles should be concise, they should also have enough information in them that helps the reader of the article understand what the article is about. That being said, because this has already occured, it is no longer an "effort" and the title should be "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Speaker of the House of Representatives". Jurisdicta (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The current title, Removal of Kevin McCarthy, is short & sweet, and the reader instantly knows what the article is about. WP:COMMONNAME definitely applies here too; see this example provided from it:
  • Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)
Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME also states that an article title is a natural-language word or expression. No one naturally says the Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives; people simply call it the Removal of Kevin McCarthy when referring to the event.
As others have also stated, WP:CONCISE applies here too.
There is no reason for the name of the article to change as it is perfectly fine, and it is the optimal title.
Cobblebricks (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I oppose this particular name, but I suggest "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Position as Speaker of the House". The suggestion falls in with WP:CONCISE despite that it fits in more than 32 characters, but remember that concise means not only short, but to the point as well. Just saying removal of and nothing following the name...removal from what? The House? The lunchroom? My spare room? Ya gotta be specific here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: My vote is for 2023 vote to vacate against Kevin McCarthy, by analogy with 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry. It strikes a nice balance between the current title (which is too vague) and other alternatives above (which are either too long or also too vague). As for Tamzin's argument, this is something that could become more common (thus the title of the article I mentioned), and more detail may thus be necessary. Esszet (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    I...hmm. I like this better than my suggestion. =) ~~ Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Per WP:CONCISE. Why not change the title to "Efforts to remove Kevin Owen McCarthy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives of the 118th United States Congress pursuant to a motion to vacate filed by United States Representative Matthew Louis Gaetz II of the 1st congressional district of Florida on October 2, 2023" while we're at it? Is this a serious suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. We already have a pretty damn good title right now which complies with our policies pretty well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (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.

To interested editors

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started drafting Draft:October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, in the case that these efforts end up succeeding. Additions welcome (I don't have much time to edit today myself). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Page rename/move now that McCarthy has been removed

Latest comment: 1 year ago80 comments58 people in discussion
NO ACTION
Clear concensus to keep separate. The move discussion continues above. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Now that McCarthy has been removed we need to decide what to do with this article. Either:

  1. Rename this article and create a new article for October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election
  2. Merge this article with a future October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article.

I have no opinion. This article does need to be renamed. Thoughts? Esolo5002 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer to merge this to October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Can be split out if necessary, but I doubt that would be the case. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be renamed or moved but if this is not merged, then I propose the title "Removal of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge - Could easily be a "background" section on the article for the speaker election. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed El819 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate. There's enough content on this topic to be a standalone article. Rager7 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
While the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article would discuss the election of the new speaker, "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the United States House of Representatives" could discuss the impact and consequences of the removal of the Speaker, for both parties and broader US politics.
Additionally, We can expect more information, analysis and commentary such as "The Washington Post staff writer Adam Blake stated that Democrats were unwilling to save McCarthy." Wiki6995 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate: His removal being the first ever speaker to be removed is an important historical event that deserves to have its own article not combined witht he regular articles for speaker elections. They are related so should be mentioned and linked in each other's articles but should in no way be combined. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge Just because there were two separate votes does not necessarily mean these are two separate events. The removal of McCarthy and the election to replace him are inherently joined at the hip. Both articles essentially cover the exact same thing. The article October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election goes into detail on the events that led to Boehner's resignation, there's no reason the 2023 article can't do the same for the events leading to that election. Fry129 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge - same topic Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. Part of the same process. The most important part was the vote to remove, which is already in the election page. The background material might also be useful, but it is also context for the vote so can be moved there as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an awful rename. The office is what is vacant. Applying "vacant" to a person only can be done as an adjective meaning "having or showing no intelligence or interest". We aren't here to insult McCarthy. SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Rename as Vacancy motion against Kevin McCarthy or Motion of vacancy against Kevin McCarthy ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 03:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Better name changes than what you previously proposed SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge Removing him from the office was just a necessary prelude to choosing a new speaker. It was basically a one-day event, a one-day news story. We could trim a lot of the overkill from this article (there is an unnecessary amount of background, and it certainly isn't necessary to name how every member voted!) when we merge, and make his removal from the office of speaker merely an introduction to the choosing of a new speaker. It's all one process. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Seperate due to this being a separate issue, which involves a separate vote. The article has become quite lengthy. This is quite historical, as it is the first instance of a Speaker being removed from his position. Of course, each article should link to each other as these two events are obviously interlinked, but by no means cover the same topic. BurgeoningContracting 03:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate and support any change to the title of the article. "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" without any context sounds very confusing. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose due to multiple reasons. My current understanding of the events of this talk page is as follows:
This proposal has been modified by multiple users. The proposer of this discussion closed a prior move discussion with Not moved. The proposer of this discussion then moved the page to a new title despite their closing. There is no mention of a merge discussion on this article. See Step 2 of MERGEINIT. There is no mention of this move discussion due to the prior move discussion being active. There is a separate attempted discussion at the talk page for the Speaker election article.
Personally, I don't see how any action can be taken from this discussion due to the above, outside of as a survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) (Amended at 05:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC))
To clarify I closed the prior move discussion because the discussion was moot because of events. It didn't make sense to have an ongoing discussion to move a page from names that didn't make any sense for the readers of Wikipedia. I moved it to the closest name that didn't add any additional context being discussed in the discussion. I was advised that I shouldn't have closed that discussion. A merge template was added to the page by me. It was removed by the RMCD bot on accident here. I just re-added it.
Esolo5002 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I have stricken the MERGEINIT part for being mistaken. That is my fault for not checking enough edits.
Thank you for clarifying and for updating the other talk page. I do still have concerns about the above. Given that this does have a move suggestion in the current proposal, is this to be considered a survey of opinions if the Rename part passes? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep as separate. Both will expand. There is plenty more background and information this article could feature. And we don’t know at this point m how complicated or how many rounds the new speaker vote will be. SecretName101 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Move and keep separate. Specifically, rename to Vacation of Kevin McCarthy. The current title isn't clear as to what he is removed from, and "remove" is also not the actual term for the procedure in the House. Like with impeachments, we should not need to append his role to the page. Vacation is specific enough. GardenCosmos (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@GardenCosmos That's an awful title. "Vacated" describes what happened to the office (chair), not McCarthy. It also sounds like it describes him taking a trip somewhere. SecretName101 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
It certainly does sound like that given thats a shared term. However, given no ones searching for Kevin McCarthys summers, there won't be confusion as soon as you read the page.
Whatever, keep the page title. GardenCosmos (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Except that WP:ASTONISH suggests that we should not require a person to read the page to understand the subject is not referring to leisure time. Due to the definition of vacation referring more to a recreational time than to quitting, we should avoid using the word vacation. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
But again. Vacation is not a word that applies to McCarthy’s name. McCarthy was not vacated, THE CHAIR was vacated. SecretName101 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I don't get the point of your reply here. I am addressing there won't be confusion as soon as you read the page. I didn't suggest using "Vacation/Vacated of Kevin McCarthy" at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Super Goku V Maybe then you could surmise that my reply is in response to GardenCosmos, and not yourself? 🤦‍♂️ SecretName101 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I don't see the need for the facepalm emoji when you (unintentionally) replied to me based on the indents. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I was not replying to you. I was replying within a thread that you happened to be in. SecretName101 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
One could say The House of Representatives' vacation of Kevin McCarthy, but in lieu of context a reader will assume that Kevin McCarthy took a vacation. If you're looking for semantics, Matt Gaetz's motion to vacate Kevin McCarthy would fulfill your parameters—and I quite like this title even over Ousting of Kevin McCarthy. A title is not required to match its topic's official name if it has a common name, such as Germany over Deutschland or the Mueller report over Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Again though. McCarthy is not what was vacated. The chair is what was vacated. SecretName101 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge, but if not, rename. It is incredibly historic, so one could definitely make the case for it having its own article, but either way, the current title is too vague. Cpotisch (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
What else has McCarthy been removed from that requires us to distinguish? SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Seperate as the event of McCarthy being ousted is notable enough to have it's separate article due to the fact that this is the fist time that a House Speaker has ever been removed from their position in the whole history of the United States. Had McCarthy simply resigned or died, I would have supported the effort to merge the two articles together but this case is entirely different. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate and propose new title of Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House to remove ambiguity. Avereo (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate & don’t move This is a historic event that’s related to but separate from the election. As Tamzin showed in the other thread, the office that a person held when they’re removed from a position generally isn’t mentioned in an article’s title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate as it is a notable event distinct from the subsequent election. On top of being unprecedented in US history, merging would be conflating two different votes (the vote to remove and the subsequent election), with WP:UNDUE emphasis on the latter compared to the former. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate the three events (the 2022 original election, the 2023 vacancy, and the (upcoming?) election of the new Speaker) are all separate yet noteworthy events, and each deserves their own article. I would also support adding a "See Also" section to these articles so that they each reference one another, since there is also a link between them. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate as others have said, the removal of Kevin McCarthy was an unprecedented historical event. The subsequent election is an ongoing event and is, in my opinion, already significant enough to have its own article. Independently significant subsequent events can, and should, have their own individual articles. --ThatTrainNerd (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge - There is no need for two articles. The subject does not warrant it. Remember we are an encyclopedia, not news.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not all users would agree with that justification Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia
    SecretName101 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge - Ultimately this whole series of events will be remembered as a part of the continuous process by which the House replaced one speaker with another mid-term. Certainly very noteworthy and historical but I don't think the two votes (or however many more votes it takes to elect a speaker) are so distinct as to require separate articles. On a practical level, I imagine that if we have two separate articles, the "Removal" article will have an "Aftermath" section that will accrue content overlapping the "Election" article, and the "Election" article will have a "Background" section that likewise overlaps with the "Removal" article, and there will be all the usual issues keeping those aligned. --Jfruh (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate the removal in itself is significant enough, and the article by now has so much content that merging it into a background section for the election article won't do it justice. I suspect the election itself will provide enough material for this article as well, considering how the last one went. --jonas (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate; the removal is a significant enough topic, and would be too long to put in the Background section of the October 2023 Speaker Election. Additionally, as User:Chaotic Enby said, the events are two separate votes: the vote to vacate the office of speaker, and the vote to elect a new speaker.
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate This is a significant event in the history of the US House of Representatives and should be kept separate. This event stands alone given its significance. Jurisdicta (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate' This has literally never happened before in American history. The event is interesting, notable, and extensively sourced by itself. The page is quite sizable now and is relatively well written. I see absolutely no reason to merge it. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate as per this argument exactly. pluma♫ ♯ 05:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose merge: The removal of Kevin McCarthy, while causing the election, remains a distinct event. A vote to vacate and a vote to elect a new speaker are two completely different things in American politics. Similarly, 2021-2022 Russia-Ukraine crisis remains a separate article from Russian invasion of Ukraine, despite the former simply being the cause of the latter. As a result, it seems unconventional to merge the articles. AmericanBaath (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2023 (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.

Declined, Possible, and Boondoggling Speaker Candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Speaker Kevin McCarthy is on the ropes. Here are some possible successors. (nbcnews.com)

So far, we're getting good updates. Keep the info flowing, comrades! Western Progressivist (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

question about the title

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Why is it not called "Impeachment"? Johnson.Xia (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not an impeachment. That term refers to a very specific process taken against executive and judicial officers. Please see Impeachment in the United States. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, there is no misconduct in this situation. It is a lot closer to being a Motion of no confidence without being so. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Impeachment refers to other officers. Congresspeople can be expelled from the Congress, but that's also not what this was. The title should probably be "Vacation", as the procedure of removing the Speaker from his role is vacating the office. GardenCosmos (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Except it is the seat that was vacated, not McCarthy. So you cannot call it "Vacation of Kevin McCarthy" SecretName101 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, the word "Vacation" implies that Kevin McCarthy left Washington on a trip for his personal pleasure... which, frankly, he probably needs right now. Edge3 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
"How's your garden?" 🤭 Johnson.Xia (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Removal_of_Kevin_McCarthy_as_Speaker_of_the_House/Archive_1&oldid=1218313823"