Talk:Mike Johnson

Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation

The citation for Johnson's father's relationship to the Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation is a broken link, and I cannot find another third party source to support that information. It also feels irrelevant to the life of Mike Johnson. Unless another source can be found, I would support the removal of that portion of the early life section. Eventhisacronym (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree the foundation is irrelevant to Johnson unless RS say he was involved himself.

From the RS I believe these two items are relevant:

1. “All I ever aspired to be was a fireman,” Johnson once said.

2.

His father was a firefighter in Shreveport and suffered burns over 80 percent of his body in 1984 in an explosion that killed a fire captain. Johnson was 12. His parents, he has recalled, “wouldn’t let us be firemen after that.”

I'll go ahead and modify the section. YordleSquire (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Modified YordleSquire (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation is mentioned in Pat Johnson's obituary. I think this deserves a mention in Mike Johnson's Wikipedia entry. It's certainly more significant than the unverifiable (though cited) claim that the younger Johnson wanted to be a firefighter but didn't because his parents forbade him to do so. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Young Earth Claim

KlayCax, you re-added this section[[1]] with new sources that do very little to support claim of the section. The same problem exists, the quotes included are from a lawyer on behalf of a client. They may be his real opinions, but that needs to be sourced directly. Also, the blog that's cited isn't exactly a reliable source, but but even if it was it doesn't support the section either. I'm removing the section for now until better sourcing can be found. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also - it’s not even a political position. It shouldn’t be in that section at all. JTW1998+ (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Tax breaks are a political policy. KlayCax (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur. User, KlayCax, cites from a Salon article and Pharyngula (a blog site) neither of which can be considered valid sources by reasonable and intellectually honest people (including those who may disagree or politically oppose Speaker Johnson). Treibleg (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased sources are alright as long as they state an uncontroversial fact. Jacobin, Fox News, et al. are all examples of this. The claim itself made in the article is uncontroversial. KlayCax (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to remove the section until there's consensus to include and to avoid edit warring. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. If nobody comments on Johnson's anti-biology stance except PZ Myers in his blog, it is not relevant here. His anti-climatology stance has been commented on, so that is OK. He probably disagrees with a lot of other sciences too (especially epidemiology, I expect), but we need good sources for that too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Many other sources have also commented on it. It doesn't deserve to go in the lead. But a simple mention within the body of the article doesn't seem problematic. KlayCax (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Tax breaks are political policy. So spending 50 words on it doesn't seem that disproportionate. I agree that it doesn't be mentioned in the lead of the article, however. KlayCax (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is proof that Mike believes in a "young earth", then it should be included in this article, even if a brief amount of text, though I agree it shouldn't be in the lead intro section. 70.179.117.66 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "proof", it is about reliable sources. So, if there are reliable secondary sources that say it, it should be included. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2023

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 Mike Johnson (politician). Please excuse the length of this close since there was a lot to unpack here.. If this was a simple vote, the supports would've had this easily. However, this is not a vote as many experienced editors should know. We're applying guidelines/policies here, so the only thing I can do is weigh the merits of each side's position.
If I had to summarize many of the support comments, then this Mike Johnson is the primary Mike Johnson because he has a powerful position in the United States (or specifically as stated by some because he's literally second in line to the presidency.). I don't find that in itself particular persuasive as did many of the opposers. Users like estar8806 noted that much of that logic relies on the presumption that he will be more well known over time (contrary to WP:CRYSTALBALL). We can't say that for sure, and John Bell (Tennessee politician) is one example of a speaker this is not the case for.
On the other hand, one thing the supporters noted that many of the opposers were comparing this Mike Johnson to many of the Michael Johnson's. Even as one opposer shared, King of Hearts, this Mike Johnson in 2022 had the plurality of pageviews compared to the other Mike Johnsons with articles for that same year. As supporter Walt Yoder stated, no other Mike Johnson was being put forward as even close to similar levels as this Mike Johnson in terms of primary topic suitability. SecretName101 has stated that many of the Mike Johnson's are prominent in their fields (or at least more-so than the folks listed under Kevin McCarthy (disambiguation)), but I don't see any evidence for this. In fact, when I went to verify this claim, I saw the opposite (Compare Mike Johnson (ice hockey) to Kevin McCarthy (ice hockey) as an example).
In the end, much of the opposers arguments relied on citing Wikipedia:Recentism (or at least attempting to do so in spirit as some incorrectly cited WP:TOOSOON as mentioned by Steel1943) While it's important to be aware of WP:RECENTISM, nothing in that essay says we should ignore what would otherwise be a primary topic simply because it received a significant spike in attention after a newsworthy event. The only question is whether this Mike Johnson really is the primary topic then (as in both WP:PT1 and WP:PT2). In that regard it's impossible to say with the information we have now (as noted by the opposers).
tl;dr
In summary, I'd say consensus was incredibly close to being present to move this page to Mike Johnson. Despite some of the poorly worded arguments on either side, there's clearly merit in both. Consensus can change, and another discussion will probably be held sometime in the future.
Enough people on both sides of the argument did state their prefered second choice was to move Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) away from its current title into, at the very least, Mike Johnson (politician). Others suggested alternative disambiguations, but (politician) was easily the most prevalent.
For the record, there's definitely consensus against redirecting "Michael Johnson" here or (as it was proposed) to move the current Michael Johnson disambiguation page to another title. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson – Given that he was just elected Speaker of the House, I would argue that this title should be simplified to simply "Mike Johnson", while the existing Michael Johnson disambig page should be renamed "Michael Johnson (disambiguation)", and the current "Mike Johnson" redirect to that disambiguation page should be removed, in favor of an {other uses} at the top of this article. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Cpotisch (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - He's the first Mike Johnson to obtain such a high position. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Self Support for posterity (reasons listed above). Cpotisch (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RMCOMMENT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - there's now obvious and overwhelming notability for him versus the others. KlayCax (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Significance in American politics. TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too soon. We don't know how many days he will hold that position. StrayBolt (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Suppose for the sake of argument he does have an exceptionally short tenure as speaker, then I'd argue that distinction alone would render him a quite notable Speaker of the House historically, certainly enough so to warrant the removal of (Louisiana Politician) from his name (just as many of us are aware of William Henry Harrison as the shortest-tenured President). And of course, if he has a long tenure, the clarificatory ellipse ought be removed as well. Either way, it should be removed, with a disambiguation page like former Speaker Paul Ryan (another generic named speaker). Salmantino24 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  By the time of his speakership Paul Ryan had served sixteen years in the House as a well-known name (often given media exposure as a “young buck”/“rising star” in the House GOP, and often touted as a chief budget wonk in the House GOP). Even bigger: he had been the 2012 vice presidential nominee of his party and was widely speculated during the 2016 cycle as a possible contender for the top of the ticket. Furthermore, today we know that he served 1.5 terms as speaker in which he was a high-profile figure (some speakers maintain low-profiles, i.e Dennis Hastert)

  at this time, Mike Johnson has only just been plucked from relative obscurity to hold the speakership, and time will tell how noticed his tenure goes in the consciousness of the public. That’s why it’s a little too soon.

  also, I am not sure that there was as much traffic to other Paul Ryan’s as there cumulatively is to other Mike/Michael Johnsons SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Mike Johnson has only just been plucked from relative obscurity to hold the speakership,.....

  No, not RELATIVE obscurity; COMPLETE obscurity. Will the U.S. House GOP even still maintain a majority come January '25? Agreed that it's way too soon be talking about this particular politician's staying power..... 2600:1700:E7B0:1140:0:0:0:1B (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Straybolt. Let's give this some time before we make a change. This is a pretty common English name so I would recommend giving this a few months at least. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the speculative notion that simply because he might lose this position in the future, he is any less notable now. That said, if you do want to discuss that possibility, I would point out that (if I'm not mistaken), Kevin McCarthy's article had the exact same change sort of move made after he became speaker, and this was even though he had already signed away most of the stability of the role, with his rules package. It was the right call to do the rename then, and it's the right call now, as in my view, regardless of how long someone held or may hold the role, they inherently become so notable due to their tenure as Speaker that it makes hardly any sense to specify "[state] politician". Cpotisch (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, "mike johnson" is a for more common name. Nemov (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There are still 3 past speakers which still have disambigs. McCarthy was moved before becoming speaker, and there was some post objection after the move. I could see Mike Johnson would have a hat to the Michael Johnson disambig page. StrayBolt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Another reason to change Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) -> Mike Johnson, is the possible appearance of bias on the part of Wikipedia. During the time where Wikipedia has existed, I strongly doubt there would have been a discussion on whether a current Speaker of the House is notable enough for his own name to be the title of that page. The debate itself arises from opinions that his power in the position may be limited or his tenure may be brief, which are subjective and inherently political judgments that Wikipedians ought not engage in. Salmantino24 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"we don't want to be criticized" is not enough of an argument to motivate this change. The only way NOT to be biased is to assess whether this page move makes sense as we would any other article.

I am not convinced that this Mike Johnson (outside of the momentary curiosity after the election) is guaranteed to be the "Mike Johnson" a vast majority of readers want to read about when they search "Mike Johnson".

The goal is to convenience readers, get them to the article they are looking for as quick as possible. Can we say that in a year or two, more people will want to read about this guy than every other Mike Johnson combined? Because, before we inconvenience every reader looking for another Mike Johnson, we need to have confidence that (lastingly), the vast majority of people who will search "Mike Johnson" will hope to be directed to this article and are not hoping to find another result. SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Any current or previous Speaker of the House is more notable than any of the "Mike Johnson's" listed in the disambig page. All the more reason to transition the page for convenience of users trying to find the article for the most powerful member of the most powerful Congress in the world. Salmantino24 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Any US House Speaker seems to be overwhelmingly more notable than pretty much anyone who has the name. I don't think this is a case where TOOSOON would override a Primary topic move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader As I have said to others, I don't think the right lens is to see whether he is more notable than a singular Mike Johnson.

  The goal here is to convenience readers in reaching the article that they are looking for. Rather than notable (some notable figures aren't well-researched/very interesting figures in the public consciousness, and aren't well-visited pages) we should weigh whether someone is a well-sough search-term. And instead of weighing them against a singular other person of the same name, we need to weigh them against all other pages on people of the same name. Because people searching for any given one of those other articles would be inconvenienced by this page occupying the target "Mike Johnson". So he'd need to be (lastingly) a significantly-more-desired search result than all seventeen-or-so other Mike/Michael Johnson articles combined.

  Do you have strong confidence that this article (lastingly into the future) vastly out-proportion all other Mike/Michael Johnson articles combined as the destination readers hope to be directed to when looking for Mike Johnson. (I sure don't) SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do have strong confidence. And I would suggest that given that there has been a clear consensus in support of a Primary topic here, consider WP:Dropping the stick. I personally try to avoid bludgeoning whenever I can, as from previous experience from being bludgeoned on, it doesn't end well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Major politican within US politics. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - my reasoning is included in the accidentally created duplicate move request below. Sahaib (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - He is the most famous Mike Johnson and has significance simply by virtue of being Speaker of the House. I agree with InvadingInvader above that length of time is irrelevant Epicradman123 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support By being the speaker of the US HoR, he's significantly more notable than practically anyone else with that name. Ueutyi (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not notability, it's ubiquitous association with that name.

  Essentially: we want to be assured that in a two years or more from now, an astronomical proportion of the people searching for "Mike Johnson" will want to find this article.

  There are plenty of other Mike Johnsons prominent in their fields. We don't want there to be large share of readers searching for those guys who have to navigate their way to finding the link the disambiguation page (which will make their intended target page two clicks away rather than one).

  It remains to be seen if this Mike Johnson will be the one nearly all users want to find when they search that name. Plenty of speakers that served a long while are mere footnotes in memory. So why should we assume the guy who has served all but a few hours at this point (and done nothing yet of note in the role) would be a more sought-after search than all of the other Mike Johnsons combined. If there was only one or to other possible Mike Johnson pages people could be seeking, I'd almost certainly-say "yes". But with seventeen other notable individuals people could be seeking, it seems like there's a greater number of readers that would be inconvenienced by making it an straight direct to this subject's article rather than a disambiguation where they can find the seventeen others they might instead be searching.

  We want to convenience the readers and get them where they want to go in the least number of clicks. You should not be comparing this Mike Johnson against singular other Mike Johnsons. Instead, you should be comparing him against all other Mike Johnsons. Will the number of readers who want to arrive at this article when searching "Mike Johnson" far outweigh the ones who hope to find any all of the other Mike/Michael Johnson? SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly the most significant "Mike Johnson" with a Wikipedia page, being that he is US Speaker of the House. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I knew this was coming. Too much WP:RECENTISM. He's dead last out of the outgoing from the dab page Michael Johnson (to which Mike Johnson is a redirect)[2]. Will that change soon? Probably, but that's just speculation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806: please read Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics where it states "Care should be taken when evaluating terms that are not identical to those of the articles concerned". Michael Johnson≠Mike Johnson. Sahaib (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

People searching Mike Johnson end up in the same place. Anybody who searches for "Mike Johnson" looking for the new speaker will end up on the same dab. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's speculation at all. He literally already is Speaker, and therefore, unlikely all the other Mike/Michael Johnsons, he is 2nd in line to become head of the 3rd largest state on the planet. That's pretty freakin notable. Cpotisch (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Except it is just speculation. WP:CRYSTALBALL explicitly says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions (emphasis my own). It is just a presumption of ours that he will become the primary topic. I agree with you, it will almost certainly happen. Key word being "almost". estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with the suggestion that it's in any way TBD as to whether he is the primary topic. I fully feel that he has already become the primary topic, by virtue of having an extremely important position. You can of course disagree with that, but my argument definitionally isn't one of speculation or presumption, because I'm saying that he has already become the most notable. Cpotisch (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I get that. You're certainly right about long-term significance. I just think we're obliged to hold off for a little while considering the pageviews. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose at the moment. This Mike Johnson has not as of yet obtained ubiquity in recognition as the prime individual associated with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support He's second in line to the presidency, he's a lot more notable than anyone else of the same name regardless of how long he remains in office. Khronicle I (talk)
• Oppose renaming Michael Johnson as it is an extremely common name for which there can be no primary topic; neutral on moving Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) to Mike Johnson, as unlike the disambiguation page, the nicknamed version seems to be less used, though I am still uncertain. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Cpotisch, can you clarify what you are proposing be done with Michael Johnson if it is moved to Michael Johnson (disambiguation)? Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I'm fairly neutral about "Michael Johnson"? I think it probably makes sense to just redirect that to the dab as well, maybe with Mike as the top option there. Open to suggestions but I don't think that's super important either way for the big question here. Cpotisch (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support He is overwhelmingly more notable than any other person named Mike Johnson. I endorse the move. Floridian (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Definitely the most notable and important Mike Johnson. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support He has became the most famous Mike Johnson in a matter of hours. TheInevitables (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Famous to political buffs maybe. But to many, the many Michael/Mike Johnson's in sports might be more known to them than this Michael Johnson.

  In order to be the default page for a name, he'd need to be near ubiquitously recognized as the primary individual associated with his name. Not slightly-more known, nor simply having held a position/profession of higher prestige. It's all about whether there is strong enough ubiquity.

  And all we know, his name-recognition might be at its peak this very moment. It's pretty probable that he will not be speaker come 2025 or earlier, and will possibly be a footnote in politics.

  Even if he hypothetically goes on to become the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history, he even then might still be all that more-known to the general American public (let alone to the broader world) than the other Michael/Mike Johnsons. Some speakers are just poorly-known in the public consciousness. Poll your average American on who Dennis Hastert (the current record-holder for longest-serving Republican speaker) is, most would never have heard the name let alone be able to tell you who he is. And Hastert has only been out-of-office since 2007. And Hastert is not the only long-serving House speaker that most people would not recognize. Even political buffs would be forgiven for not knowing who Tom Foley was, and he served an entire six-years until 1995 (longer than Nancy Pelosi, and longer than Boehner each did, to put that in perspective). SecretName101 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is also worth noting that three past house speakers have disambiguates in their article titles:

  • John White (Kentucky politician)
  • John Bell (Tennessee politician)
  • John W. Taylor (politician)

  And (in addition to his speakership) John Bell was the third-place finisher in the 1860 presidential election ( 12.6% of the vote), served as secretary of war (briefly) and was as a U.S. Senator for two terms. Far more historically notable than Johnson at this moment, yet he still has a disambiguation because he does not hold sufficiently ubiquitous association with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  1840s, 1860s, 1820s. no one knows them because they're too far back, that's why they have disambiguating titles. Mike Johnson is the speaker right now and is all over national and international news. JM2023 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I've said and others have, 24 hours into his speakership is too soon to judge that (just because he is a name people are interested in and are learning of right now) he will be a well-known-figure come two or four years from now who most people want to find when typing "Mike Johnson" more than want all others by that name.

  It is still quite possible this early in that he could instead become a quickly-disregarded footnote whose page visits will largely be from those navigating from the "predecessor" and "successor" link listings in McCarthy and the next speakers' infoboxes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose there's a point to be made that we don't have to consider every future contingency, we're not renaming the article forever, this is not going to be engraved in stone (well, presumably not). If in 2 years this person falls into obscurity and other Mike Johnsons can contest his placement as the primary Mike Johnson, then you can just change the article title again. Right now, and forseeably until his term is up, he is going to be the most sought Mike Johnson on Wikipedia by quite a lot. JM2023 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would definitely consider starting an RM for John Bell, as he is more than likely the primary topic for that name. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow close, anyone? Cpotisch (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - With how volatile the situation in the House currently is, I do kind of want to see if he can stick around a bit before this is changed, since Mike Johnson is a pretty basic, common name. Maybe just make him the first person listed on the Michael Johnson page for now? SnoopySnoo (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support either moving or enacting SnoopySnoo's proposal. As the third highest ranked official in one of the biggest countries he is much more notable than anyone else sharing his name. Jbvann05 21:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support We did the same with Kevin McCarthy (California politician). Llevenius (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not until 2022, by which time he had spent an entire eleven years making a name for himself while holding Republican floor leader positions. Until a few hours ago, Johnson was a no-name near-backbencher.

  Also, some of the other Mike Johnsons also have greater prominence in their fields than any of the Kevin McCarthy's do SecretName101 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per User:KlayCax and the others who have made the same or similar arguments although if another person with this extremely common name ever reaches a similar level of prominence, I'll probably wish I hadn't voted like this. City of Silver 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: He is now clearly the most notable person of the Michael Johnsons listed, even if that was not the situation 24 hours ago. It would be a service to WP Users to not have them have to dig through the MJ Disambig page to find the Mike Johnson that most searchers of that term will be looking for. KConWiki (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Reasons of note have been listed PhummyLW (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: By far the most notable person with the name, even if he doesn't last long as Speaker. People in the future are far more likely to study him than any others with the same name. Other reasons for why I support the move have already been said. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Despite his election as speaker, I think it is still too early to move per WP:Recentism, especially given the number of notable people with the name. However, I do support making him the first person listed on the Michael Johnson page. Xenryjake (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Extremely generic name and wouldn't be the first speaker with this format, check John Bell (Tennessee politician) and John White (Kentucky politician). Killuminator (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support I was going to propose switching him over as Mike Johnson (politician) given how he holds a higher office than the other Mike Johnson politician articles that exist. However, keeping him as simply Mike Johnson might be best as well since we did it for Kevin McCarthy and even Jim Jordan. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I mentioned earlier, three past house speakers also have disambiguates in their article titles, including John Bell (Tennessee politician), who was the third-place finisher (12+ percent of the vote) in the highly-significant 1860 presidential election. It's not at all about the prestige of the office he holds. It's about whether he is widely considered to be far-and-above the first person who is thought of when the name "Mike Johnson" is mentioned. At this moment, it's ridiculous to assert that he has achieved that level of ubiquitous association with the name "Mike Johnson". SecretName101 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per the reasons well stated above. Moncrief (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. I count 17 other articles titled "Mike Johnson", let's actually see what the pageviews do over the next little while before moving. I absolutely oppose redirecting Michael Johnson to this page as proposed by the nominator as no evidence or argument has been presented that this article is the primary topic for "Michael Johnson" as opposed to Mike. ITBF (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I never said that Michael Johnson should redirect to this page...? Cpotisch (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  This move request triggered a cross-listing on Michael Johnson. Someone (a bot?) thinks that renaming this page to Mike Johnson will trigger an alteration to that page (perhaps a redirect). Einsof (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  You said "the existing Michael Johnson disambig page should be renamed 'Michael Johnson (disambiguation)'". Where would Michael Johnson redirect to then? If you want it to still point to the disambiguation page, then there's no reason to add the parenthetical. ITBF (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Never even heard of this guy 24 hours ago and now he's supposed to be the default over all other people named Mike Johnson? Please. Einsof (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Speaker of the House is second in line to the President of the United States. Alexysun (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The human head weighs eight pounds. Einsof (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  (Redacted) Alexysun (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Personal attack redacted. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. At the very least it should be ...(politician), but ideally just the name. Brad (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as he is second in line to the presidency. cookie monster 755 23:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose He suffers from having a common name, but I dont see why we should promote him over all the others named Mike Johnson, especially considering how obscure he was until recently. Would support just using (Politician) as the identifier though.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  23:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Speaker of the House is second in line to the President of the United States. Alexysun (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose He only recently became relatively prominent in a global sense, it is far too soon to change. This name is very common in many different countries, we don’t do this for Mike Brown, Mike Smith, Mike Williams, Mike Jones, Mike Wilson, Mike Davis, or Mike Taylor. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aquabluetesla: those are cherry-picked examples what about Mike McCarthy, Mike Watt, Mike Quinn, Mike Holmes, Mike Farrell, Mike Simpson or Mike Rowe. Sahaib (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sahaib Yes it is cherry-picked. Johnson is the second most common surname in the United States. Every surname I linked is in the top 15, those surnames are nowhere near as common. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker of the House is second in line to the President of the United States. Alexysun (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

and Senate President Pro Tempore is third in line. Your point?

off the top of your mind, do you even know who the current senate president pro tempore is?? Most people don’t. SecretName101 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Do I have to spoon feed everything to you? My sentence implies that he holds a very powerful position and therefore should be the main Mike Johnson, but apparently you have no inference skills.

Your 2nd question asked something completely irrelevant. You feel that you know a little bit more and wanted to flex your knowledge. Patty Murray btw. Alexysun (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: He is very recently the most prominent Mike Johnson around. However, the question of how long that lasts and whether he remains as speaker precludes us from making a move like James Madison and James Madison (disambiguation). If he's speaker for the next few months and it becomes evident that almost any reference to a "Mike Johnson" sans adjectives is to the new speaker, I think a move could be reconsidered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Too soon. The current situation allows us to do a pageview test of all the Mike Johnsons present at Michael Johnson, after the initial hype around the speakership election has died down. As of 2022, he has a plurality but only 34% of the Mike Johnsons. In the last 4 days he is sitting at 97%, but we have no idea where it will ultimately settle. (Note that these percentages are an overestimate, since some Michael Johnsons might also be referred to as Mike Johnson. If we don't filter the massviews, the percentages are actually 3% and 77%, respectively.) We may end up moving it in the end, but prematurely making one topic primary will irreparably bias the pageview results and prevent us from performing this analysis in the future to know whether we made the right decision (since it will be the article people see when they type "Mike Johnson", regardless of whether that is what they intended to see). We should hold off in order to make a data-driven decision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose So the GOP elects yet another zealot and he's more notable than all the other Mike Johnsons in 24h? Give me a break. Until he demonstrates that he can even stay a couple of weeks in the post, Michael Johnson the sprinter will keep being the most notable Mike Johnson by far. In a couple of months, when this Speaker Mike Johnson keeps repeating that you can abort babies until seconds before birth and people believe him, THEN he can be notable enough to be the default Mike Johnson. Americans, ugh. --81.34.198.47 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  And of course it is already being moved. Wikipedia zealots, American zealots, all the same. 81.34.198.47 (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not very productive, and it's probably disruptive, to express disdain for Americans in a discussion about improving an article with Americans (and I'm not an American either). I can imagine how well that disdain would go over if it was targeted at Indians instead. Actually I don't have to imagine it because someone recently caused outrage at ITN for expressing disdain toward Indians. JM2023 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't determine the notability of an article based on a politician's views on abortion. BlueShirtz (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not directly, at least. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  when this Speaker Mike Johnson keeps repeating that you can abort babies until seconds before birth. Your comment makes no sense. A very anti-abortion person would likely argue that you can do abortions never, not seconds before birth. Someone should probably collapse or delete this !vote and its responses since it may violate WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTFORUM, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, The US isn't the only place on the planet. It's like 331.9 million out of 7.888 billion people. Refer to Michael Johnson for all the other candidates. that this same RM could be run on and a similar oppose could be put with different wording.TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, While the guy above me's got a ridiculously silly reason for it, after starting off reading this section in strong support, I see the need to at least wait on this change. → Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House) or Mike Johnson (Speaker) could be better, though.GardenCosmos (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy close and reopen at a later date as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 04:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is there a particular reason this Mike Johnson is more notable than the 18 other notable Mike Johnsons? The current target of Mike Johnson being a disambiguation page seems fine to me, unless some very compelling evidence is presented that this Mike Johnson is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This man is not notable outside of the United States. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support - He's second in line to the President of the United States. All you guys saying he's not more notable than other Mike Johnson are clearly not from the United States, the most powerful nation in the world.Alexysun (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  This may be the most US-centric argument I've seen in a while. Curbon7 (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  So everyone from America is automatically notable? — Karnataka ^talk 11:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a very strange reply. Nobody said or suggested that everyone from America is automatically notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. Johnson holds a position of considerable significance and is far more notable than any other Mike Johnson. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Rename Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House) or Mike Johnson (Speaker) could be much better. M.Karelin (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or (alternatively) Mike Johnson (congressman), Mike Johnson (U.S. congressman), since there are no other U.S. congressperson articles on Wikipedia on either a Mike or Michael Johnson who served in those offices. U.S. house Speakership has not before been used as an BLP disambiguate, though it is probably the best one to use in this case regardless. Especially since we know for a fact there are no other U.S. House speakers by that name that ever served, while it is possible that an early and relatively obscure U.S. Rep by that name exists but lacks an article.

  speakership/membership of U.S. House are far better identifiers than the state he hails from/represents, since far more people know that he serves as speaker/serves in the U.S. House of Reps than know what state he is from. Also, everybody who knows his state probably can be safely assumed to also know he holds those offices. SecretName101 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support moving to Mike Johnson, however Michael Johnson shouldn't redirect to him but rather stay a disambiguation page A3811 (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support because he's literally second in line to the presidency. JM2023 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  And?

  Let me ask you, do you know who is currently third-in-line? Most people couldn't tell you their office, let alone their name. It's the Senate President Pro Tempore, whose article in the last twenty days averaged only 2,321 daily pageviews. And guess what, with the speakership vacant for each of the those days, she was second in line at the time her page averaged those numbers. Which kinda proves that being second-in-line doesn't mean as much as you think. SecretName101 (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok then, Support because he's the leader of the lower house of the bicameral United States Congress which is controlled by the Republican Party and is therefore the highest ranking Republican in the country. He has way more political power than the VP Kamala Harris. He sits behind the President next to her at the SOTU. He will control the agenda of the House until his term expires or he's removed. Name another Mike Johnson that could possibly contest the position of primary topic. JM2023 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing extended debate

Then let's look at how some past House speakers' articles fared in the twenty-days prior to Matt Gaetz's introduction of a motion to vacate McCarthy (9/12 through 10/1) here are the ten that came before McCarthy (and here they are again, but with outlier Nancy Pelosi removed) and here are the ten who preceded that (worth noting that the one with by far the highest daily average of views, John Nance Garner at a daily average of 554, is better known for having been vice during FDR's first two terms, and twice a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination himself) Pretty clear that being a speaker does not give a longterm guarantee of a subject being a highly-sought-out article. It makes it possibly doubtful at this point that Johnson will remain a more desired search result than all other Mike Johnson's combined. SecretName101 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Time to let others comment. You're nearing the WP:BLUDGEON point. Nemov (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Bludgeoning (per that link) typically "means making the same argument over and over", did I previously provide these page view links as an argument? No. #NotBludgeoning if you are entering new supporting evidence. SecretName101 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Let me quote direectly from the essay. Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. This is exactly what you're doing. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I agree. JM2023 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) if he becomes less famous long after he retires, then you can change the article title then. you're doing WP:CRYSTAL. JM2023 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC) No. Assuming sustained prominence as a desired search term far surpassing the combined interest in all seventeen other Mike/Michael Johnson after less than 24 hours in the news would be WP:CRYSTAL SecretName101 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) If assuming the current Speaker of the House and leader of the congressional Republican Party is going to continue being famous is WP:CRYSTAL, then literally everything is and we should just have no primary topics at all for anything. JM2023 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) We aren't here debating if he'll be "famous". That'd be more in line with WP:Notability, and I do not see us discussing the deletion of this article. Were are here discussing whether he'd be enough of a desired search term above all other Mike Johnsons (combined) here and into the future SecretName101 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) the difference being I'm looking at the near future and you are looking at the far future. there is no reason to believe the current speaker of the house is not going to be a more desired search term than all other mike johnsons. what you're doing is looking at other speakers from long ago and at their pageviews, which you then project onto this current speaker; thats more speculative. It is almost as certain that the speaker will be the primary Mike Johnson as long as he is speaker as it is that large grey animals will be the primary Elephant. And besides, "fame" is basically "search popularity". JM2023 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @JM2023 Also challenging me on which other Mike Johnson could be a primary topic is quite a strawman when I am arguing for the target Mike Johnson to continue to redirect to Michael Johnson (disambiguation) due to there being a lack of a candidate with significant-enough claim to be a primary topic above the combined interest in the other Mike/Michael Johnsons SecretName101 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) You misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to argue that another one could be the primary topic, I'm asking you to argue that another one could challenge this one's position as primary topic i.e., someone who is of sufficient fame that it makes none of them the primary topic. I know what you are arguing. JM2023 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Hence why it is a complete strawman ("informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction") SecretName101 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) you can quote the definition of strawman all you want but unless you can demonstrate how it applies its nonsensical to do so. I argued extensively that he was the primary topic, and asked you if you could name another mike johnson who could justify this one not being the primary topic. thats not a strawman. i'm not refuting an argument that is not under discussion. you said yourself that you're arguing that none of them should be the primary topic, I asked you to show why you believe that in spite of my own argument. JM2023 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment "He's second in line to the [US] presidency" has been repeatedly offered as if it's self-evidently an argument for primary topic status. Is the idea here that, if asked to rank a list of identically named people (artists, athletes, politicians...) by order of importance, one should always pick the one who orbits closest to the US president? Are we building an encyclopedia in which article subjects are primarily appraised by their relationship to the US president? Because if that's the encyclopedia that we're building, that sucks. Einsof (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  the highest level of political prominence is rather well-illustrated through representation by reminding others that someone's legally within 2 heartbeats of being the head of state and government of the world's sole superpower. Although it's still better for those people to do as I did and add another comment listing other reasons. And of course it's not always the case that the argument is sensical anyway; If Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both named Mike Johnson then obviously this one would not be the primary topic. JM2023 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that USA is the world's sole superpower may have been accepted in the 90s right after the Soviet Union fell, but that status has been diminishing since, and may now be an oversimplification. Please see Superpower#Post-Cold War era. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of if the USA is the world's "sole superpower," it is at the very least one of only a handful. Epicradman123 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  "The US is a superpower" doesn't get you any closer to a successful argument for why someone in this person's position should be considered more important than other people with the same name. Essentially it's an argument that Wikipedia should assess the importance of human subjects by their ability to do things like facilitate bombing campaigns, incentivize the conversion of oil into plastic, or whatever else superpowers do these days. You've made no argument at all for why those things are more important than music, technology, sports, or anything else that people with the same name may have been involved in. Einsof (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - For now, very news-y. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.He is second line for Presidency.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support he’s now the most prevalent Mike Johnson. Even if he’s speaker for a short time, he’ll still be the most prevalent Mike Johnson. Though the opposition does have valid reasoning, but I still support the change.--✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please rename the page as James "Mike" Johnson. As he should respect his given name by his parents instead of asking us to use his chosen name. DMLouis1975 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — DMLouis1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia follows what the sources say, not what you want him to be called or what his government name is. his full name is at the start of the lede, titles are for common names. no one calls him james. JM2023 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@DMLouis1975 that would be in violation of WP:COMMONAME SecretName101 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

oh look at that we actually agreed on something. JM2023 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not enough evidence yet to prove this subject's notability is a WP:RECENTISM issue. That, and there are quite a few "Mike Johnson" subjects at Michael Johnson. (By the way, FYI to everyone using "WP:TOOSOON" here as I almost did: You may want to read the content of that essay as it is about notability for the subject's article's existence, not about gauging the subject's notability above others.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also oppose any disambiguator changes to the title, considering all other disambiguators suggested so far violate WP:PRECISE against "Louisiana politician" since the phrase "Louisiana politician" is not ambiguous in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Louisiana politician" implies he is a politician in the State of Louisiana, which he is not; the State of Louisiana is a different government than the federal House of Representatives. JM2023 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, it implies that the politician represents or represented the state of Louisiana in any capacity, federally or locally, by the voters. (I'd recommend researching Wikipedia a bit next time before making such a obviously bogus claim.) In fact, this subject, being a member of the house, technically only represents the district that voted him into office since those are who he technically represents and the only constituency that can vote for and/or against him in elections, regardless of what miscellaneous title any federal entity also bestows on him. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how "researching Wikipedia" would change my not-bogus claim that the average reader would see "[state] politician" and think that it means the politician is at the state level. ANd he's not just a representative either; he's in charge of half a branch of federal government. This isn't just a "miscellaneous title". JM2023 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  "I don't know how "researching Wikipedia" would change my not-bogus claim that the average reader would see "[state] politician" and think that it means the politician is at the state level. "Precedence with how disambiguators are set up in other article titles" is the answer. I've been dabbing for decades (it's what I prefer to do here), so I know this is the case. Also, regarding "ANd he's not just a representative either; he's in charge of half a branch of federal government.": As much "power" as that title may hold, it's still a miscellaneous title that was bestowed upon this individual while still a representative by some entity other than the voters of the politician's constituency ... nothing wrong there with an accurate use of a word. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  the point is that it's not just a title, he's the leader of half the federal legislature. That gives him a lot of power and has nothing to do with representing the state of Louisiana. And the point still stands that it looks provincial, especially when the one other Mike Johnson American politician was a state-level one from Oklahoma. Hypothetically, would you accept Mike Johnson (speaker)? Regardless, supposed precedents can be ignored and there are no firm rules, and if we can have primary topics where we would have for example both a "Mike Johnson" and a "Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician)" I don't see why we can't have a "Mike Johnson (politician) and a "Mike Johnson" (Oklahoma politician)" if this Mike Johnson is obviously the primary topic in terms of politicians. JM2023 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I am dropping the stick here as this argument is becoming unnecessarily circular. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support no other Mike Johnson has obtained such a high office. Until he leaves congress or the speakership he will easily remain as the most relevant Mike Johnson. TheFellaVB (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support No other Mike Johnson has been in such a high position. --Minilammas (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Mike Johnson (politician) per WP:PRIMARYPDAB and massive existing pageview differential. Moral support for Mike Johnson: too soon to know really, but this is a big position and no other Mike Johnson historically averages more than 100 views/day, which is not the case for the multiple prominent people named Mike Williams (3 with 3000+/month), Mike Brown (4), or Mike Smith (6). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• In the interest of avoiding the status quo, I'd also support Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House) as a more relevant modifier if there's no consensus for primary topic. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Mike Johnson due to his high office is far more prominent than the many other Mike Johnson’s that share his name. I would note that I also believe Michael Johnson should direct to disambiguation not to this Mike Johnson. Dashing24 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. "Mike Johnson" is a very common name, shared by many topics. Most people haven't heard of this politician, and that might stay true if he doesn't last long in his one-day-old position. It would also be nice to hear the opinion of Necrothesp, who seems familiar with the convention for naming of articles about politicians on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging @Necrothesp: for you SecretName101 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Initially I was supportive of the change but having read above arguments I think there is some reasonable grounds to hold off on making the change. I don't think he will nessicarily be more notable than all other Mike Johnsons combined beyond the current interest in him. Support putting him at the top of the disambig page. Support changing from "louisiana politican" to something like "politician".--TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• The difficulty in looking up this Mike Johnson in Wikipedia got a mention in Politico for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Figured something happened with third party sources that led to more participation here, but I didn't have any hint of what it was until now. (I'm the one who added the {{Not a ballot}} tag.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you whispering? JM2023 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you care? Are your actions rationalizing the tag I placed? Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  What's with the sudden hostile tone? I just wanted to know why your reply was so small compared to the rest, I had never seen that before and I wondered if it meant something different.

  What does Are your actions rationalizing the tag I placed mean? Are you accusing me of canvassing or accusing me of being canvassed? I was here long before you placed that tag. I am here because he was nominated at ITN, I came to the article and wanted to fix the fact that his podcast was basically being promoted in the article with an external link, so I went to the talk page to see if anyone had said anything about it before I changed it, stumbling into this proposal. JM2023 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  @MZMcBride does it not just say an Irish politician didn't know about the politician and turned to Wikipedia to find out? Not that he found it difficult to find the person on Wikipedia, which isn't the same thing? — Karnataka ^talk 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  he did find it difficult to find the specific article apparently:

  After a few minutes of typing on his smartphone, the Irish adviser — “Hold on! Don’t spoil the suspense,” he pleaded — had found listings for a half-dozen politicians named Mike Johnson, many more professional athletes, a serial killer and an Oregon punk rocker. / “It says this Mike Johnson used to front a band called Snakepit. That sounds perfect to be the next speaker,” he said.

  JM2023 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, thanks. — Karnataka ^talk 07:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; even if he is House Speaker (for now), he's hardly the most well known "Mike/Michael Johnson". Trivialist (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Truly a genuine question: who is then? While both names are common, I can't think of a more famous Mike/Michael Johnson. Moncrief (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  That answer probably varies significantly depending on where the reader lives. DJ Cane (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Mike Johnson due to his high position and notability compared to others with the same name. The current title using Louisiana politician makes it sound like he's just some state government official in Baton Rouge. BogLogs (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  that's also what i thought it looks like JM2023 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - probably the most worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) — StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Premature request. Mike Johnson is a very common name and he is not the most famous person with this name. Dl.thinker (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The current name Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) is no longer the most appropriate title. Either Mike Johnson or something like Mike Johnson (House Speaker) would be more appropriate. I think that he is likely the most notable of all Mike Johnsons. But I also agree with arguments stating that the metric that should be targeted is reducing the time spent by users getting to their intended article. In this case, he would likely need to be the intended target for the majority of searches for his name / more notable than all other Mike Johnsons combined. Not sure if it's possible to make a data driven decision here, but that would be the ideal approach.

YordleSquire (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. If being Speaker of the House made him automatically primary then George Thomas, who was Speaker of the House of Commons for seven years (and an MP for 38) and extremely well-known in the UK, would clearly also be primary. However, he isn't. And neither is this Speaker, especially since he's only just been elected. His position doesn't make him automatically the primary topic when there are so many others by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: Your point is well taken, but I just wanted to very briefly mention that the US Speaker of the House is a far less ceremonial position than its UK equivalent. It's a partisan position in the US, among other differences. Moncrief (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware of that, but that doesn't make the holder of the post any more or less notable. George Thomas was an incredibly well-known figure in Britain during his seven years in office, probably the best-known Speaker of the 20th century, yet he is not primary. My point is that I don't think we can say this newly-elected Speaker should immediately become primary topic simply because of his position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  At least he doesn't have a parenthesis in his article name. Having a title: "1st Viscount Tonypandy" in the article name actually looks great. Alexysun (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. I feel like it's too soon to decide whether or not he will be topical in the future. He's not even the most popular Mike/Michael Johnson; according to my research, there are at least two Michael Johnsons who have more page views than him. The best option is to wait. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to another disambiguation, however. Spinixster (chat!) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Good graph. I'm guessing the subject will have a bit of a spike in October. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Funny it just happens to end in September, right before this Mike Johnson became notable. If in 2 years he is no longer notable then editors can change the title to something else. JM2023 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I thought that was because that particular tool doesn't show the current month, but maybe there is conspiracy afoot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not to say anyone conspired, like you said there is no data there for the current month, but I think that's more of a reason that recent page views should have also been included so that we can also see this month's data next to the other data, since this person was basically unknown until this month. People can and do become notable overnight, especially when elected to the highest position of the Republican Party and the leader of half a branch of government. JM2023 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Per recent page views, this page had 35,372 views on 24 October 2023, then had about 30 times more page views the next day with 1,019,344 views on 25 October 2023, but then the view count went down by more than half then next day with 418,605 page views on 26 October 2023. Until there are more days' page views on record, the 50% drop in views, should the trend continue, validate WP:RECENTISM claims that traditionally happen after news about a subject breaks. In addition, there is also the WP:WORLDWIDE issue; notability of this subject in the United States (temporary or otherwise) does not necessarily extend to English-reading audiences in countries other than the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for the entire world outside of the US obviously, but I will say that (1) I am not American (2) I do not live in the United States (3) I am part of the English-reading audience, and I don't really anticipate this Mike Johnson's page views falling down close to any others (and besides, almost all other Mike Johnsons are also Americans anyway). I also don't think we should entirely discount the United States notability of this figure given the US has a higher population than every other primarily English-speaking country combined. JM2023 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  "...the US has a higher population than every other primarily English-speaking country combined. Incorrect: India has English as a primary language and has a population that is about 4x the size of the United States, and this for some reason has to be mentioned in almost every discussion to make the "US has the most English-speaking population" claim. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  please see this map for more information. JM2023 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Steel1943: The "US has the most English-speaking population" claim is correct, the US has over twice the amount of India per List of countries by English-speaking population. Sahaib (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Either way though, some editors tend to weigh all English-speaking countries equally when it comes to a subject's notability, regardless of individual English-speaking populations of the respective countries. So, I still believe there is a valid WP:WORLDWIDE bias claim here. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support While page view counts are helpful, the comparison should be with others with the title Mike Johnson, rather than the sprinter or fighter who call themselves Michael Johnson. In any case, the Speaker of the US House is of sufficient prominence in the English speaking world to be considered the primary topic. Less for their position in the line of succession, which is somewhat theoretical, but as the legislative leader of one of the houses and leader in some respects of their party (even if the former president is the de facto leader). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Using data from before 25 October is not relevant for this discussion. People do become more notable overnight due to changing events, and that's exactly what happened here. Moncrief (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, data from before 25 October is relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose recentism, can be reopened later — Karnataka ^talk 11:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, it’s too soon, too recent and too common a name to jump the gun so soon. JamesVilla44 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the move to Mike Johnson per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC- oppose anything with Michael Johnson. StAnselm (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Due to notability Bokmanrocks01 (talk)
• Support Mike Johnson, but no change to the DAB at Michael Johnson. There are a lot of bad arguments on both sides: just because there are "a lot" of Michael Johnson's doesn't mean there is no primary topic, and just because he is on the list of US presidential succession doesn't mean he is the primary topic.
  None of the people named Mike/Michael Johnson were especially notable before the recent Speaker's election, and the two most prominent by pageviews are exclusively "Michael" in sources. I don't see any suggestion that there is another "Mike Johnson" that is even close to being as notable to the new Speaker; he is the primary topic. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Mike Johnson per reasons stated above. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is perhaps the one time WP:RECENTISM should be ignored. We also gave King Charles (Charles III) a free pass when his regnal name was confirmed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ha, I voted "oppose" in that request as well, and then the thing ended up being closed early after igniting more figurative flames than this discussion currently has. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think the office of speaker and the monarch of the UK and more than a dozen other countries are equally prominent in infamy. Note: speaker of the House does not get their face plastered on currency and emblem plastered on mail boxes and portrait hung in schools and government offices. Nobody swears an oath to the speaker “and his heirs.” SecretName101 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, King Charles was up against royalty from either much smaller nations, a long time ago, or both. The current king of several major powers is significantly more notable than people who died over a hundred years ago. DJ Cane (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. This decision should be driven by data, and we don't have enough of it yet. My proposed standard would be that Speaker Mike Johnson retain more than twice as many pageviews as all other Mike Johnsons combined, measured in about a month or so (to allow for the intense interest in him right now to level out). I am supportive, however, of changing (Louisiana politician) to something else.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I echo the sentiments of numerous others on the basis of WP:RECENTISM. I do think it would be appropriate to change to something like (U.S. Congressman) like User:SecretName101 suggested. That said, do we want to change it to that now and then change it again in a few months if it becomes clear that moving this page to Mike Johnson is appropriate? I lean slightly no on that front but won't vote oppose if we have that discussion in the future. DJ Cane (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removing any parenthetical disambiguation, but Support changing the parenthetical disambiguation from "(Louisiana politician)" to "(Speaker of the House)". He is now much better known as the Speaker of the House than as an elected official from Louisiana. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker of what house? Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives? Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives? Speaker of the House of Commons in Canada? Einsof (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter which House, because (as far as I can tell), there are no other Michael Johnsons that are Speakers of any other House. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Michael Johnson (U.S House Speaker)? SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Or Michael Johnson (U.S Speaker of the House) SecretName101 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Either flavor works for me. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Mike Johnson per reasons state above, if not that then at least it should be changed to Mike Johnson (politician) Sixula^Talk 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  What about

  • Michael Johnson (Australian politician) (born 1970), member of the Australian House of Representatives
  • Michael Johnson (Alaska politician)
  • Michael Johnson (Wisconsin politician) (1832–1908), member of the Wisconsin State Assembly
  • Michael Johnson (Missouri politician), member of the Missouri House of Representatives
  • Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician) (1944–2022), member of the Oklahoma Senate

  ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  This same argument can be made against both Mike Johnson or Mike Johnson (politician), but both have the same counterargument, that being that Mike Johnson is either the primary Mike Johnson or the primary Mike Johnson (politician). Also, there is only one other Mike Johnson there, the rest are Michael Johnsons, and this guy's real name is James Johnson, not Michael Johnson. JM2023 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Only the Oklahoma guy is called "Mike", however. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  sometimes, even if “Mike” is not the most common name variant used to refer to an individual, the individual still might be occasional referee to by “Mike”.

  for instance, even though they are more commonly referred to as “Michael”, I have occasionally heard both Michael Dukakis and Michael Del Zotto referred to as “Mike”. So you cannot rule out that some people searching “Mike Johnson” will be looking for someone with a “Michael Johnson” article

  BUT I feel FAR safer with him being the primary for the disambiguate “politician” than I would at this moment for his entire name . Therefore I’m not opposed to that. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  To my non-American eyes, having one American (Oklahoma politician) and one (Politician) would look a bit weird though. I'm not against changing this article to (Speaker) or something like that. If things change, we can change it again. But, I think no change is the way to go atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose -- clearly recentism -- let's at least wait to see whether he lasts longer than the proverbial lettuce. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nomoskedasticity: that is a bad comparison as Liz Truss's short tenure added to her notability globally and resulted in the lettuce article you linked. Sahaib (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support I strongly support and encourage everyone to do so. We are talking about the third most powerful (tbh I would say second) person in the country; yet some still assert that he is confused with other Mike Johnsons. That is a fallacious statement! He is the leader of the Republican agenda in the Congress and currently everyone's eyes are on him. That would be ridiculous to have (Louisiana politician) as his article's name as if he is just an ordinary politician. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait a little bit and see what the PRIMARYTOPIC will be later on. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support third most powerful (tbh I would say second) person in the country Yger (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as WP:TOOSOON, and the glaringly obvious fact that the disamgiguation page has far too many other articles about people with the same name for any one of them to be the primary topic. The proposal is infected with recentism. 100 years from now, will anyone care who the politician was, compared to an artist whose work has endured for that duration? I think not. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a guideline that says we have to be confident that in 100 years our primary topic articles are still primary topics? A lot of editors' arguments make it seem like these titles are set in stone. JM2023 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's up to the editors 100 years later whether to keep or change the article's name :) EloquentEditor (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support I believe, as others have mentioned that this Mike Johnson is, and will continue to be regardless of what happens for quite some time, the primary topic, because either (a) Mike Johnson will continue as Speaker like normal, and will be commonly searched for that reason, or (b) he will resign or be removed for some (probably notable) reason, and will be searched for that reason. I definitely do see the point that others citing WP:TOSOON are making, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke10.27 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Very clearly the primary topic at this point. Thmymerc (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons articulated by other supporters. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The new Speaker is clearly the primary topic by a wide margin. As to the earlier discussion on what to do with Michael Johnson, redirect that to the (to be created) Michael Johnson (disambiguation) Bestagon ⬡ 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - As many have noted, he is the most notable. Should probably redirect MAGA Mike to him, too. Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for the time being. Not only are there a lot of notable people named Michael Johnson, there are a lot of notable people named Mike Johnson specifically. The Louisiana politician certainly isn't the primary topic with respect to usage – looking at pageview stats, his monthly average views can be surpassed by combining as few as three other same-named figures. As for significance, while I agree that he likely has more significance than any one other Mike Johnson, he hasn't yet had time to build a lasting reputation in the public eye; that is to say, I don't think he's yet reached enough long-term significance to justify giving him WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status. (He may yet become a more apparent PRIMARYTOPIC, of course, but right now all we can appraise are the facts as they currently stand.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Notice that pageview stats go to September 2023, and he became notable in October 2023 when he was elected Speaker. You need to look at recent page views to get the picture. JM2023 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good point – I'd seen that he had large spikes before (e.g. in 2019 when he was working the impeachment trial) and had assumed that the Speaker view spike was comparable in scope to those. But taking the daily pageviews over a longer term, his recent spike absolutely dwarfs his previous jumps. Changing my !vote to neutral on this one. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:TOOSOON there is simply no evidence at all offered that WORLDWIDE the name is recognisable to anyone other than US-politics buffs. The name is very generic (unlike say [[Mitch McConnell|the previous speaker) - and probably unrecognisable even to many readers who are aware of the recent speaker-election dramas. Even if he is destined to become the best known person in a pretty big field of namesakes, he isn't yet recognisable on his own. If the change proposed were to 'American politician' or similar, I could see the sense, but not this change, this soon. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mitch McConnell was not the previous speaker, he is the current minority leader in the senate. JM (talk) 16:08, 5 November 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.

More about early life

Johnson has said he was the product of an unplanned pregnancy and his parents were teenagers at the time: [3]. I would say this is relevant because Johnson has specifically cited that fact as one reason for his own anti-abortion views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. See early life section. MonMothma (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

His father's obituary is here https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/shreveporttimes/name/james-johnson-obituary?id=11898168 which lists his father's birthdate 9 feb 1953 compared to 30 jan 1972 dob for House speaker means his father was 10 days shy of turning 19 years old (technically a teenager but not a minor). He also had a brother born about a year later Patrick Chris Johnson presumably from the same parents. https://www.searchpeoplefree.com/find/patrick-chris-johnson/17YdePGgyLbu

The mother may have been a minor. Two more siblings 4 years later (Josh & Laura). https://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000053601654989 2601:44:4380:67F0:34B5:FC9B:B8C1:EFF2 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Veterans

In case it gets removed again, this special politician needs recognition for voting against veterans and disabled veterans more specifically. Add more citations as needed.

Veterans

The PACT ACT, which expanded VA benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during their military service, received a "nay" vote from Johnson. Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV Johnson votes against cannabis. Twillisjr (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Twillisjr, I checked the QG Digital Publishing source you cited regarding cannabis. I didn't see any mention of Johnson at all. That's why I took it out. Also, both sentences need better sources to establish notability. MonMothma (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is a subsection in the article about his position on medical marijuana. MonMothma (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you suggest adding the portion about the DAV being in support of it, and Johnson being against Disabled Veterans to the Cannabis subsection? Twillisjr (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not without better sources, no. MonMothma (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this needs better sourcing to establish notability. Someone added it to the article so I'm going to cut the section as WP:OR until better sourcing is added to establish its inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be included imo StardustToStardust (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, seems this is part of the whitewashing you picked up on. Twillisjr (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

His years-long attempts to criminalize consensual same-sex intercourse (which was described by many news organizations as the central part of his politics in the 2000s) was also completely wiped from the lead as well. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Yes, and for good reason. MonMothma (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom Guard work and Answers in Genesis

His Freedom Guard work defending Answers in Genesis seems to obviously merit mention, at least briefly, within the article. It received significant attention from mainstream, reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It was in the article a few hours ago, if I am not mistaken. Do I smell some whitewashing? SecretName101 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is definite whitewashing, @SecretName101:. Information about his attempts to criminalize gay sex has been repeatedly wiped by editors. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I smell disagreement by multiple editors, not whitewashing. MonMothma (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Christian right in lead

Hi, @Nemov:. There's an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that Mike Johnson is a member of the religious right. It's one of the most notable aspects of his character.

Why was this removed? KlayCax (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek:

Johnson is a member of the Christian right who opposes abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results, served on Trump's impeachment defense team. He also is against sending funds to Ukraine, which is a matter of contention in the House.

Bloomberg:

Folksy hero of the Christian right

Sky News:

A lawyer by trade, he was first elected to the House in 2016. He is an evangelical Christian from Louisiana, a member of the Christian right block of conservatives.

I:

Mike Johnson supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election and comes from the party's Christian right faction, supporting a nationwide ban on abortion and pushing to overturn same-sex marriage

Vox:

Johnson’s surprising ascendance is also a win for the Christian right. While Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy all supported conservative policies and viewed the religious right as an essential part of the GOP coalition, Johnson is of that movement

The body also already states he is a member of the Christian right in the positions section. KlayCax (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's a myriad of sources calling him all kinds of things, but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The addition can be fleshed out later in the article, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Nemov (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The term Christian right is entirely neutral and listing ideology in the lead is normative.

  See the (often featured!) articles for Yasser Arafat, Steve Biko, Keir Starmer, Joe Biden, Carlos Castillo Armas, and so on and so forth. KlayCax (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would kindly remind you of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thanks Nemov (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but it's not a violation of MOS:FIRSTBIO. There's nothing controversial about claiming that he's a member of the Christian right.

  Does it not "neutrally describe" him? Is it not a "notable" aspect of his politics? KlayCax (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The lead should stick to high level information. Just the facts and the rest can be fleshed out in more detail later in the article. Nemov (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Saying that he is a member of the Christian right is high level information. It's central to his political beliefs. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  You really created a RFC about this without getting any other feedback? That's a little overkill don't you think? Nemov (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Others objected as well, @Nemov:. You weren't the only one. It's clear that there isn't going to be a consensus otherwise. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should Mike Johnson's affiliation to the Christian right be mentioned within the lead?

There is a present disagreement among editors on whether Mike Johnson's affiliation to the Christian right should be mentioned within the lead.

• Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political career.
• Opponents state that it is not high-level information, not an important part of his character, and a clear violation of WP: NPOV.

Should it be mentioned? KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support (note: RFC submitter) per reliable sources. It's entirely in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, as shown by the FA-tier articles on Yassar Arafat, Steve Biko, and Carlos Castillo Armas, among others. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources:

  Newsweek:

  "Johnson is a member of the Christian right who opposes abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results, served on Trump's impeachment defense team. He also is against sending funds to Ukraine, which is a matter of contention in the House."

  Bloomberg:

  "Folksy hero of the Christian right"

  Sky News:

  "A lawyer by trade, he was first elected to the House in 2016. He is an evangelical Christian from Louisiana, a member of the Christian right block of conservatives."

  I:

  "Mike Johnson supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election and comes from the party's Christian right faction, supporting a nationwide ban on abortion and pushing to overturn same-sex marriage"

  Vox:

  "Johnson’s surprising ascendance is also a win for the Christian right. While Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy all supported conservative policies and viewed the religious right as an essential part of the GOP coalition, Johnson is of that movement"

  Diario AS:

  "As a member of the Christian right faction, Johnson supports ‘traditional’ values. In practice, this means he supports a nation-wide abortion ban and is an opponent of LGBT rights. He has argued that same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality and described himself as supportive of “discrimination” against gay people."

• Oppose Setting aside the o WP:RFCBEFORE issue with this RFC... this content is barely mentioned in the rest of the article. but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The lead should follow the body. If this is to be mentioned it needs to be fleshed out more in the article before being included in the lead. Nemov (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: There are a lot of "get to know him" pieces flying off the presses right now. I would like to wait a month and revisit sources from before, during, and after his speaker candidacy to test whether this is a consistent label in RSs. I think there's good reason to expect that "Christian right" or something close to that will be in the lead at some point, but the media environment surrounding him is too hot and lacks the critical depth that I would prefer to see. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) per MOS:BLPLEAD which states the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. It is clear that there is already material in the article explicitly covering that he is affiliated to the Christian Right at the top of the "Political positions" section which flows into the various stances he would implicitly take as part of his affiliation with the Christian Right in the various sub-sections in that section. There are also WP:RS which state this and it would therefore be WP:DUE to state it in the lede in line with MOS:BLPLEAD. Where about in the lede is a different question that has not been asked in this RfC and I don't think MOS:FIRSTBIO is the relevant policy to quote as that deals with the opening sentence/paragraph and it is clear that the lede is 4 paragraphs long. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  This was originally included in the first paragraph which is why WP:FIRSTBIO was cited. Nemov (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose i want to highlight the central justification here:
  Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political career
  every sentence we publish in the article about a living person should meet these criteria. if it fails to meet these critera, it should not be in the article, period.
  not all of the material in an article should go in the lead. not all of the material in an article can go in the lead. to justify including something in the lead, there must be a better reason than it simply meeting the bare minimum standards of being in line with what reliable sources state.isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It truly depends JUST how defining it is of his career. SecretName101 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Johnson's own views as quoted by Politico, where he said: "I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a life-long conservative, constitutional law attorney and a small business owner in that order" starship.paint (RUN) 08:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of sources provided are enough to include a label like this. If it was something more controversial like far-right I'd require a lot more sources but this seems sufficient and relevant to his career. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support he literally said he was a Christian conservative, Christian is Christian and conservative is right-wing per starship.paint. plenty of sources outright calling him a part of the Christian right per nominator. JM2023 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• First, I'm not seeing where there has been prior discussion about this issue that would warrant an RfC to send out the bots and notify the whole project. We generally don't open RfCs after an hour of discussion between exactly two people, especially on a subject that...let's be honest...most of us just figured out exists at all.
  Second, why is this the least bit controversial? "Conservative Christian" isn't an epithet. It's not like one of these articles where we're debating labeling someone a terrorist. Johnson doesn't seem to have any qualms about the characterization, quite the contrary, seems to wear it as a badge of honor. Half the article is about how conservative Christianity has been his North Star in basically every facet of his life. GMG^talk 10:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The original objection was this edit[4] which introduced "Christian right faction" to the 2nd sentence of the lead without explanation. Instead of discussing it to find a solution the editor rushed into creating a RFC. Nemov (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Probably would have been best to discuss first, I was summoned to an RfC yesterday by the bot where the person starting the RfC was proposing some pretty uncontroversial reorganisation, of two sections in which there was duplication. They hadn't even been bold and attempted the edits at that point, so there was obviously no contention to be had. I was a little annoyed and told them that they should just do it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: Europeans are horrified by these beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support major part of this politician's outward reputation that can be seen as significant by many — Karnataka ^talk 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close as malformed this RFC is too vague to establish a consensus for anything. Certainly the article should not ignore his religious faith or his political ideology. But it also shouldn't look at a few liberal outlets pejoratively calling him a "Christian nationalist" and claim that is a neutral statement. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) Given the politics of his day, and the circumstances that led to him becoming Speaker of the House, it's at least as relevant that he is a part of the Christian right as it is that he is part of the Republican Party. Carleas (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose without seeing some proposed wording. The problem is that by itself it is too vague, both in terms of what it means to be a "member" and also what we mean by "Christian right". Of the sources helpfully supplied by User:KlayCax, I News makes it clear that it's the Christian right faction of the Republican Party, while Newsweek is vaguer about it. Bloomberg and Vox talk about how the Christian right likes and supports Johnson without necessarily implying that he is a member (whatever that means). So what we have now is good ("Johnson is a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party" under political positions) - anything beyond that probably shouldn't be in WP voice. Membership of a party faction is somewhat well defined - membership of a cultural movement is less so. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

How about this, @StAnselm:?

Ideologically a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party, Johnson is in his fourth term representing Louisiana's 4th congressional district, and has served since 2017.

Does that work with you? KlayCax (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for coming up with something more concrete. No, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Possibly the third. StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Very much describes him and has major references of support. ContentEditman (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Many U.S. politicians are (or at least profess to be) Christians. In most cases, that fact is not important enough to be in the lead. In this instance, however, Johnson himself has stated it to be paramount: "I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘… People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview." "‘Go pick up a Bible’: Speaker Mike Johnson defends anti-LGBTQ+ views" This self-summary is also consistent with his overall bio, in that his career before election to Congress is far more religiously oriented than that of most politicians. JamesMLane t c 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not as defining as being the speaker of the house, while it also violates NPOV. Not all pertinent material needs to be in the lead, and in this case it doesn't meet other criteria. Let'srun (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support- extensively covered by sources, (in Europe it's probably the most commented on aspect of his election), he seems to wear it as a badge of honor and it gives a unifying context to many of his beliefs and positions. Probably not in the opening para, but in second or third, whichever it fits best thematically. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV

I am seeing a lot of edits that are poorly sourced, biased, or where issues are being made to appear much more major than they really are. It's hard not to conclude that folks' political perspectives may be shaping the editing process.

Look, Johnson has taken positions and stated views that are super-controversial. Those things have their place on his Wikipedia page. But they shouldn't become the entire Wikipedia page. I surely don't agree with some of the things the man says, but this page isn't supposed to be a political screed--whether positive or negative. MonMothma (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

He has explicitly stated in the past that he is in support of and has advocated for the criminalization of consensual, sexual relationships between same-sex individuals. This has been overwhelmingly mentioned in reliable sources about him in both the American domestic and international press. Stating this fact isn't a violation of WP: NPOV. Just because his actions then are unpopular in 2023 does not mean it merits deletion from the lead.

Reliable sources repeatedly mention as a central part of his political career and beliefs. Therefore, it's WP: Due and an instance of WP: Weight. KlayCax (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian The Globe and Mail (often considered its Newspaper of Record), introduces him to readers by stating, writes: Ideologically, Mr. Johnson is a hard-core social conservative. He backs a federal abortion ban and has called for doctors who perform the procedure to be sentenced to hard labour. His pre-political career included litigating in favour of anti-sodomy laws and other culture-war issues for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “The state is right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual conduct,” he wrote in an op-ed from the time. In others, he described same-sex relationships as “inherently unnatural,” “harmful and costly,” as well as a “dangerous lifestyle.”.

Many other mentions of his support for sodomy laws can also be found in 20+ introduction news articles by foreign news media. (Indeed, most do mention this as a central part of his career.) KlayCax (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "this fact isn't a violation of WP: NPOV?" You framed argument against in the RFC with the same language when no one brought up NPOV as an objection. No one is objecting to this information being included in the article, but on the basis that it's not central part of the biography. This person is notable for being a politician and for being speaker of the house. Just because something received coverage doesn't automatically justify inclusion into an article or the lead Nemov (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Nemov and MonMothma: we're seeing a preponderance of recent news stories parroting exactly the same content without expanding the base of knowledge on this individual. If sustained coverage emphasizes something, it merits inclusion. Also, it's worth adding that attributing bylined reporting and editorials to the publication that runs them is inappropriate. This appears to be an effort to emphasize the reliability of the content referenced to a given source but is rarely necessary—just add the content with a relevant citation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is objecting to this information being included in the article, but on the basis that it's not central part of the biography Canada's The Globe and Mail — its newspaper of record — disagrees with that claim. It considers his attempts to criminalize consensual sexual relationships between members of the same-sex a key aspect of his political career and a notable part of his biography. So does ABC News and many other domestic news agencies within the United States.

Considering he spent years attempting to uphold sodomy laws, I don't see how this can be simply waved away as a "one amicus brief". Reliable sources overwhelmingly mention it while summarizing him. That's beyond mere received coverage.

His lead is already far shorter than that of other House Speakers, including Kevin McCarthy's, Newt Gingrich's, Paul Ryan's, Nancy Pelosi's, so a single sentence mentioning it is completely WP: DUE. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Europeans are horrified at the current state of American politics. I never expected the so-called "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" to elect a Speaker who spent years of his life attempting to throw happy LGBT couples in jail. Editors are attempting to downplay and normalize what we'd universally consider far-right politics. The state of Yank politics right now is horrifying. StardustToStardust (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia editors are horrified about Johnson, too, which is what gives rise to the NPOV and balance problem I have attempted to address. MonMothma (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

News sources say it is a notable part of his political career. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

StardustToStardust, if we're still talking about Johnson's advocacy for laws criminalizing homosexual activity, what you just said appears mistaken. Johnson's legal advocacy on this issue related to the Lawrence v. Texas case, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 2003. The op-eds he wrote on this topic--at least those that are mentioned in the article--date back to 2003 and 2004. Johnson did not run for political office until 2015. His work on this issue probably isn't part of his political career at all, let alone a "notable" part of it. It is, however, part of his legal career. MonMothma (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

a lot of congresspeople in the last fifteen years have centered their careers around staking out divisive stances on hot button issues (red meat for base voters) at the expense of establishing any noteworthy or distinctive record on kitchen-table-issues and other matters.

additionally, a lot more congresspeople in that time seem to have taken to almost always towing the party line on votes.

not sure if this is the case with Johnson (I know too little about his record to make that assessment). However, this pattern means that for a good number of politicians in the House now there are few (if any) non-polarizing congressional work or political positions that merit mention.

if his record is of the sort I described, that might mean that hardline positions are simply what he might have centered his political identity upon. SecretName101 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• KlayCax there's nothing about this discussion that supports your edit.[5] Some of your edits on this article are borderline disruptive and you could be sanctioned if you continue to jam in contentious material without consensus. Nemov (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, @StardustToStardust:, and a large majority of other editors — not tagging them per WP: CANVASS — support the sentence being in the lead, a fact that mirrors what reliable sources have written about Mike Johnson.

It is a total misapplication of WP: NPOV to state that articles need to appear "neutral" to X group of people in 2023. Criminalization of homosexuality was mainstream in the early 2000s, it is something that he spent a substantive amount of time advocating for, and reliable sources judge it an extraordinarily notable part of his biography. Other editors have already pointed out that foreign media sources overwhelmingly mention it in biographies of him.

There's not much else to state. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 6 editors in this discussion. There's no consensus. Your behavior here is troubling. Nemov (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A large majority want the statement reinstated, however. Almost any edit on a "hot button" page will have at least one or two objectors. RFC's are a measure of last resort.

I wouldn't be necessarily against it. It's just a hassle for other editors. KlayCax (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to start a RFC? @Nemov:. KlayCax (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @KlayCax: that the legal advocacy before the Supreme Court of the United States merits mention in lede. SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I share Nemov's concern. Where is this "large majority" of editors you speak of? As far as I can tell in this discussion, it's four editors on one side and three on the other. It's misleading for you to claim that a large majority of editors support you on this when they haven't said so themselves and you haven't asked their opinion. Please speak for yourself, not for others.

If you are really concerned about creating a "hassle", please stop trying to shoehorn this sentence into the lead again and again when you don't have consensus for it. I find that to be a hassle.

I don't agree that Johnson's advocacy for laws criminalizing homosexual behavior is an "extraordinarily notable" part of his biography. In fact, as of one short week ago, this part of Johnson's biography--centered on his work nearly 20 years ago--was so "extraordinarily notable" that it wasn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page at all (see here). MonMothma (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted it as 8-9 in favor (JM2023, Anselm, StardustToStarDust, Twillisjr, SocDoneLeft, SecretName101, me, and one other editor who also reverted the statement yesterday who I forget the name of.)

While 2 editors against (MonMothma, Nemov)

1 I was unsure about. (Pbritti)

I'm aware it's not unanimous.

However, a 3x-4x majority is a strong one in the context of a page such as this. The edit I made was reinstating the edit of someone who added it back in. (2-3 others had done similar.)

As for Wikipedia articles: they shouldn't be used as normative guidelines for what's notable for inclusion or not. Johnson was predominately a figure who was "under the radar" so to speak. International sources (as stated elsewhere) overwhelmingly mention his support for sodomy laws during the 2000s. It's mentioned predominately in every non-American news biography of him. See this for just one example. KlayCax (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was counting the editors who have actually taken part in this discussion. It's four to three, by my count. Not a large majority. I stand by my position. The sentence needs to stay out. Open an RFC if you want it included. MonMothma (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

SocDoneLeft, JM2023, Anselm, Starlight, and Twillisjr have explicitly stated they favor inclusion, so it's at the very least 3x+. (Me + 5 = 6 / 2 = 3) KlayCax (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

MonMothma, if you think that properly sourced and notable material is nevertheless problematic because it affects the article's "balance", then the solution is not to purge valid content. The solution is instead for you to add the other content (again, properly sourced and notable) that you think needs more attention. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Political Positions Summary

Starting a talk topic because I know it will be contentious:

The Political Positions section currently provides a few sentences of summary and then subsections.

The current summary:

> Johnson is a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party. His inaugural speech as speaker of the House emphasized his Southern Baptist beliefs as the basis for his politics.

> His political profile has been defined by his outspoken opposition to gay rights. Johnson holds "ultraconservative positions on abortion [...] and same-sex marriages", according to Bloomberg News.

The sentence "His political profile has been defined by his outspoken opposition to gay rights." stood out to me. 'Defined by' is a very strong and exclusionary phrase. It almost contradicts the long list of other political positions straight after. The single source https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-house-speaker-mike-johnson-spent-years-fighting/story?id=104312903 is definitely reliable and details Johnson's extensive opposition to marriage equality / lgbt rights. But I would not go so far to say that the article can be summarized down to "defining a political profile".

The strongest thing in the article which would suggest opposition to gay rights as the defining feature of his political profile is a third party quote: > Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, in a statement to ABC News, called Johnson "the most anti-equality Speaker in U.S. history" while also noting his past support for efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

If we are going to keep this sentence, we should find other RS that more explicitly state that "outspoken opposition to gay rights" it is the defining feature of his political views. His views are already mentioned in the lede of the article, and then given a thorough treatment in the section, so I hope this Talk is not viewed as trying to bury anything.

I also think that the quotation by HRC president should be included in the LGBT sub section. YordleSquire (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the HRC quote. But wanted to wait a bit before touching the "defined by" sentence. YordleSquire (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Are sodomy laws normal for Yanks? StardustToStardust (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Johnson's support of sodomy laws don't mean they "define" his political profile. One objectionable view doesn't automatically define a person's views especially when there's many other (possibly objectionable) views that are well documented.

His opposition of lgbt rights is extremely well documented by RS and thus should be included in the wikipedia article. I'm not arguing against that...

I am very specifically calling into question the term "defined by".

It would be more accurate to say something like:

"Johnson is especially known for his extensive and outspoken opposition to gay rights." YordleSquire (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

YordleSquire, per reliable sourcing, it's reasonable to argue that his prominence is primarily founded in his opposition to pro-LGBT policies. This is not to say he hasn't garnered attention for other policy positions nor will remain primarily known for his stances on gay issues. However, reliable sourcing has repeatedly emphasized that it is his policy positions on LGBT issues that have primarily driven his political identity to date. However, your alternative phrasing seems acceptable according to sourcing. If you don't find any other opposition, I suggest you make the change. We can discuss further if others have concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

> It's reasonable to argue that his prominence is primarily founded in his opposition to pro-LGBT policies

It's a reasonable argument. (And one that I agree with)

I have a background in mathematics which I guess is why I'm bothered by the term "defined by".

I am more used to the 2nd meaning here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defined

Whereas the sentence is using the term more closely in the 3rd meaning.

In general though, I'm not a fan of reductionist statements especially when it comes to biographical living persons.

I think one key point in establishing prominence of his anti lgbt views is how much of it came before he was an elected official. So I think if there is no further opposition I will replace the sentence with:

"Johnson is especially known for his extensive and outspoken opposition to gay rights which began prior to holding elected office."

I think that resolves my reductionist concerns while also justifying its inclusion in the political view overview. YordleSquire (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed YordleSquire (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

YordleSquire, I agree with your removal of the "defined by" language, which seemed a bit over the top. MonMothma (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I've recently noticed that several editors are attempting to whitewash the beliefs of Mike Johnson. As someone from Europe looking on the inside, it's absolutely mindboggling that editors are proclaiming that a sitting U.S. Speaker's YEARS LONG attempts to throw LGBT people in jail isn't notable for inclusion.

The story is ALL over our news networks. Is this normal for Yanks? This is something you'd see in Tehran. The attempts to normalize and downplay this belief is horrifying and startling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This issue is certainly notable enough for inclusion. It's just not lead-worthy. MonMothma (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly the most civil comment—let's try to avoid throwing Iranians under any buses. Please don't cast cast aspersions about fellow editors, either. Instead, explicitly indicate what qualifies as whitewashing, suggest alternative phrasing, and provide rationales based on specific reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the government of course. Not the people who are trapped under a totalitarian, ruthless, theocratic regime. A sitting U.S. Speaker who has argued for throwing LGBT people in jail if they have physical intimacy with the ones they love is not normal. It's shocking and horrifying. It's whitewashing to remove his attempts to codify discrimination into law. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: As best I can tell, there have been no significant attempts to remove that information. As it stands, these efforts represent a major proportion of the article on his life. Also, please remember that while Wikipedia does generally favor treating LGBT rights as fundamental human rights based on multiple consensuses, an article talk page is generally not the place to provide your personal opinions or commentary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I get that. It was more like... the fact that a leading U.S. politician has called for the imprisonment of LGBT people if they engage in their forms of sexual activity is notable. You wouldn't find that in almost any other democracy. The BBC has brought it up a lot. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I don't know if that is true, and most of the time it isn't relevant. It is for categorization and it is for the heading "LGBT rights", but I don't think it's all that relevant for the article body, since we are reporting, not evaluating. Anyway, as far as WP:UNDUE goes, I note that CNN says, "New speaker of the House Mike Johnson once wrote in support of the criminalization of gay sex. If it was once, 20 years ago, it shouldn't be more than a sentence or two in the article, but it certainly belongs. Second paragraph of the lead is reasonable. StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with large majority of the editors here, @Anselm:. It is an obvious no brainer that this should remain in. Sodomy laws were prominently supported by many politicians in the early 2000s.

For Johnson specifically, supporting sodomy laws was his most "prominent" action at the ADF and something he spent much of his 1990s and 2000s advocating for, per NBC News. It was entirely mainstream thinking at the time, something he expended a significant amount of energy on, and articles aren't supposed to edit details about their biography to make them look "good" or "bad" by the predominant opinion of the Western World (or more specifically, Americans) in 2023.

The small minority of editors objecting are totally mistaking what WP: NPOV policy is. Reliable sources say it's an extraordinarily notable part of his biography. Therefore, we include it. KlayCax (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's "throwing any Iranians under buses" to state that massive persecution of LGBT people takes place in Tehran JM2023 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

in the united states, it is quite common for people to call for other people to be imprisoned for capricious reasons. it is practically a requirement for anyone running for president. needless to say, such rhetoric is not meant to be taken seriously.

despite the nominal 5.4 percent growth measure, most people in the united states are struggling to get by. they do not have time to worry about why the current president wants to imprison the former president. there are billions of dollars of loans that must be paid back. you will find this is true not only in the united states, but many countries around the world. an essay written twenty years ago is not as relevant as you might suppose. what were you doing twenty years ago? isadora of ibiza (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot speak your neck of the woods of America, but in mine it is NOTcommon bluster to call for an entire characteristic grouping of people (such as LGBTQ, Asian-Americans, Black, Jewish, immigrant, etc.) to be jailed. SecretName101 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Question: has Johnson literally called for that though? SecretName101 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#LGBT rights; for example, writing an amicus curiae brief in support of laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and later writing an article justifying such laws and saying "Homosexuals do not meet the criteria for a suspect class under the equal protection clause because they are neither disadvantaged nor identified on the basis of immutable characteristics, as all are capable of changing their abnormal lifestyles". In short, yes, he has called for imprisonment of homosexuals. JM2023 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @JM2023:. This obviously belongs. It's mindboggling to me that several editors are arguing that these two sentences merit inclusion in the lead:

Before entering politics, he came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages. ... He later founded Freedom Guard, a nonprofit legal ministry designed to represent Christian clients in lawsuits

is judged notable while :

While working at the ADF, he advocated for the criminalization of gay sex and wrote a prominent amicus brief opposing the eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Is deemed somehow controversial when he self-admittedly pushed for it proudly.

The early-2000s were only 20 years ago (not long!), many politicians of the time advocated enforcing sodomy laws, and it was a central focus of his political life at the time. WP: NPOV is being dramatically misapplied by the minority of editors attempting to remove it. While it looks bad to most Americans now, it was mainstream at the time, and objections to mention referring the belief that it "makes him look bad" are completely misunderstanding policy.

Do editors here forget that criminalizing homosexuality was a mainstream political position until the mid-to-late 2000s? It wasn't some trivial proposal. Laws were enforced until 2003. KlayCax (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, how can this issue from the early 2000s be a "central focus" of Johnson's political life when he didn't run for office until more than 10 years later?

I have a problem with you misrepresenting me and the other editors who disagree with you on this point. Who has argued that this sentence you want in the lead shouldn't be included because it would make Johnson "look bad"? Did anyone here actually say that? If so, it must have escaped me.

Other editors should be advised that discussion on this topic is also ongoing above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Balance_and_NPOV. MonMothma (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Because his most prominent actions at the ADF related to criminalizing homosexuality. KlayCax (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, see articles like this. International news agencies are overwhelmingly mentioning it in biographies of him. It clearly surpasses the bounds of notability. KlayCax (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

it's mind boggling to me that 20 years is "not that long ago" because twenty years ago i was in preschool. i can’t speak for others here, but i personally am prepared to move on from things that happened in preschool. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States

I am not sure why this category was added to the article, so I have removed it. It wasn't in the article until Johnson's election as Speaker - is it his election that is part of the movement rather than Johnson himself? We don't generally have individuals in such categories and Matt Walsh is the only other one (i.e sponsoring the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act is insufficient, though that article is certainly in the category). Johnson isn't mentioned in the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States article, either. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if his bill is in there, why shouldn't he be? JM2023 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

to be pedantic, most of his controversial statements regarding LGBT people took place in the 2000s and 2010s. while i'm not convinced either category is appropriate, this argument would be a lot more persuasive if the proposed category were Category:2010s anti-LGBT movement in the United States. which coincidentally, is redlinked. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

i dont think that having most statements in other decades means that his 2020s bill is diminished in importance in the context of the 2020s movement, especially considering the bill is in there. JM2023 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the bill is there is a reason not to have him, though. It's a category for things like bills - not for people. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case for categories, but if so, Matt Walsh should also be removed, given that he is a person. JM2023 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed him with this edit. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should Mike Johnson's prominent, long-term attempts to enforce sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuality be mentioned in the lead?

International and domestic news agencies have frequently made mention of Speaker Johnson's "prominent" attempts to criminalize consensual homosexual relationships while working at the Alliance Defending Freedom. During this time, he repeatedly wrote that homosexuals should be jailed if they engaged in consensual same-sex physical relations, supported sodomy laws, and composed arguably the most notable amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) defending their constitutionality.

Several editors have suggested that wording similar to this should be introduced into the the lead:

While working at the Alliance Defending Freedom, he advocated for the criminalization of gay sex and wrote a prominent amicus brief opposing the eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Other editors have suggested that his involvement in covenant marriage laws, founding of Freedom Guard, and other pieces of information is far more notable, and that the sentence is a WP: NPOV issue that immediately bias readers against Johnson.

Is this piece of information neutral and notable enough to include in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagging editors who were previously involved in this discussion above. @MonMothma:, @Nemov:, @Pbritti:, @Twillisjr:, @JM2023:, @GreenMeansGo:, @StAnselm:, @StardustToStardust:, @JM2023:, @SocDoneLeft:, @Nysus: and @SecretName101: so we don't continue the conversation above, as there's not going to be an uncontroversial choice outside of this. Multiple users have also requested a RFC on the matter. Therefore, while a last resort, I created one. KlayCax (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also tagging editors not directly involved but at least tangentially related to this discussion. @IsadoraofIbiza:, @Karnataka:, @Carleas:, @TarnishedPath:. KlayCax (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No opinion really. I do think that if a politician votes for something, it should be added. There is a certain deception about politicians behaviors that deflect what they actually stand for when push comes to shove, to other discussions. Transparency is something we are blessed on the internet to have, so we can uncover the truth. Please review the Veterans section of this talk page, because disabled veterans are being misled. Twillisjr (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include (Note: RFC starter): Large-scale and overwhelming mention in biographies of Johnson in the international press. Clearly meets the boundaries of notability.

Sodomy laws were supported by many political figures — alongside a significant percentage of the general public — in the early 2000s. This has only recently become a stance that was seen as "negative". It is a misapplication of WP: NPOV and not an instance of bias to include what ABC News labeled a "prominent" (likely the most) amicus brief of the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Johnson notably spent years advocating for the criminalization of gay sex and it is a notable part of his biography per an abundance of many, many, many, many, many reliable sources. This is an obvious no-brainer for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include, this detail should be mentioned SocDoneLeft (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support There seems to be quite a bit of the article devoted to his stance on homosexuality. In general, per MOS:LEADBIO the lede should reflect the entirety of the article ensuring that WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT are adhered to. I certainly don't think first sentence or first paragraph would be appropriate though. TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include, A non-editorialized statement on significant advocacy like the one provided does not constitute a WP:NPOV issue per WP:OUTRAGE. DJ Cane (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include weight reflected in sources should be reflected in the article. ஃ (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include. Received widespread coverage in RSs, and correspondingly there are multiple paragraphs about it in the relevant subsection of this article. The lede must therefore summarize this information. Einsof (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support - Given this detail's level of coverage in reliable sources as well its proportionate coverage in the Wikipedia article itself, it seems to be warranted per WP:DUE and MOS:LEADBIO. - Aoidh (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include. I think the editors before me have hit the nail on the head here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons listed in short discussion before this editor rushed to create another RFC. This information isn't central to this biography. It's certainly a popular WP:RECENT topic for a person just introduced to the country. This information is adequately covered in the article, but contentious content like this should wait to be included in the lead until time has passed per WP:LEADBIO that states well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. Johnson is notable for being a politician and being speaker of the house. What happened 20 years ago is fair game to include, but it's the reason this biography exist or should be a part of the lead. Nemov (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Events from twenty years ago aren't recent events, so the portion of WP:LEADBIO that you quoted is inapplicable. Ditto for any appeal to WP:RECENTISM, which makes it clear in its first sentence that it is dealing with an imbalanced focus on recent events (emphasis added). Einsof (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of what happened 20 years ago is recent. If this was why he was notable then this article would have existed 15 years ago. The historical perspective here is clouded because we have an avalanche in coverage over the past week. Surveying this historical perspective can be difficult on contentious topics like biographies for politicians, but patience is best used in these situations. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of what happened 20 years ago is recent. That's not a workable criterion for excluding information. It would mean that any time an old event receives a new round of media coverage, it could be scrubbed from an article because now the coverage is recent again. Einsof (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The information isn't being excluded or scubbed. It's receiving undue attention in the lead because of a recent coverage. You haven't addressed the historical perspective. Nemov (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You didn't argue for exclusion based on historical perspective; you argued for exclusion by invoking guidelines that are inapplicable because they only apply to recent events. These events happened two decades ago. Einsof (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Nemov's reasoning. Also, as of a week ago, this aspect of Johnson's biography was not even mentioned on his Wikipedia page, despite the fact that it happened 20 years ago. MonMothma (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per Aoidh's reasoning. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include It's being reported in recent days by mainstream news outlets which obviously consider it significant. Clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV to include. KlayCax has supplied enough information to show that this is the case and a consensus here from uninvolved editors will surmount any COI from their declared support of the opposing Democratic Party. To those who say that the information was not included on the page a week ago, well, he wasn't a major national political figure a week ago either, and there wasn't such an abundance of sources covering his actions. JM2023 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include Very much of who he is and wildly reported. No reason to leave this out. ContentEditman (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reason Nemov already noted, along with the fact that this has only recently come to light. Let'srun (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The time is rather unimportant. It is verifiably notable. And once notable, always notable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include, of course. The issue is decided on the context itself of Johnson's proposal. By every kind of social and legal consideration, consensual sex between adults, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual or any other kind of sex, has been for a long time permissible in most countries, and, in particular, in the United States. Hence, American politician Johnson's initiative represents a significant anachronism that inevitably shapes his whole political and ideological agenda. No trivial incident this. It fully deserves a place in the summary offered by the lede. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  This seems a weird stance to me for the specific text. The text seems to concentrate on Johnson's efforts up to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 which is only when became permissible in all of the US. Perhaps Johnson's efforts didn't end there but the proposed text doesn't IMO convey it. Even in worldwide terms, a read of decriminalisation of homosexuality suggests that it was only in the 1980s and 1990s when you could really say it became "permissible in most countries", I mean heck it was only 1981 when you got the first court case saying it should not be criminalised and after that were it became a requirement to joint he EU. While 1980s and 1990s is before 2003, I don't think I would say something which only happened then is a long time before 2003. If Johnson made active efforts to overturn such a landmark Supreme Court case, this IMO might be worth mentioning without getting into permissibility outside the US. But the proposed text IMO doesn't do that instead it seems to suggest his efforts culminated in a failed attempt to prevent that decision. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include for now, lead follows body, and there is enough content in the body about this that it merits a mention in the lead for now. but i want to note that this man’s political career has, in many ways, just begun. he is arguably now the third most powerful individual on the planet, and it is highly likely that this article will soon have enough additional notable things to discuss about him that the amount of weight assigned to this one, narrow controversy could eventually become undue. isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no way this man is the third most powerful on the planet. For one thing, he's only the leader of a rather undisciplined parliamentary caucus which just finished stabbing its former leader in the back and could barely come together to elect either him or his predecessor, and in the US there is a second, more powerful chamber, and a head of state with real veto power. Secondly, who do you consider the second? Kamala as VP has no constitutional power except to break ties in the Senate. She only gets power if Joe is incapacitated. Thirdly, there are men with autocratic control over large and populous nuclear power countries like Xi in China, Putin in Russia, and to a more democratic extent Modi in India and Sunak in Britain; there is no way being house speaker puts him ahead of any of them. In summary, although his position and power makes him well known enough to be the primary topic, his power level is highly overrated in your own !vote JM2023 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  i never said that Kamala was number two. i know if i were him i wouldn’t be introducing myself as the thirty-fifth most powerful man on the planet, right after AMLO but before Elon Musk. do you really think that the proportion of coverage devoted towards this one facet of his life will not become diluted in the face of the role he has just taken on?

  isadora of ibiza (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  If I were him, I wouldn't be introducing myself by commenting on how powerful I am in the planet period. It avoids people thinking I'm crazy for overestimating my power, or frankly just for saying it. I could be wrong, but I suspect even the vast majority of US presidents except possibly for one notable recent exception who's obvious but I won't mention for BLP reasons, never introduced themselves as the most powerful person on the planet no matter if they genuinely believe it. Beyond people just thinking you're crazy to do that regardless of whether they believe you, there's the aspect of real power means you don't need to tell everyone how powerful you are. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include. I count 14 in support and 3 opposed. @Nemov: @MonMothma: Does constitute sufficient (82%) majority? SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @SocDoneLeft, please note that this is not a vote. All final decisions are based on arguments that each person gives. Whoever's argument is stronger will be the final decision, no matter how many people vote for a side. — Karnataka ^talk 07:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Supporting the criminalization of homosexuality is an extraordinarily uncommon stance, one that is not embraced even among the most conservative Americans. It's highly doubtful that any previous U.S. House Speaker has invested as much effort in combating the rights of the LGBT population as Johnson has. Considering his influential position as second-in-line and the extensive media coverage surrounding his distinctive anti-LGBT rhetoric, this information is undeniably pertinent for inclusion in the lead section of the article. Guycn2 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include his hardline anti-homosexuality stance is probably what the average person would know and remember him for. Not mentioning that is WP:UNDUE and borders on whitewashing. Dronebogus (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, the average person knows that Johnson is the new speaker of the House. Some people want very badly for the average person to know that Johnson wrote a controversial brief in a Supreme Court case 20 years ago. MonMothma (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the mainstream media. They are who decides what gets significant coverage and therefore what is WP:DUE which is why Wikipedia can be wrong. JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Per what others have said. His views and actions on the topic are clearly well-known and well-documented for him. To me, WP:LEADBIO and WP:DUE clearly dictate his views and actions regarding this topic need to be included in the lead. Wikipedialuva (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would have to say that there is overwhelming weight for inclusion. As long as it is worded neutrally and accurately. lead follows body. If there is enough weight in the body it should be mentioned in the lead proportionate to its weight in the body. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Include I have not yet edited the article but have watched its construction with the interest of our reader in mind. In todays world-wide readership (referring to Wikipedia for pertinent information when a "new" individual of importance emerges) Johnson's past (and possibly current) beliefs regarding sodomy laws and homosexuality are factual and worthy of mention. ―Buster7 ☎ 08:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include as above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include - looking through the article's history, it looks like this was recently added. Considering he is now second in line for the presidency, after the VP, are his views about dehumanizing LGBTQ+ people historically significant? According to the weight of reliable sources reporting on this, yes it is DUE for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 08:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include in broad strokes as his efforts to this effect helped raise his profile and are arguably his most notable non-congressional works, but no need to pull out that specific amicus brief. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose specific proposal Support general proposal of including has opposition to gay rights. Johnson is on record (Globe & Mail) as saying "“The state is right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual conduct,” he wrote in an op-ed from the time. In others, he described same-sex relationships as “inherently unnatural,” “harmful and costly,” as well as a “dangerous lifestyle.” These were statements made in his own name. I'm very reluctant to make him personally responsible for statements made in his professional capacity while working for ADF. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Should custody of 14yo black teenager go into Infobox?

Should the fact that Johnson took custody of a 14yo black teenager be included somehow in the infobox? It currently says 4 children. But NYT describes an additional son (not biological, not formally but informally adopted). My suggestion would be to count the fifth child and add a hatnote that 4 are biological and one was taken custody of at age 14. Most RS for background: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/27/us/politics/mike-johnson-house-speaker-son.html AncientWalrus (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the son is legally adopted then it should be in the infobox with a note. JM2023 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Per NYT a Jackson spokesperson said he was not legally adopted. However, Jackson calls Michael (the person in question ) "a son" here, and Amanpour mentions "adopted". Is formality all that counts? It doesn't seem to count for Johnson nor for Amanpour/PBS. See [6]

[7] AncientWalrus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say 4 children and then have a hatnote saying there's a black guy they consider a son but he's not legally adopted? I don't know. JM2023 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

i'm not sure why a footnote is necessary. children isn’t synonymous with biological children, and we don’t do this for other politicos with adopted children, like Kevin Brady. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It could depend on coverage of the subject. For example, the Kevin Brady article does not even mention an adopted child a single time. But he's not house speaker. An additional confounding factor is the fact that this person is not legally adopted, so it's apparently informal; that may change the result. JM2023 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

But then a child is a child even if someone else is officially given as the father. There's two dimensions: de jure and de facto. It seems de jure the answer is 4, de facto it's 5. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

given the idea that there are two answers then I think the 5th informal child should noted regardless of whether the infobox says 4 or 5. JM2023 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IIUC, you suggest simply stating 5 children? There are two questions here: what should the number be: 4 or 5 or 4 (something less simple) and secondly whether there should be an accompanying hatnote. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Since he was not legally adopted or spoken up I would not put in the info box. But I do believe it merits mention elsewhere. The other issue is the dates he has given do not match up for him taking care of him. I have read a few stories that are starting to look into it. So that may be nothing, but I have seen more than one on it. So may be picking up speed along with a lot since no one really paid attention till now. See the "Contradictions about the 14-year-old African-American boy" below this. ContentEditman (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is Johnson's black "son" mentioned in the current version of this article? I wasn't able to find any mention. That's not very encyclopedic, is it? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, it was right in the middle of the short two-paragraph personal life section: He has said that early in his married life, he and his wife took in a 14-year-old African-American boy and consider him part of their family. Apparently subject to an edit war JM2023 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Contradictions about the 14-year-old African-American boy

Mike Johnson is quoted in this article as saying in 2019 that 22 years prior he and his wife were "newly weds" who took custody of a 14 year old boy. The problem is that he was only married for 20 years in 2019. So 22 years prior would be prior to his marriage. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is a contradiction - I don't think it's our place to try to resolve it. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not resolve but potentially mention, e.g. in a hatnote. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes this seems to be a contradiction - could be as simple as misspeaking that he took him in 22 rather than 20 years ago. This is veering into WP:OR but one could track down the original congressional testimony to see if he really said 22 or if it's a reporter's error. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that the 1999 marriage is in error? StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible, I haven't verified that fact and it's sourcing yet. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, on Facebook he announced his 22th wedding anniversary on 1 May 2021, so the 1999 date is correct. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is an error then at least reliable source ABC made it in 2005: https://abcnews.go.com/US/Valentine/story?id=489389&page=1 AncientWalrus (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Found the hearing where he should have said the "22 years" thing: [8] AncientWalrus (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He says 22 years ago in his prepared remarks at timestamp 16:23-17:00. He also states Michaels was 36 (on June 19 2019). This all makes it unlikely that he misspoke. So we have a real contradiction here. Johnson in his own words says he adopted him 22 years before 2019. Given that we can exclude reporter error I consider a hatnote pointing out contradictory sources appropriate now. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

On PBS, in 2020, he stated "M. JOHNSON: Yes, sure. We took Michael in almost 20 years ago. He was 14.". So Johnson contradicts himself. We can't include this as WP:OR but it's important context that explains why sources will say different things. NYT doesn't seem to have picked up on the contradiction between the congressional testimony in 2019 and PBS interview in 2020. According to the former, Michael was age 14, 22 years before June 2019, so born 1981-1984. According to the latter, Michael was age 14, "almost 20 years" before mid 2020, putting his DOB between 1985-1986. There's no overlap. Importantly, the contradiction is independent of the wedding date.AncientWalrus (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that in the congressional testimony Johnson says "and he turns 36 next week" on June 19 2019. So we know he was born in 1983. That matches up with him saying he was adopted 22 years prior. But it contradicts the statement "when we were newlyweds" he makes in the same opening statement as the marriage was in 1999. Really weird. I'll stop the OR here, this will likely be picked up by RS soon anyways. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It could be that they lived together before marriage and took him in then, but we don't want to imply that in any way. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:BLP noticeboard @Walt Yoder opened a not very specific discussion on the BLP noticeboard but didn't place the template here as documented there. So doing this for them.

Being discussed at the BLP noticeboard b AncientWalrus (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently non-existent late 1990s TV appearances

I decided to delete this from the lede: "Before entering politics, he [Johnson] came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages." There is zero evidence of any such television appearances in the late 1990s.

Covenant marriage was passed into law in Louisiana around 1997. The Johnsons married in the very, very late 1990s: May 1st, 1999.

Mike & Kelly Johnson did do some print interviews in 2001 while advocating covenant marriage, but 2001 would be the early 2000s. They may have been on TV as well back then, but no videos of such appearances are readily available online. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Without sources, this should be removed per BLP. Thanks for raising! AncientWalrus (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

An earlier version of this Wikipedia page included the following sentence: "Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages, under which divorce is much more difficult to obtain than in no-fault divorce". The sentence was sourced to a November 2022 article on NOLA.com (see https://www.nola.com/news/politics/national_politics/louisianas-mike-johnson-molds-republican-message/article_ee6a8920-6cce-11ed-b018-b3caee09b4c0.html). Given the timetable, it is possible that Johnson and his wife were on TV in the late 1990s promoting Louisiana's 1997 covenant marriage law. Timothy Horrigan, just a question: How can you be certain that no such TV appearances exist? MonMothma (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove that the TV appearances from the 1990s don't exist. I was just saying that I found no proof of their existence. If there are no videos readily available (or even any printed references to the appearances) there's no point in mentioning them in this article. The late 1990s timeline seems dubious because the Johnsons didn't marry until 1999, and Johnson didn't start becoming a public figure until a few years after he got married. I will say that since I wrote the comment, I discovered that Johnson himself posted a video on his own Facebook page, taken from a VHS, of him and his wife on Good Morning America. They and another couple were interviewed by Diane Sawyer, sometime in the fall of 2001 (according to Johnson.) I will probably leave it to someone else to add a mention to his Wikipedia page. (I am not sure if this necessarily qualifies as a secondary source). Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"MAGA Mike" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA Mike has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § MAGA Mike until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What User:StardustToStardust called "an intentional misquote" is still a misquote and BLP violation

I don't want to get involved in this article but the edit with that edit summary still says ""discrimination" between "heterosexual and homosexual conduct" would translate into support for pedophilia". But Johnson did not say "would", he said "could".[9] Doug Weller talk 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax you were the original poster that StardustToStardust claimed intentionally misquoted. I've warned them for the personal attack, but you did misrepresent the source. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Doug Weller:. The wording was taken from a CNN article — that was without my notice removed — here: In editorials that ran in his local Shreveport, Louisiana, paper, The Times, Johnson called homosexuality a “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.” Other news organizations have also used "would" instead of "could". I believe that they're basing it off of other comments from Johnson, including to where he references Romans 1:18-26, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, alongside other verses, that he views as applying to modern day sexual conduct between members of the same-sex and its subsequent consequences on societal morality.

I'm not sure if that's strong enough for the article to say definitionally in the article. NBC News seems to be a bit more cautious. Instead, it calls the remarks a "strong suggestion", although it doesn't contradict CNN's description of it.

The wording came from CNN. Although I suppose there can be a debate on how explicit we want to state it in the article. KlayCax (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I was just quoting the source used. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, @Doug Weller:. I didn't realize the citation in the article got moved by another editor. The wording was from a CNN article that got shuffled around and detached from the sentence.

It stated:

In editorials that ran in his local Shreveport, Louisiana, paper, The Times, Johnson called homosexuality a “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.”

Now, whether we should say "could" or "would" is a different question. NBC News seems more cautious on the wording than CNN. I have no particular preference one way or another. KlayCax (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A statement from CNN (as opposed to some random blogger) is notable enough to be reported, but here there seems to be at least some basis for a different interpretation. What if our article recognizes the point and gives the reader the information we have? Something along the lines of “Johnson said X according to NBC News [citation], a comment interpreted by CNN as saying Y [citation].” JamesMLane t c 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCaxJust to say that the source at the time[10] was [11] not CNN. I can’t find your edit, are you saying the source you used was CNN? Note that the ABC source backs the text. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I added both the ABC News and CNN citations into the article. There were both ABC News and CNN citations within the paragraph. I just didn't notice the CNN citation got moved down to the next sentence. @Doug Weller:. I think that's where the confusion is coming from. You can see the ABC News, CNN, and Vanity Fair links listed there. KlayCax (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but my only point is that the wording in question when someone. I think you, was accused of intentionally misquoting, was sourced to the ABC. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Did Johnson do anything notable for Freedom Guard?

Hi, @MonMothma:. I saw that you reintroduced Mike Johnson's founding of Freedom Guard into the lead. I can't find much in reliable sources about it — and it doesn't seem to be particularly notable. (He left to serve in the LA statehouse shortly after its founding.)

I'm curious what your reasoning is. As his life history surrounding:

• Covenant marriages
• Membership in the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. (2004-2012)

Seems more notable. The only thing that drew attention from reliable sources is 1.) Representing Answers in Genesis for the Ark Encounter theme park 2.) Prayer at the Louisiana State University sports chaplaincy.

This seems like a case of WP: Trivia (in the lead). But I openly admit I could be wrong here. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I am simply following the body of the article here. There is a full paragraph on Freedom Guard in the article. On that basis, I believe it should be mentioned in the lead. By contrast, there is only one sentence in the article body about Johnson's ERLC membership, and I have seen nothing in this article or anywhere else about anything he actually did as an ERLC member. If you or others come across more information about his activities on the ERLC, I'll be open to including it in the lead. But as of now, I don't think it belongs there. And a commission membership seems much less notable than an actual job.

I could go either way on Johnson's covenant marriage activities appearing in the lead. MonMothma (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@MonMothma:. I'd support covenant marriages over Freedom Guard. That is an important policy effort of Johnson's that got implemented into American law.

WP: LEADFOLLOWSBODY doesn't necessarily mean that anything "over X length" belongs into the article. Or that anything "under Y length" merits exclusion. It's simply a good, general principle to follow.

That being said, I believe that both parts definitely need significant expansion. KlayCax (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Senior Staff Hires

I don't know if this has a spot to be added on the page, but it feels good to document somewhere (even on a talk page) that Johnson filled out the top spots of his office and staff. SDudley (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

I strongly believe that it is imperative to replace the current portrait of the Speaker, as the current portrait fails to accurately represent his identity as the Speaker. The proposed image, available at Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#/media/File:Speaker Mike Johnson, unofficial portrait (cropped).jpg, aligns much more closely with the Speaker's true image and would be a significantly more suitable choice. EloquentEditor (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree When a public official has selected his or her official portrait, we should generally use that as the first image unless there's a good reason not to (e.g., it's woefully out of date). Here, I don't even see much difference between the two photos. Nothing about the photo you link to screams "Speaker" to me. A photo of Johnson wielding the gavel would be a good addition, for further down in the article. By way of comparison, in the Kevin McCarthy article, the principal photo is his official photo. A photo of him holding the gavel is included further down. JamesMLane t c 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Johnson’s wife shuts down website that compared homosexuality to bestiality

Speaker Johnson’s wife shuts down business website that compared homosexuality to bestiality

• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/3/mike-johnsons-wife-shuts-down-business-website-com/
• https://news.yahoo.com/speaker-mike-johnson-wife-runs-170020379.html
• https://www.advocate.com/politics/mike-johnson-wife-counseling-lgbtq

68.102.120.23 (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)