Talk:Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The table.[edit]

Currently, I am struggling to understand why we need to keep modifying the table at all. Including the other article, first the table had to have the colors changed to prevent some sort of "insidious implication" with the colors. Then we needed a note to explain the Vote to Table column. Next, the tables were synced before the colors we again switched to show Against as red, implying that the Vote to Table succeeded.

Personally, I don't see what the need was to even change the colors in the first place. The original table made it clearer whose votes were not in line with their party. Those who have a blue background had a vote lining up with the Democratic party, those in red has a vote lining up with the Republican party, and those in grey were absent. That was simple and clear. Now we have a table where the colors don't line up with the success or failure of the vote, but if it was a 'positive vote or a negative vote.' Pinging Nevermore27 for input. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: using Party shading/Democratic on the anti-McCarthy votes might well imply to a reader that this was a Democratic-lead effort to oust McCarthy. There's plenty of punditry and news articles that say as much. It wasn't. This was a Republican effort that Democrats did not vote to stop. That's why the first part.
As for the positive/negative shading, it's very confusing to shade a vote against as a yes. The table is not about whether the vote succeeded, it's about how the Representative voted. They voted against the Motion to Table, so it's a negative vote. Hopefully this helps. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nevermore27: Gotcha. I can see your concern with the party shading and this does clarify that issue. I am not as convinced about the positive/negative issue, but it is a good point that it is intended to refer to how they voted, so that should be fine and I am mistaken about what to do. Thank you for the clarification and response. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the motion to table necessary on the chart? It seems as historically it will be irrelevant since the motion failed. The only vote that really matters is the motion to vacate. KD0710 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have covered both successful and failed votes before for completeness, so I don't think we need to make an exception even if it isn't as important as the second vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is what is the relevance of the tabling motion? In 10 years from now, some procedural vote won’t be relevant. I don’t see the encyclopedic value. Can you explain what it adds to include it? KD0710 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tabling motion was simply an attempt to prevent the motion to vacate from occurring. While it is procedural, it failing was the penultimate motion before McCarthy was removed. Additionally, procedural votes are deemed to have encyclopedic value. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both the tabling motion and the vote to vacate have their own merits, and both were necessary to the event. One wouldn't have happened without the other. Not every member who voted to vacate voted against tabling the motion, and not every member who voted against vacating voted to table the motion, and vice versa. The two separate tables don't communicate the second point nearly as well, and make how the individual congresspeople voted much clearer. Longestview (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even need this table at all? The members who voted against their own party are already mentioned in prose. And I don't see the need to mention that some members were absent due to attending funerals, medical procedures, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table is a pretty clear and useful way to convey this information to our readers. This same discussion happened at the article for the January election for speaker and ended up with a consensus to keep the table. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is not the January election article. I continue to question the purpose of a table supported solely by primary sourcing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately"? Obviously this isn't that article; my point was that the same arguments that apply there apply here as well. Also the table isn't "supported solely by primary sourcing"; there's plenty of secondary sources that report the votes. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Special:Diff/1178675426. Arguments in one discussion do not retroactively or preemptively apply to any other discussions. If there are sufficient grievances with the table, it is subject to being discussed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's supported "solely" by primary sourcing, meaning it had some primary and some secondary sources... and now has even more secondary sources? You can make your case without exaggerating or lying about what sources are actually present.
And while arguments don't "preemptively apply to any other discussions", there is no point in repeating the same arguments again as to the merits of a table. Continuing to do so whenever such a table is being discussed is counter-productive, and it is normal to cite previous discussions instead of just repeating the same arguments. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need additional sourcing for a vote? I think it would make it a pain for screen readers, but addition sources can easily be obtained. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually no consensus to keep the absentees in the table, there was a lack of consensus and you were too bloody-minded to give in and take out the absentees. SS451 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the use of the table for the January Speaker election, as there were multiple series of votes and members changed their positions back and forth. But this is just 2 votes, and it is clear in prose who were the "opposing" members. Natg 19 (talk)
tables help some people better understand than prose alone does. SecretName101 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Enforcement notice[edit]

I'm not too familiar with arbitration enforcement, but from what I gathered it seems that Template:American politics AE should be added by an admin, which it wasn't (see [1]). If it was a valid addition, I think the Template:American politics AE/Edit notice needs to be added to the article, which also can only be done by an admin. Liu1126 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe: Non-admins may place the notice that a page is in a CTOP area, or the notice that an admin has imposed restrictions on the page if the admin forgot to do so. Here, you have placed a notice of restrictions, but I'm not seeing any indication that an admin placed restrictions. Am I missing something? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back at a computer, I've looked further and see nothing in WP:AELOG/2023 indicating that any admin placed this under sanctions, and there has never been an editnotice, so I have changed {{American politics AE}} to {{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facts on brevity of McCarthy’s speakership[edit]

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

If my research is correct:

  • He is the first single-term speaker to leave office mid-term for reasons other than death in office or resignation in order to take office as vice president.
  • He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Byrnes Sr. in the 1930s to serve less than a full term, and the first since Byrnes not to be elected to more than one term as speaker.
  • He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Martin Sr. in the 1950s not to be elected consecutively to more than one term.
  • He is the first speaker since John Boehner in 2015 to leave office mid-term. SecretName101 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are some trivia-esque facts, particularly the first one. The fourth one may be amendable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 October 2023[edit]

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 Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. While those opposed a move based their arguments primarily on WP:CONCISE, there are many more supporting a move to indicate from what position the person was being removed from from WP:WORLDVIEW perspective. Among the many proposed titles, all of which are variants of the initial proposed titles, the Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House title has more support among the participants here. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Kevin McCarthy → Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives – Mostly per WP:NCE and WP:NCGAL and how our sources refer to the topic generally (as far as I've seen, all sources mention his former role as Speaker, and the sources almost always talk about the House of Representatives). WP:NOYEAR per the Tenerife airport disaster example (this is the first time a Speaker of the US House of Representatives has been removed). WP:CONCISE concerns are correctly balanced by WP:PRECISE, and as Wikipedia is designed for readers around the world, omitting the country creates a bias against non-American readers. See also WP:NCGAL Use official names in article titles (United States Department of the Treasury instead of Treasury Department), unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym or different title (DARPA). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also WP:WORLDVIEW for a further justification of the longer title fitting in better with Wikipedia's goal to provide an encyclopedia for the world. Specifically Articles where the article name can mean several different things tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian. "Removal of ..." by itself is exceptionally vague for something that is so specific (McCarthy was removed from his role as the Speaker, not from his role as Representative in the United States House of Representatives). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House as a second choice to the proposed title above. But really, almost any title suggested below is going to be an improvement over what we have now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The title is generally poor "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" doesn't make much sense. BlueOcean02 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely because the proposed title is basically the same as the last RM, except now he has been removed. I would support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, which satisfies the WP:CRITERIA as best as possible. I don't see a need to add "United States" because no other Kevin McCarthy was removed as speaker of any House, and I find "the House of Representatives" to be less common than just "the House"[2][3], and the latter is sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely because the proposed title is basically the same as the last RM, except now he has been removed. Just to be clear, the prior RM was launched on October 3, but McCarthy had been voted out on October 2. The prior RM was, IMO, doomed from the beginning because of that basic fact. Thank you for providing an alternative you'd support and at least addressing WP:PAG, see below my counter-proposal. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 and Locke Cole: Just to be clear, the prior RM was launched on October 3, but McCarthy had been voted out on October 2. - Just to clear this up for the record, October 2nd was when the motion to vacate the chair was filed in the House. October 3rd in the morning was when the RM started and McCarthy was voted out that afternoon/evening. (Still doomed as it was a bit premature.)
Furthermore, to cover the proposed title is basically the same as the last RM, the prior RM was submitted as Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy → Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The modifications to the proposal after it was submitted because of a move that broke policy and should not have happened caused a significant amount of trouble; a number of votes were opposes because the rename would make it Efforts to remove when McCarthy had already been removed while a number of supports were agreeing to a move, but not to the Efforts to remove title.
Given the debacle, I think it is best to somewhat ignore the prior RM. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition to that proposed title was largely based on WP:CONCISE even after McCarthy was actually removed. The proposed title here is barely shorter. Hence, the proposed titles are basically the same. That RM was closed as moot and then reopened, which means that commenters thereafter should've had a clear understanding that the title as proposed there was no longer an option. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CONCISE says to ...balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic..., not that we need to make the title as shortest as possible. That RM was closed as moot and then reopened, which means that commenters thereafter should've had a clear understanding that the title as proposed there was no longer an option. It is clear by a number of comments that not all users understood that the RM was closed, the article was moved, the RM was reopened, and then modified. A number of users failed to follow Template:Title notice (with those moves now logged above) and that discussion was messed up as a result. Hence why I suggest it is better to somewhat ignore the prior RM. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The title is generally poor "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" doesn't make much sense as it doesn't specify which position he was removed from. I would also spport a move to Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. --Enos733 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also spport a move to Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. Would Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the U.S. House suffice? There are other governments around the world with a "House". —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 Would the above change be acceptable as well (adding "U.S." prior to "House"?) I struggled with this while creating the RM, but all the titles I could find in articles had it spelled out fully, but I'd be willing to accept it as a compromise. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but I think it's unnecessary. Other countries do have a "House", but they don't have a Kevin McCarthy who was removed as its speaker. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all, the capitalization is problematic. The word "speaker" should not be capitalized. Secondly, there is no other notable removal we need to disambiguate this one from. SecretName101 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the capitalization is problematic. The word "speaker" should not be capitalized. Yes it should, please see WP:NCGAL, specifically Use official names in article titles (United States Department of the Treasury instead of Treasury Department), unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym or different title (DARPA). Secondly, there is no other notable removal we need to disambiguate this one from. Please see WP:NCE and again WP:NCGAL; I've already conceded WP:NOYEAR should be applicable here, but we still must do more than simply name an article Removal of Kevin McCarthy and leave our readers to guess what the hell he got removed from.. also consider WP:PLA and how this very vague title looks to non-Americans/Europeans (WP:WORLDVIEW). I'll remind !voters of WP:LOCALCON. If you want to overturn a sitewide guideline or policy, here is not the place to try and do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The speakership is an office, not an agency. You might want to reread what you just quoted. Speaker is not an agency. It’s also not an official name, rather it is a title, capitalized when paired before a name, but not when it follows a name (like queen, mayor, or president) SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might not want to cherry pick passages clearly meant as examples for this very unambiguous statement: Use official names in article titles .... And since you appear to believe "Speaker" should be lowercase, perhaps you can explain why these exist: List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections, January 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, 2019 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, 2021 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, and October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The current title is enough to clearly identify the topic at hand. Adding further details would only be necessary if there were two "removals of Kevin McCarthy" sufficiently noteworthy to deserve separate articles, and as of now that's clearly not the case. Gawaon (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" makes it sound like he was removed from the House of Representatives. I understand that "Removal of Kevin Mccarthy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" would be a long-winded title, but it would also be a more accurate title. 173.187.151.50 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – how about “Removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker”? cookie monster 755 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no need for disambiguation when McCarthy has been removed from only one office. Similarly, we do not use a more specific title for Impeachment of Bill Clinton even though Clinton could have been impeached as Governor or Attorney General of Arkansas. Edge3 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation was not raised as a reason for this RM. Can you address the RM as proposed? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is still the same. The current title is sufficient to identify the topic. The article Impeachment of Bill Clinton does not have a more specific title even though Clinton could have been impeached from his other, non-presidential offices. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you're comparing a President of the United States (which we've had less than 50 since the United States was founded) to one of 435+ people (just this year) of which over the decades there have been thousands? From a WP:BIAS perspective, it's highly unlikely anyone knows who Kevin McCarthy is, and then there's WP:NCE and WP:NCGAL both of which cannot be ignored by WP:CONCISE (otherwise, why have naming conventions if you can just trot out WP:CONCISE to overrule what the community decided). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just US presidents that I'm relying on as precedent. We also have the article Removal of Eduardo Cunha, which does not specify the specific office that was involved. See WP:CONSISTENT. Edge3 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also two (or in this case multiple) wrongs make a right? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The proposed title is way too long. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONCISE is not carte blanche to have absolutely meaningless titles, nor is it a means to override naming conventions like WP:NCE and WP:NCGAL (see WP:PRECISE). You also still ignore the WP:BIAS that follows from the current name, which presupposes that readers simply must know who Kevin McCarthy is, and what he would have been removed from. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if people know neither who Kevin McCarthy is nor from which position he was removed, they probably won't come looking for this article. Gawaon (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. So systemic bias is okay if foreigners won't see it. It's almost like you didn't read BIAS… —Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, that essay, while good to keep in mind, contains no advice regarding the naming of articles. Gawaon (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think systemic bias in article titles is OK because it isn't explicitly called out. And it's slightly more than an essay, it's an explanatory essay on WP:NPOV, a policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to somehow assume that those opposed to the renaming would be in favour of a longer title if the removed person had been the speaker (or whatever) of a parliament in a smaller, non-English-speaking country, thus showing bias, but why should that be the case? As I see it (and I suppose the others opposed to the move typically too), article titles should generally not be longer than needed to identify the subject at hand – so as long as there was only one X removed as whatever of Y (sufficiently notable for getting its own article), the title "Removal of X" is sufficient. Only the need for disambiguation could justify a longer title, but there is no such need here. So it's not a question of bias. Gawaon (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following the argument that the title is biased because it leaves out the position. Glancing at the consituent articles in Category:Impeachment, all of the ones I saw, worldwide, leave out the position from the title. --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about Removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy Removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthyCwater1 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE and the same reasons as last time. This is basically the same proposal that was just closed with the comment "there is a clear consensus against this proposed move". Station1 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is basically the same proposal that was just closed with the comment "there is a clear consensus against this proposed move". Out of morbid curiousity, @Station1, could you tell us what the last RM proposed title was, and what if any difference there might be to this RM? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to it in my comment so it would be easy to see. The previous proposal was to add the words "as Speaker of the US House of Representatives" to the then-current title. The proposal this time is to add the words "as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives". So the difference this time is that the proposed title is even less WP:CONCISE than the previous proposal. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you found the end of the old title. What was the beginning? The one you quoted the closer on? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, the title was changed from Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy to Removal of Kevin McCarthy during the course of the RM due to emerging events. If you're hinting that that had something to do with the close, I disagree. Station1 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're hinting that that had something to do with the close, I disagree. So the many !votes stating oppose because the title would be "Efforts to remove ..." didn't factor in?
    Back to your original !vote, WP:CONCISE cannot override naming conventions in WP:NCE and WP:NCGAL. There are already numerous articles where the full title is on display: List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections, January 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, 2019 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, 2021 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, and October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As to your first question: I think not. But I could be wrong. If you want a definitive answer, you should ask the closer.
    As to your second point: WP:CONCISE, which is policy, very definitely can override WP:NCE and WP:NCGAL, which are guidelines. In fact, WP:NCE specifically says "In the case of any contradictions the policy page takes precedence." Station1 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And from WP:PRECISE: Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we should strive for the shortest name possible at the expense of all other things which would seem to be so common sense it shouldn't need to be in writing. And yet here I am, arguing against Removal of Kevin McCarthy, a title which leaves only American citizens with enough context to determine what it's about (and even then, only if the person follows politics at all, which there are clearly people who don't). If we want to go WP:PRECISE vs. WP:CONCISE, I'm not seeing how this is a "middle ground". What's the more concise version of this? Removal of Kev? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking, do you know what Squad 38 is about, based on the title alone? How about Microloma or Batakari Day? Most likely, you don't care, but if you did, those concise titles would be precise enough. And if you're just curious, you can find out what each is about by just clicking on the link and reading the first sentence. Station1 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea what any of those were. But upon investigation, Squad 38 is a television series (so the name is the actual name of the show, not a construction we decided upon here), Microloma is a plant and has a formal name which is what we have as its title (so the name is the actual name of a species of plant, not a construction we decided upon here), and Batakari Day is a national holiday in Ghana, also at a title based upon the name of the holiday (so the name is the actual name of the holiday as declared by Ghana's Ministry of Tourism, not a construction we decided upon here). Do you see a pattern with your three examples? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Squad 38 is off topic here. Cwater1 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose so, but I feel an inexplicable desire to clarify the pattern I intended to convey to Locke Cole, although I know I don't really have to. The relevant pattern is this: "Removal of Kevin McCarthy", just like the three article titles cited, conveys all the information necessary for someone searching for the topic to find and recognize the article they are seeking. For those unfamiliar with the topic, the title is irrelevant, because they aren't looking for that topic. And for those unfamiliar with the topic who nevertheless stumble upon the article, the first paragraph, if not sentence, will inform them as to what the article is about. That's how all good titles work and what WP:AT strives for: naturalness, concision, and recognizability to readers who have some basic knowledge of the topic they want to learn more about. Station1 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained above, all three of the titles you mentioned were named by the subject themselves (and all three also follow our naming conventions: Squad 38 follows WP:NCTV, Microloma follows WP:FLORA, and Batakari Day follows WP:COMMONNAME (which is the only one remotely relevant to our discussion here). We here are choosing a name for this event based partly on our sources, but also a decision around having a meaningful title for future readers (and readers who may not have any idea how American politics work). Beyond COMMONNAME the only naming conventions that should have any weight here are WP:NCGAL (for the naming of a political office/position) and WP:NCE (for the naming of a political event; with the understanding that the once-in-history nature of this event makes WP:NOYEAR apply).
    At any rate. If we want to confuse our readers and push a biased name that benefits nobody but Americans really, the current title is perfect. *chef's kiss* If we want to take a broader view of the world and realize there are countries besides the United States and English-speaking European nations, something better is needed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have more confidence in our readers than that. Station1 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about confidence, this is about providing a meaningful title to an article and not simply the shortest possible title without regard to the various types of readers we have. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed title as unncessarily long but weak support for Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. There are no other notable Kevin McCarthy's who have been removed from positions, and certainly not more than one who have been removed as Speaker of the House. I would also advise User:Locke Cole that you are getting quite aggressive in your replies. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. Adding "...as speaker of the House" is unnecessary, he hasn't been removed from any other office, nor are there any other people of the same name to require a disambiguation. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Removal of Kevin McCarthy from speakership as it's concise but also fully descriptive considering that he's ever been the speaker only. Also, support what Locke Cole proposed above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is something I too can get behind. GardenCosmos (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House as a good balance between making the descriptive title be descriptive enough about the event and not too long overall. I find the argument about Bill Clinton an apples and oranges comparison. From a cursory search, what I see is that when the removal of Kevin McCarthy is introduced in sources, it is indeed followed by variations of "as speaker" most of the time. On the other hand, in practice "impeachment of Bill Clinton" is almost never followed by "as president". We don't need to treat them the same.
    Although I led with one specific move target which has been popular so far, I'll support any reasonable option of similar length even if I don't specifically mention all of them. In particular I would also support things like Removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker or Removal of Kevin McCarthy as U.S. House speaker. I would not prefer "Speaker of the U.S. House", however, as it's theoretically not wrong but I think it's a rather uncommon phrasing (despite that "US House" and "Speaker of the US House of Representatives" are both common phrases). Adumbrativus (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Propose either Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House or Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives. I don't think the addition of the term "U.S. House" or "United States House" are needed and make the title too long. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this specific title only because it's too long. I support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, though I prefer ousting as it is used most often by reliable sources. Qono (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" is too vague and for clarity adding "as Speaker of the House" is a better title. Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I similarly support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, weaker but still support the RM-proposed title, and strongly oppose the title that's currently in place. Andrew11374265 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose 2023 vote to vacate against Kevin McCarthy, by analogy with 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry. Strikes a nice balance between length and detail. Esszet (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tamzin's argument in the previous RM: Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Relief of Douglas MacArthur, Dismissal of James Comey, Firing of Shirley Sherrod—we usually don't include offices in titles like these. Nothing has changed since then; it's not necessary to add the position since the title's still unambiguous and reading past the very first sentence explains everything. eviolite (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not actually a good reason for a vague title. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but nobody has suggested to delete this article. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is not an argument against consistency or against following the model set by other articles. Gawaon (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a logical fallacy, one of which has been used so often in other parts of the project (AFD) that it got WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In the case of Impeachment of Bill Clinton, it was subject to two RMs, one of which was closed with no action and little discussion, and the other moving it from a longer title that included "and acquittal". As for Relief of Douglas MacArthur, Dismissal of James Comey, Firing of Shirley Sherrod: there was likely little or no RM activity, so hardly a resounding endorsement beyond WP:SILENCE I suppose... I wouldn't characterize them as all the same either. So again, other things exist. We can go do an RM on those too if you like? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that, with the exception of impeachment, the acts above were simple acts of firing (or something extremely similar), and the complexity of the impeachment process is covered by the word "impeachment". Votes to vacate are more complicated, and the title should reflect that. Esszet (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In these cases, the removal was somewhat different from the one here. Comey ceased to be employed by the FBI altogether upon his dismissal, as did Shirley Sherrod at USDA. MacArthur, being a general of the Army, was entitled to remain in "active retirement" until his death, but his military career was effectively over after his dismissal. And impeachment of a President is the first step in removing the President from office. Unlike those examples, Kevin McCarthy isn't being removed from office, he's losing the speakership, and the current title doesn't specify that; rather, it reads as too similar to your examples and can too easily be interpreted as removing him from Congress altogether. Andrew11374265 (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The title feels to vague, but the proposed title is way to wordy. Something like "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker" would work just fine. Mogar101 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker Being concise is good but it is currently unclear what office McCarthy was removed from. Impeachment of Bill Clinton, for example, is clear because Clinton did not hold an additional office that he was impeached from. McCarthy held the office of US Representative as Speaker of the House when he was removed and the title as it stands suggests that he was removed from his office as a representative. Jbvann05 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:AT, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Recognisability is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. A review of the news sources indicate that they often refer to his removal without adding any additional precision as to what he was removed from. The existing title is sufficiently recognisable. The other route for readers to arrive at this page is from links (eg from articles on the person or the position) and these will be in a context that will reasonably clarify what he was removed from without the need for additional precision in the article title. As an aside, we would only capitalise speaker or house if it were used as part of the full name of the position (eg Speaker of the United States House of Representatives}}. MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy from speakership for conciseness. Corgi Stays (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we must move, that sounds like the best alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while I agree with the intention of WP:CONCISENESS we must also consider the goal of accuracy and the current title is too ambiguous. The common reader may not know who Kevin McCarthy is and this will only become harder as time erodes the news cycle. Removing who from what? Some short version of his job title would fix this such as Removal of house speaker Kevin McCarthy, Removal of Kevin McCarthy as house speaker or even just Removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker. Jorahm (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. The current title is incredibly confusing for readers (removed from what? it is incredibly nonsensical). Agree with above editors that the full title of the house is not necessary. Yeoutie (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Just so I understand those opposed, we shouldn't include 'Speaker of the House' because no other Wikipedia article is called Removal of Kevin McCarthy so no need to disambiguate. Ok, but I don't see any articles called 'Removal of Kevin' - so why not take this reasoning to the logical conclusion and just call the article "Removal of Kevin" - no articles to disambiguate from there either. Precision is needed so readers understand what this article is actually talking about. Yeoutie (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be confused with the removal of Kevin Spacey from All the Money in the World. Station1 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well clearly the idiot readers can just read the first paragraph and they'll immediately know. Why should article titles make any sense? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I Strongly Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House for the same reason. The current title is, as you said, confusing and nonsensical, and it must be changed. 173.187.151.50 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House - more concise than the original proposed new name and is more clear than the current title. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This titles also shows that he was removed from the speakership and not anything else (such as being removed from the House entirely). JParksT2023 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support basically anything that makes clear that this is from the Speakership. It's just too vague as is, even if us as editors all know exactly what the current title is referring to. Even though it's wordy, I think I'd lend a weak support to "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives", but essentially any permutation that makes clear what role he was removed from is sufficient in my view. I would oppose "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker" for being too informal. Cpotisch (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support The current title and opposing comments seems to fail to understand that Wikipedia is worldwide audience, not just US.
Wiki6995 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This! We can't assume that everyone is coming from an American perspective, especially considering the worldwide reach of Wikipedia and the English language. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per WP:CONCISE, this is the best name that accurately and intelligibly explains the topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House or the longer versions. Current title is far too ambiguous. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current title is actually not ambiguous since which other position was Kevin McCarthy removed from (sufficiently noteworthy of getting its own Wikipedia article)? Gawaon (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of what constitutes ambiguity is very limited. The current title is borderline incoherent in how little it conveys to would-be readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't agree enough that this title is too vague. But the title we're suggesting is exceptionally too precise as others have noted. There is no lack of clarity in whether Kevin McCarthy was removed from his role of Speaker or as a Member, because no vote has come to remove Kevin McCarthy as a member. If such a thing were to come to pass, it would also be referred to as "Expulsion of," if it even warranted a complete page due to how his expulsion as a regular member would matter far less than this very significant removal as Speaker that has brought us to this point where we're now 2 weeks into not having a Speaker of the House. The simple fact is, there's a better title, possibly, but it's not this. Should we also change Donald Trump's pages to Impeachments of Donald Trump as the President of the United States? No. I am at this point perfectly fine with keeping this name if it's to prevent one so verbose it'd occupy 3-4 lines on the mobile site.
GardenCosmos (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And weak support for Removal of Kevin McCarthy from speakership GardenCosmos (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Speaker of the House per WP:CONCISE and also Wiki6995's rationale. Wikipedia is a worldwide audience. After all, what is he being removed from? Also, weak support for Removal of Kevin McCarthy from speakership. Speakership is not inherent of the US House of Representatives, but it's still better than what's current. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with that neither title is satisfactory. I would support an alternative, such as Removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy or Removal of Speaker McCarthy. Willwal1 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 in the United States collage submission[edit]

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Removal_of_Kevin_McCarthy_as_Speaker_of_the_House&oldid=1217792219"