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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 3 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: (non-admin closure) Not moved - there is a clear consensus against this proposed move. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Oppose — Titles are not required to be extremely descriptive. The proposed title disambiguates as if there were attempts to remove McCarthy as representative or minority leader. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed; also opposed to the present title - Could easily be construed as efforts to remove him from the house rather than just as speaker. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Even just "Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker [of the House]" would be okay. There's really no need to say U.S. House of Representatives as there's no ambiguity with any other Kevin McCarthys. Anyone who doesn't know what country's house he is speaker of will learn quickly from the lede. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Good job! 163.246.0.65 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Wait until we know the results of the motion to vacate. I do think that House Speaker should be in the title somewhere. Maybe Efforts to remove House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Comment - well, I've messed up the formatting by including the period in the proposed new name, since fixed but I wanted to add that I support the recent recommendations as to Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives as below per BarrelProof. Thanks, MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Fixed the period, since obvious and acknowledged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as the proposed title is unnecessarily long per WP:CONCISE. I am not a fan of the current name, and believe that it should be renamed to be more clear. However, the proposed title is too descriptive. Retroity (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because the title is a bit too unwieldy but I do agree that it should be changed. I agree with the suggestion "Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker [of the House]"
NateNate60 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed title is long but is not unnecessarily long. It is clearer than the current title. The guideline for conciseness does not require short titles, it only requires they should be as short as possible. Bluefist talk 21:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move but what about "Motion to vacate against Kevin McCarthy" or "2023 House motion to vacate"? The current title is inadequate, it makes it sound like we're trying to nuke him from orbit or something, and these options are much more concise than the current proposal. Toadspike (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    If we must stick with this title, could we at least update it to "Removal of Kevin McCarthy"? Now that the event has actually occurred, the title should change. Toadspike (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Closure and reopening: The RM was closed by Esolo5002 at 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC), saying "The result of the move request was: Not moved. Move request is moot because these are no longer efforts." Esolo5002 also renamed the article to Removal of Kevin McCarthy immediately after the closure. After discussion on their User talk page, they gave permission to revert the closure, as it appears that there has been no agreement on selection of an appropriate title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    I repeat my suggestion of Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    Please note that support for that suggested title is expressed in the merger discussion below at 23:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) by MicrobiologyMarcus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • BarrelProofs proposal Other title is too dragged-on. The current title is better, but with the additional context from BarrelProof. Otherwise, you need to know what position Kevin McCarthy is being removed from. He was not removed from Congress. Conyo14 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 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. As Station1 says, titles do not need to tell the full story. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Strongly Oppose, exactly as said directly above by @Tamzin. This title is perfect and the page should remain. This is called exactly what it is. --Volvlogia (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: I fixed the current title in the request for the bots. Didn't change the proposed title though.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose original concept. This was one effort that was successful. The article is, after all, about him being removed. I do like BarrelProof's proposal though, it explains things better. Just "removal" is kinda vague. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Forgive me if I'm uninformed, but I feel like this is the only actual effort to remove McCarthy, of which it was successful and not just an effort. Corgi Stays (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with you. {{}} MonkeyBBGB (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support BarrelProof's updated proposal. The current title does not describe the very important question of what is McCarthy being removed from– the speakership, the House, his party, some committee he's part of, etc. Thus, I think it is essential that "Speaker of the House of the Representatives" be in the title. Now that he's never been the speaker of any other House, the phrase will be concise and descriptive enough to understand which HoR it's referring to. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 04:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Removal of Kevin McCarthy from speakership might also work considering that he's ever been the speaker only once. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that seems worth considering. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tamzin. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Also oppose renaming SecretName101 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Tazmin and suggest close. Jusdafax (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The proposed title is too long and unwieldy. It might only make sense if he had survived the motion but as the motion was successful, the straight "Removal of...." title is succinct enough and makes it clear that that is what happened. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposal,Support "Removal of Kevin McCarthy", per WP:CONCISE. Kevin McCarthy is the most notable person under that name, and someone relatively familiar with US politics will know what job he held. If they don't, it's in the first sentence of the article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose wtf is that title, too long. if you want a description of what the article is about read the lead section not the title of the article. Sebbog13 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Support Ousting of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House because it is concise, recognizable, and consistent with terminology found in reliable English-language sources. I would also support using removal instead of ousting, though it seems clear that ousting is used more often in reliable sources and is more precise. Qono (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too long. Redoct87 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What “efforts”? He’s gone. NM 17:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support BarrelProof's propossal I was thinking of planning of suggesting similar. The current title is too vague as to what the removal is from and the word "efforts" implies failure or a future event. It may edge at the borders of WP:CONCISE, but I can't think of anything shorter while also informative. Please call me Blue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As he's already been removed the title would be highly redundant and misleading. Also too long a title. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, he has already been removed so there would be no point in saying "efforts". RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, move to Kevin McCarthyeet. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I know this is a joke but I absolutely love this I so wish this is what they called it. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed title in the nom. HappyWith (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and Rename to "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Speaker of the House of Representatives" as Wikipedia must be concise while also portraying information the way it really is. The reason why this article was created was because McCarthy was actually removed from his position, not because some people put in some "effort" to try to remove him. The effort is relevant only because it had the result it did. Had it not resulted in McCarthy's actual removal from the Speaker role, this page would have probably not even existed to begin with. Also, the title I am proposing is slightly more precise and quite relevant as McCarthy's removal from the Speaker role is a historic one and must be recognized as such. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    For a bit of seriousness, I'd support this proposal as the most sensible one. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
That's a pretty long name and not straight to the point, a better title could be "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from the US House of Representatives Speakership" — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedGigachad (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional support I am ok with changing the name to whatever consensus determines to be most encyclopedic. However, the title should focus on the vacating of the Speaker’s chair. For the first time in U.S. history, a sitting speaker was ousted. That clearly meets notability guidelines, and will stand the test of time. I support consensus on whatever title the Wikipedia community agrees on. I would vigorously oppose any attempt at AfD, or redirect to a more general article that does not recognize the historical significance of removing the first Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I don't believe that the proposed title is overly long and it is a better description of the action than the current title. While titles should be concise, they should also have enough information in them that helps the reader of the article understand what the article is about. That being said, because this has already occured, it is no longer an "effort" and the title should be "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Speaker of the House of Representatives". Jurisdicta (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The current title, Removal of Kevin McCarthy, is short & sweet, and the reader instantly knows what the article is about. WP:COMMONNAME definitely applies here too; see this example provided from it:
  • Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)
Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME also states that an article title is a natural-language word or expression. No one naturally says the Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives; people simply call it the Removal of Kevin McCarthy when referring to the event.
As others have also stated, WP:CONCISE applies here too.
There is no reason for the name of the article to change as it is perfectly fine, and it is the optimal title.
Cobblebricks (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I oppose this particular name, but I suggest "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from Position as Speaker of the House". The suggestion falls in with WP:CONCISE despite that it fits in more than 32 characters, but remember that concise means not only short, but to the point as well. Just saying removal of and nothing following the name...removal from what? The House? The lunchroom? My spare room? Ya gotta be specific here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: My vote is for 2023 vote to vacate against Kevin McCarthy, by analogy with 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry. It strikes a nice balance between the current title (which is too vague) and other alternatives above (which are either too long or also too vague). As for Tamzin's argument, this is something that could become more common (thus the title of the article I mentioned), and more detail may thus be necessary. Esszet (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    I...hmm. I like this better than my suggestion. =) ~~ Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated previously. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: The current title feels incomplete and undescriptive. "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" is the most accurate title in my mind. It is long and somewhat unwieldy, but it is the most objective and precise. If speakership election pages use the full title (October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election) then so should this article. A compromise title might be "Removal of Kevin McCarthy from the U.S. House speakership". Benn257 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Per WP:CONCISE. Why not change the title to "Efforts to remove Kevin Owen McCarthy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives of the 118th United States Congress pursuant to a motion to vacate filed by United States Representative Matthew Louis Gaetz II of the 1st congressional district of Florida on October 2, 2023" while we're at it? Is this a serious suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. We don't need to make things more complicated than it needs to be. S5A-0043Talk 09:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. We already have a pretty damn good title right now which complies with our policies pretty well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To interested editors

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

Page rename/move now that McCarthy has been removed

NO ACTION
Clear concensus to keep separate. The move discussion continues above. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

I'd prefer to merge this to October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Can be split out if necessary, but I doubt that would be the case. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be renamed or moved but if this is not merged, then I propose the title "Removal of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Move to removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the United States House of Representatives. We don't need "efforts to" anymore. Neutralitytalk 20:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm in favor of this. Don't think we should merge, at least not yet, because the removal and new election are different acts. Spaghettifier (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
      Yes. In favor of the removal being it’s own article SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
      Yes. It has been successful, and I'm sure that there will be so much information coming out about it. User:NDfan173 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. Move and keep separate. This is a separate and very important historical event and will almost certainly be searched for independently of the upcoming election in the future. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should dedicate a standalone article to such an event. Brooklaika (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    Keep separate: It's too historic to not be its own article. I agree with the move/renaming as suggested above by Neutrality. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is essentially the background section to the upcoming Speaker election, and there's not much to say about it outside that context. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Keep separate. Given the current length of the two articles, I'm changing my !vote. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: Option 3. The two events, the election and this removal, are (or, rather, will be) separate historical events. There is no need to merge the two yet. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge - Could easily be a "background" section on the article for the speaker election. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed El819 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate. There's enough content on this topic to be a standalone article. Rager7 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
While the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article would discuss the election of the new speaker, "Removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the United States House of Representatives" could discuss the impact and consequences of the removal of the Speaker, for both parties and broader US politics.
Additionally, We can expect more information, analysis and commentary such as "The Washington Post staff writer Adam Blake stated that Democrats were unwilling to save McCarthy." Wiki6995 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate as per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: The removal is not part of the election (which may or may not take place in October 2023). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment — A move should have occurred following the motion to vacate. Esolo5002 prevented such a move from occurring. I have no comment on whether or not this should be merged at this time, but an election article should exist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    https://x.com/reptroynehls/status/1709342759172059159?s=46&t=cr_XgNJjvBkqxvXNgSDlIw <--- Trump Nominated 2603:8000:3E43:4D00:15D:293:AEB2:E6C (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    The election page already exists. This was not that page and discussion needed to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is an example of recentism. We don't need a new article for every development. We especially shouldn't separate out events that just happened from their main articles per WP:TOOSOON and WP:DELAY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate This isn't apart of the new election, it's the cause. ⁠TheXuitts (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate as to the arguments above, summarily: this is the background and separate from the other article, which I suspect will grow to be too long and move to Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives per the same reasons as the requested move arguments above by BarrelProof: US is redundant and not necessary so as to be WP:Concise but we need to keep as Speaker of the House of Representatives to be WP:Precise. If kept the same, removal from what? It makes no sense as is. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate per above. It is too lengthy to merge into the speaker election article, and the background material here about the budget negotiations, etc., is a step removed from the speaker election anyway. This article rightfully exists. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate but with context. Eventually a new Speaker will be elected. That information will be posted here, but all the drama and shenanigans that will undoubtedly happen over the next days/weeks is more appropriate on a separate article. Conyo14 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: They are two separate events, each with their own merits. They are indeed related, but I don't believe this warrants a merge. The two subjects are not duplicates of each other, are substantial enough, and are their own events in history. Also support keeping the name as-is ("Removal of Kevin McCarthy" as of 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)). PRECISE has been said as a reason to rename; I'd say the opposite. The very first sentence says "but should be no more precise than that." There is no other removal of McCarthy from any other office. Adding information about which office he was removed from is redundant: there is no other office applicable (to my knowledge). WhoAteMyButter (🌇talk│🍂contribs) 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate: His removal being the first ever speaker to be removed is an important historical event that deserves to have its own article not combined witht he regular articles for speaker elections. They are related so should be mentioned and linked in each other's articles but should in no way be combined. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. The two articles are essentially contain the same exact topic. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge Just because there were two separate votes does not necessarily mean these are two separate events. The removal of McCarthy and the election to replace him are inherently joined at the hip. Both articles essentially cover the exact same thing. The article October 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election goes into detail on the events that led to Boehner's resignation, there's no reason the 2023 article can't do the same for the events leading to that election. Fry129 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge - same topic Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. Part of the same process. The most important part was the vote to remove, which is already in the election page. The background material might also be useful, but it is also context for the vote so can be moved there as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an awful rename. The office is what is vacant. Applying "vacant" to a person only can be done as an adjective meaning "having or showing no intelligence or interest". We aren't here to insult McCarthy. SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Rename as Vacancy motion against Kevin McCarthy or Motion of vacancy against Kevin McCarthy ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 03:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Better name changes than what you previously proposed SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge Removing him from the office was just a necessary prelude to choosing a new speaker. It was basically a one-day event, a one-day news story. We could trim a lot of the overkill from this article (there is an unnecessary amount of background, and it certainly isn't necessary to name how every member voted!) when we merge, and make his removal from the office of speaker merely an introduction to the choosing of a new speaker. It's all one process. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Seperate due to this being a separate issue, which involves a separate vote. The article has become quite lengthy. This is quite historical, as it is the first instance of a Speaker being removed from his position. Of course, each article should link to each other as these two events are obviously interlinked, but by no means cover the same topic. BurgeoningContracting 03:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate and support any change to the title of the article. "Removal of Kevin McCarthy" without any context sounds very confusing. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose due to multiple reasons. My current understanding of the events of this talk page is as follows:
This proposal has been modified by multiple users. The proposer of this discussion closed a prior move discussion with Not moved. The proposer of this discussion then moved the page to a new title despite their closing. There is no mention of a merge discussion on this article. See Step 2 of MERGEINIT. There is no mention of this move discussion due to the prior move discussion being active. There is a separate attempted discussion at the talk page for the Speaker election article.
Personally, I don't see how any action can be taken from this discussion due to the above, outside of as a survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) (Amended at 05:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC))
To clarify I closed the prior move discussion because the discussion was moot because of events. It didn't make sense to have an ongoing discussion to move a page from names that didn't make any sense for the readers of Wikipedia. I moved it to the closest name that didn't add any additional context being discussed in the discussion. I was advised that I shouldn't have closed that discussion. A merge template was added to the page by me. It was removed by the RMCD bot on accident here. I just re-added it.
Esolo5002 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I have stricken the MERGEINIT part for being mistaken. That is my fault for not checking enough edits.
Thank you for clarifying and for updating the other talk page. I do still have concerns about the above. Given that this does have a move suggestion in the current proposal, is this to be considered a survey of opinions if the Rename part passes? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep as separate. Both will expand. There is plenty more background and information this article could feature. And we don’t know at this point m how complicated or how many rounds the new speaker vote will be. SecretName101 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Move and keep separate. Specifically, rename to Vacation of Kevin McCarthy. The current title isn't clear as to what he is removed from, and "remove" is also not the actual term for the procedure in the House. Like with impeachments, we should not need to append his role to the page. Vacation is specific enough. GardenCosmos (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@GardenCosmos That's an awful title. "Vacated" describes what happened to the office (chair), not McCarthy. It also sounds like it describes him taking a trip somewhere. SecretName101 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
It certainly does sound like that given thats a shared term. However, given no ones searching for Kevin McCarthys summers, there won't be confusion as soon as you read the page.
Whatever, keep the page title. GardenCosmos (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Except that WP:ASTONISH suggests that we should not require a person to read the page to understand the subject is not referring to leisure time. Due to the definition of vacation referring more to a recreational time than to quitting, we should avoid using the word vacation. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
But again. Vacation is not a word that applies to McCarthy’s name. McCarthy was not vacated, THE CHAIR was vacated. SecretName101 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I don't get the point of your reply here. I am addressing there won't be confusion as soon as you read the page. I didn't suggest using "Vacation/Vacated of Kevin McCarthy" at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Super Goku V Maybe then you could surmise that my reply is in response to GardenCosmos, and not yourself? 🤦‍♂️ SecretName101 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I don't see the need for the facepalm emoji when you (unintentionally) replied to me based on the indents. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I was not replying to you. I was replying within a thread that you happened to be in. SecretName101 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
One could say The House of Representatives' vacation of Kevin McCarthy, but in lieu of context a reader will assume that Kevin McCarthy took a vacation. If you're looking for semantics, Matt Gaetz's motion to vacate Kevin McCarthy would fulfill your parameters—and I quite like this title even over Ousting of Kevin McCarthy. A title is not required to match its topic's official name if it has a common name, such as Germany over Deutschland or the Mueller report over Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Again though. McCarthy is not what was vacated. The chair is what was vacated. SecretName101 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Merge, but if not, rename. It is incredibly historic, so one could definitely make the case for it having its own article, but either way, the current title is too vague. Cpotisch (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
What else has McCarthy been removed from that requires us to distinguish? SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Seperate as the event of McCarthy being ousted is notable enough to have it's separate article due to the fact that this is the fist time that a House Speaker has ever been removed from their position in the whole history of the United States. Had McCarthy simply resigned or died, I would have supported the effort to merge the two articles together but this case is entirely different. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate and propose new title of Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House to remove ambiguity. Avereo (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep separate & don’t move This is a historic event that’s related to but separate from the election. As Tamzin showed in the other thread, the office that a person held when they’re removed from a position generally isn’t mentioned in an article’s title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge. Similar events in other countries, such as the replacement of Jim Bolger by Jenny Shipley as the Prime Minister of New Zealand, only have the leadership/speakership election pages. McCarthy was not the Head of State and this is not a state funeral, so this should not get the same treatment as, say, the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. MrSeabody (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Leadership spills are a normal activity in countries like that, and tend to be a unified action (the leader is either defeated in a leadership election, or resigns upon the threat of one).
    These are two separate votes, with the motion to vacate being largely unprecedented (making routine leadership spills a poor comparison) SecretName101 (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate as it is a notable event distinct from the subsequent election. On top of being unprecedented in US history, merging would be conflating two different votes (the vote to remove and the subsequent election), with WP:UNDUE emphasis on the latter compared to the former. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate would be very confusing for readers to combine these two separate and notable events into the same article. Yeoutie (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate the three events (the 2022 original election, the 2023 vacancy, and the (upcoming?) election of the new Speaker) are all separate yet noteworthy events, and each deserves their own article. I would also support adding a "See Also" section to these articles so that they each reference one another, since there is also a link between them. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate as others have said, the removal of Kevin McCarthy was an unprecedented historical event. The subsequent election is an ongoing event and is, in my opinion, already significant enough to have its own article. Independently significant subsequent events can, and should, have their own individual articles. --ThatTrainNerd (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge - There is no need for two articles. The subject does not warrant it. Remember we are an encyclopedia, not news.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not all users would agree with that justification Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia
    SecretName101 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge - Ultimately this whole series of events will be remembered as a part of the continuous process by which the House replaced one speaker with another mid-term. Certainly very noteworthy and historical but I don't think the two votes (or however many more votes it takes to elect a speaker) are so distinct as to require separate articles. On a practical level, I imagine that if we have two separate articles, the "Removal" article will have an "Aftermath" section that will accrue content overlapping the "Election" article, and the "Election" article will have a "Background" section that likewise overlaps with the "Removal" article, and there will be all the usual issues keeping those aligned. --Jfruh (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate the removal in itself is significant enough, and the article by now has so much content that merging it into a background section for the election article won't do it justice. I suspect the election itself will provide enough material for this article as well, considering how the last one went. --jonas (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate; the removal is a significant enough topic, and would be too long to put in the Background section of the October 2023 Speaker Election. Additionally, as User:Chaotic Enby said, the events are two separate votes: the vote to vacate the office of speaker, and the vote to elect a new speaker.
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate This is a significant event in the history of the US House of Representatives and should be kept separate. This event stands alone given its significance. Jurisdicta (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate' This has literally never happened before in American history. The event is interesting, notable, and extensively sourced by itself. The page is quite sizable now and is relatively well written. I see absolutely no reason to merge it. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Separate as per this argument exactly. pluma♫ ♯ 05:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: The two are separate events though they may have a link, we don't want to make a big one be WP:UNDUE to either part. Its easier to have it separate, especially with the unprecedented event. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose merge: The removal of Kevin McCarthy, while causing the election, remains a distinct event. A vote to vacate and a vote to elect a new speaker are two completely different things in American politics. Similarly, 2021-2022 Russia-Ukraine crisis remains a separate article from Russian invasion of Ukraine, despite the former simply being the cause of the latter. As a result, it seems unconventional to merge the articles. AmericanBaath (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Declined, Possible, and Boondoggling Speaker Candidates

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

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

question about the title

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

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