This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active
politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of
biased editing, talk-page
trolling, and simple
vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
RM, Kevin McCarthy (California politician) → Kevin McCarthy, Not moved, 26 September 2015,
discussion
RM, Kevin McCarthy (California politician) → Kevin McCarthy, Not moved, 6 February 2021,
discussion
RM, Kevin McCarthy (California politician) → Kevin McCarthy, No consensus, 7 October 2021,
discussion
RM, Kevin McCarthy (California politician) → Kevin McCarthy (politician), Moved to
Kevin McCarthy, 15 November 2022,
discussion
RM, Kevin McCarthy → Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Not moved, 16 December 2022,
discussion
Reputation in Congress
These comments, made by fellow Republican congressman Justin Amash, are relevant to the article as they convey McCarthy’s reputation within Congress.
But I will post them here prior to editing the article in case someone is able to point out a credible reason to exclude this information.
"I met a lot of duplicitous people in Congress but none more conniving and fundamentally dishonest than Kevin McCarthy. He will say or do whatever he thinks is necessary at a particular moment to obtain or maintain power."
The comments of one former member, especially given his particular history with the Republican Party, is
WP:UNDUE weight. We would need much more than one comment from one representative who switched to a third party to properly assess his "reputation". –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
Stand alone primary, this Kevin McCarthy has been the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives for years, and now is poised to be Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Yes, per Station, the page views show that he is primary and that seems long lasting, putting a DAB page together and making this page primary seems the logical solution to this RM.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
If this page moves to primary then the actor should gain first spot in a hatnote, followed by the dab page. The classical and popular actor should also feature more prominently and higher on the dab page.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This page has averaged 3,414 views a day over the last 90 days (rising now per events) and the notable actor averaged 560 over the last 90 days. Primary for this page seems obvious, even though the actor has a deserved following long after his death.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
They account for half (or maybe less, depending on how an editor weighs historical long-term significance. Pretty definitive page views though, no?).
Randy Kryn (
talk)
16:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Maybe Recentism worked in the 2015 renaming attempt, and for a few years after that. Now, not so much. Speaker of the House in the U.S. (although that's WP:CRYSTAL for now, maybe this should wait to be moved after the January House leadership election and swearing in) ain't beanbag, as the politicans say.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
16:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Neither is
Secretary of State for Defence in the UK, but Mr Wallace has to compete with a
basketball player! Being a politician holding an important post doesn't necessarily mean you beat everyone else on notability. I must say that I have never heard of the House minority leader, but I have heard of the actor. And yes, I'm aware that personal experience is irrelevant, but it does show that notability is not universal in other countries just because someone is a well-known politician in one country. It usually is the case with heads of state and government of major countries, but not necessarily with those lower down the pecking order. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I support the proposal by
Randy Kryn above: Keep the title where it is for now, since at this point "California politician" is adequate, but move to the primary title
Kevin McCarthy in January when he becomes (assuming he does become) Speaker of the House. That's IMPORTANT. It's not just another title; it's second in line in the presidential succession. --
MelanieN (
talk)
19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Primary When I first started reading this thread, I thought that
Kevin McCarthy (actor) must have been some actor famous in an Anglophone country other than the United States. But no. He was born in Seattle and had a good supporting actor role in a respected 1951 film. Then, he had a starring role in a low budget horror movie in 1956 that has become a bit of a cult classic. Then a long series of bit roles in minor films. I am 70 years ago and was entirely unfamiliar with this actor until today. Nobody has ever sat around and said to their buddies "Hey, did you see that new Kevin McCarthy movie?" On the other hand, the California politician has met
WP:NPOL for 20 years, and has been at the very center of US politics as leader of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives for the last eight years. If this is recentism, then Wikipedia itself is recentism. Centuries from now, people will be studying Trump's inner circle, including the person that Trump dubbed "my Kevin", just as we now study figures like Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, 250 years after they came to prominence. Personally, I do not like this man, but I want our readers to find his biography as easily as possible, as opposed to the biography of the star of the 1956
B movie called Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Cullen328 (
talk)
06:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
InvadingInvader: what does "Primary" mean? It could be primary for the whole topic, or just amongst politicians. For clarity, Votes should take the form of "Support", "Oppose" or "Move to _______" if you favour a move other than the one proposed. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk)
19:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Make the GOP leader (and potential future speaker) the primary topic. I'm just basing it off of everybody else and how they phrased it. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk)
19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong support a move to
Kevin McCarthy. It is simply misleading to call him a "California politician" (which implies not only that he is from California, but that he is a state-level politician, e.g. a member of the
California State Assembly), when he has been a politician on the national stage since 2004 (after his election to the U.S. House of Representatives). Both other "Kevin McCarthy" politicians are state-level politicians. This move is necessary due to his higher prominence, political significance, and per
WP:COMMONNAME. Arguments that it's "too early to judge" or recentism are flawed; even if he was forced to resign tomorrow due to a scandal (let's say), he'd still be more notable than the other two politicians who share his name.
DFlhb (
talk)
11:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)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.
So there's no confusion. If McCarthy does get elected Speaker of the House, he'll be sworn in as the 55th Speaker. Remember that Pelosi was/is 52nd, Boehner was the 53rd & Ryan was the 54th. The speakers are counted only once, regardless of whether they serve consecutive terms or not.
GoodDay (
talk)
06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
Comment The whole reason why that move was initiated was because he is predicted (not guaranteed) to be Speaker. The timing is suspect. If he does not become Speaker he loses the notability to be PRIMARYTOPIC.
Shwcz (
talk)
15:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No it wasn't, or at least the initial RM proposal made no such mention of a potential speakership. Most comments did not reference a speakership, and I see one say "Move to Kevin McCarthy Even if he doesn't become speaker in 2023" and another say "It's possible he might not be the speaker, but he's clearly the most notable person with the name." Commenters above were clear that as House Minority Leader, he has become the primary topic and I stand by that even if he loses the speakership in January. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
His speakership was never considered "guaranteed". I'm not responding here any more. You're not presenting any RS or other policy arguments that suggest the last RM was wrongly decided. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have no opinion on moving or not, but the previous RM was closed ~3 weeks ago. Maybe a discussion on the closer's talk page and a
MR would've been a better option then another RM?Clyde!Franklin! 00:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Someone didn't read
WP:MRNOT.
Clyde!Franklin!00:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose and speedy close. The previous RM discussion determined that he is the primary topic. Regardless on whether or not he eventually becomes speaker, this new RM was opened way too soon after the previous one.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
20:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This individual is the primary topic for "Kevin McCarthy" regardless of whether he becomes Speaker of the House or not. He's held high-ranking positions in his party and the U.S. Congress for over a decade, and his lead in pageviews over
Kevin McCarthy (actor) has been steadily growing for years.
ModernDayTrilobite (
talk •
contribs)
21:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)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.
Lack of mention of attendance at the World Economic Forum?
Why does this article not mention Mr. McCarthy's attendance at the World Economic Forum? Given the influence of this organization, it would make sense for it to at least be mentioned.
Saying Trump's question about the 2020 election as "false" is inappropriate for wikipedia.org. Remove the word "false" in paragraph 4, line 2. Wikipedia must not make judgements about issues like this.
2601:8C0:381:1410:C5DC:6FA0:B56F:856C (
talk)
00:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Saying Trump's question about the 2020 election as "false" is inappropriate for wikipedia.org.reply
Not done: Why exactly can Wikipedia not call something false "false"? Wikipedia has not "made judgments" on it, the lawyers, judges, and reliable sources have. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
He hasn't been sworn in yet, but oh well. He will be within a half-hour, so no sense in getting into an edit-spat, which would become moot shortly.
GoodDay (
talk)
05:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, I know I'm being too nit-picky. But shouldn't we wait until he's sworn in as the 55th Speaker? At the rate they're going in the House chamber, is seems like it's gonna take a half-hour or more.
GoodDay (
talk)
05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Republican/Majority Leader links now lead to other members' pages
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
* Specific text to be added or removed: Remove Republican Leader, Majority Leader
* Reason for the change: Steve Scalise is now Republican Leader, any social or web links to Republican Leader/Majority Leader are not accurate for Speaker McCarthy and ultimately lead to other members' pages. Only Speaker.gov, @SpeakerMcCarthy are correct across socials
* References supporting change: https://www.majorityleader.gov/https://www.speaker.gov/
I'm not sure why it was removed from the infobox but I added it back in, feel free to let me know if I made a mistake, but it seems appropriate to include it.
Derpytoucan (
talk)
05:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"Trump's false denial of Biden's victory" - McCarthy support
The line "After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory" is not supported by the citation; in fact the cited article is to the contrary. The citation is to a Business Insider piece that criticizes McCarthy for declaring Trump the winner at a time when no winner had yet been called (this was on Thursday of election week). The text in this piece changes that to " *After Joe Biden won*". Suggesting, as this sentence does, that McCarthy made the statement after Biden had been declared the winner is highly misleading at best, and flatly false at worst.
Dougmock (
talk)
19:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Moreover, the phrasing makes it sound like the denial itself was false, even though the intent of the writing was to say that the claim that Biden lost the election was false. It should be sufficient to say "...Trump's denial of Biden's victory", as the veracity of Biden's victory is already well established.
entropyandvodka |
talk02:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wrong ‘there’ in article
Sentence ‘After the January 6 United States Capitol attack, McCarthy blamed Trump for the riot and reversed his previous comments on their being voter fraud in the election’.
Sentence 'In February 2023, McCarthy leaked thousands of hours of CCTV footage of the January 6 Capitol attack to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.'
The word 'leaked' incorrectly implies that the release of the footage was illicit or surreptitious. It should be replaced with 'released.'
YeshayaRoth (
talk)
07:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This seems like fluff/highly imprecise wording. It leads to the impression that McCarthy played no-role in establishing the crisis to begin with. It makes it sound like that crisis is something that just happened that McCarthy resolved, rather than a stand-off between McCarthy and Biden which was negotiated to an end.
SecretName101 (
talk)
22:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not a forum. If you have ideas for an edit, please suggest them and provide reliable sources. The claim McCarthy is the most effective House Speaker in American history is a subjective one, and not in step with encyclopedic tone.
entropyandvodka |
talk03:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Speaker and Speaker pro tempore are different offices.
Technically, the office of Speaker and the position of Speaker pro tempore are not the same office. The US Constitution requires the Speaker to gain a majority vote to assume office, therefore the office of Speaker is vacant. I think this is imporant enough to put on McCarthy's infobox instead of listing McHenry as the successor pro tempore.
My suggestion was to put the successor as Vacant, and then but an explanatory footnote explaining everything.
Speaker of the House is not an Office that Constitutionally requires an Immediate transition of power. Listing it as "Vacant" would be redundant. --
Sleyece (
talk)
01:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Speaker Pro Tempore is not a Constitutional Office. It's just a thing they made up, so yeah, I'd say yeah, you're correct. I'm gonna bold edit then. --
Sleyece (
talk)
01:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
While it would be entertaining to see this, I don't think there is any reliable source to support your suggested change as such news would be widely reported across several reliable news sources.
Jurisdicta (
talk)
03:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
New tag added
The presence of this new banner format is meant to convey the historical significance of the article being read. It was met with positive reception by numerous users on X, the social media website formerly known as Twitter, and helps set the tone of the Wikipedia reading experience. The banner is entirely separate from the “current event” banner, and should be treated as such. Please do not remove this without consulting me on my account talk page. Thank youKillaTrav87 (
talk)
18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
KillaTrav87: I have reverted it per
WP:NOTNEWS. The way it works is not that I need to consult you on your talk page before removing it, but rather that after your
WP:BOLD edit, I challenge it by reverting it and now you need to discuss it. This is the
bold-revert-discuss cycle. Wikipedia isn't a news source and we are not in charge of designating what is historical or not. We also avoid
WP:SENSATIONAL.--
Jasper Deng(talk)18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I have seen from going to KillaTrav's talk page that they were blocked briefly for edit warring by inserting this "announcement", an admin unblocked them, and they just did it again. Continuing this behavior will surely lead to a longer block. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do believe KillaTrav is simply doing exactly what they were doing the first time Admins blocked them. There has been no change in the user's behavior except for the fun addition that you "need" to go on KillaTrav's talk page and request permission to revert edits. --
Sleyece (
talk)
19:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Brevity of speakership
Some facts that illustrate the unique brevity of McCarthy’s tenure as speaker. One or more of these might be worth adding, if property sourced.
If my research is correct:
He is the first single-term speaker to leave office mid-term for reasons other than death in office or resigning in order to take office as vice president.
He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Byrnes Sr. in the 1930s to serve less than a full term, and the first since Byrnes not to be elected to more than one term as speaker.
He is the first speaker since Joseph W. Martin Sr. in the 1950s not to be elected consecutively to more than one term.
Probably better to stick to the less trivia-ish fact that he is the only speaker to lose the position via a motion to vacate. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Even though McCarthy had been removed as speaker, as of more than two weeks after his ouster, he refused to leave the physical premises of the office he had occupied in that role.[1]
(change to)
McCarthy has remained in use of the speaker's office during the vacancy of the speakership position.[2][3][4]
Reason: It may be a good idea to write the statement in a more neutral, less charged way with additional sources (and fixed formatting for current source). Worth noting that there are other articles that mention this fact in peripheral, to note how people have been meeting in his speaker's office to strategize during the ongoing speaker election process.
104.175.78.152 (
talk)
23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Partly done: Your proposed text is definitely neutral while the text in the article was not. But, I took it out as it seems trivial to this whole situation. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
After winning the speakership in his acceptance speach Mike Johnson refered to Kevin McCarthy as "Our Speaker Emeritus" granting him the honorable title
Jhartman087 (
talk)
03:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
His resignation from the House should be in the lead once, summarizing a longer entry somewhere in the body. It shouldn't be in the lead twice and nowhere in the body. --
Pemilligan (
talk)
18:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Post-speakership (& Resignation!) section is mis-placed
Am I missing something here? It appears that the "Post-speakership" section is horribly out of place, and should also be subtitled to show his perfunctory resignation from Congress(!) I'm going to move it to where I think it should go; if I'm not taking something into account, here, somebody with a better understanding of the situation can revert the edit.
Chachap (
talk)
01:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Article focused on Republican legislative problems/Republican-Democrat informal coalition
I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft,
Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks!
Esolo5002 (
talk)
19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply