Jump to content

Talk:Mike Johnson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 25 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Per WP:RMCOMMENT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - there's now obvious and overwhelming notability for him versus the others. KlayCax (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Significance in American politics. TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too soon. We don't know how many days he will hold that position. StrayBolt (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Suppose for the sake of argument he does have an exceptionally short tenure as speaker, then I'd argue that distinction alone would render him a quite notable Speaker of the House historically, certainly enough so to warrant the removal of (Louisiana Politician) from his name (just as many of us are aware of William Henry Harrison as the shortest-tenured President). And of course, if he has a long tenure, the clarificatory ellipse ought be removed as well. Either way, it should be removed, with a disambiguation page like former Speaker Paul Ryan (another generic named speaker). Salmantino24 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    By the time of his speakership Paul Ryan had served sixteen years in the House as a well-known name (often given media exposure as a “young buck”/“rising star” in the House GOP, and often touted as a chief budget wonk in the House GOP). Even bigger: he had been the 2012 vice presidential nominee of his party and was widely speculated during the 2016 cycle as a possible contender for the top of the ticket. Furthermore, today we know that he served 1.5 terms as speaker in which he was a high-profile figure (some speakers maintain low-profiles, i.e Dennis Hastert)
    at this time, Mike Johnson has only just been plucked from relative obscurity to hold the speakership, and time will tell how noticed his tenure goes in the consciousness of the public. That’s why it’s a little too soon.
    also, I am not sure that there was as much traffic to other Paul Ryan’s as there cumulatively is to other Mike/Michael Johnsons SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    Mike Johnson has only just been plucked from relative obscurity to hold the speakership,.....
    No, not RELATIVE obscurity; COMPLETE obscurity. Will the U.S. House GOP even still maintain a majority come January '25? Agreed that it's way too soon be talking about this particular politician's staying power..... 2600:1700:E7B0:1140:0:0:0:1B (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Straybolt. Let's give this some time before we make a change. This is a pretty common English name so I would recommend giving this a few months at least. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the speculative notion that simply because he might lose this position in the future, he is any less notable now. That said, if you do want to discuss that possibility, I would point out that (if I'm not mistaken), Kevin McCarthy's article had the exact same change sort of move made after he became speaker, and this was even though he had already signed away most of the stability of the role, with his rules package. It was the right call to do the rename then, and it's the right call now, as in my view, regardless of how long someone held or may hold the role, they inherently become so notable due to their tenure as Speaker that it makes hardly any sense to specify "[state] politician". Cpotisch (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, "mike johnson" is a for more common name. Nemov (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There are still 3 past speakers which still have disambigs. McCarthy was moved before becoming speaker, and there was some post objection after the move. I could see Mike Johnson would have a hat to the Michael Johnson disambig page. StrayBolt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Another reason to change Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) -> Mike Johnson, is the possible appearance of bias on the part of Wikipedia. During the time where Wikipedia has existed, I strongly doubt there would have been a discussion on whether a current Speaker of the House is notable enough for his own name to be the title of that page. The debate itself arises from opinions that his power in the position may be limited or his tenure may be brief, which are subjective and inherently political judgments that Wikipedians ought not engage in. Salmantino24 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"we don't want to be criticized" is not enough of an argument to motivate this change. The only way NOT to be biased is to assess whether this page move makes sense as we would any other article.
I am not convinced that this Mike Johnson (outside of the momentary curiosity after the election) is guaranteed to be the "Mike Johnson" a vast majority of readers want to read about when they search "Mike Johnson".
The goal is to convenience readers, get them to the article they are looking for as quick as possible. Can we say that in a year or two, more people will want to read about this guy than every other Mike Johnson combined? Because, before we inconvenience every reader looking for another Mike Johnson, we need to have confidence that (lastingly), the vast majority of people who will search "Mike Johnson" will hope to be directed to this article and are not hoping to find another result. SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Any current or previous Speaker of the House is more notable than any of the "Mike Johnson's" listed in the disambig page. All the more reason to transition the page for convenience of users trying to find the article for the most powerful member of the most powerful Congress in the world. Salmantino24 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Any US House Speaker seems to be overwhelmingly more notable than pretty much anyone who has the name. I don't think this is a case where TOOSOON would override a Primary topic move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    @InvadingInvader As I have said to others, I don't think the right lens is to see whether he is more notable than a singular Mike Johnson.
    The goal here is to convenience readers in reaching the article that they are looking for. Rather than notable (some notable figures aren't well-researched/very interesting figures in the public consciousness, and aren't well-visited pages) we should weigh whether someone is a well-sough search-term. And instead of weighing them against a singular other person of the same name, we need to weigh them against all other pages on people of the same name. Because people searching for any given one of those other articles would be inconvenienced by this page occupying the target "Mike Johnson". So he'd need to be (lastingly) a significantly-more-desired search result than all seventeen-or-so other Mike/Michael Johnson articles combined.
    Do you have strong confidence that this article (lastingly into the future) vastly out-proportion all other Mike/Michael Johnson articles combined as the destination readers hope to be directed to when looking for Mike Johnson. (I sure don't) SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    I do have strong confidence. And I would suggest that given that there has been a clear consensus in support of a Primary topic here, consider WP:Dropping the stick. I personally try to avoid bludgeoning whenever I can, as from previous experience from being bludgeoned on, it doesn't end well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Major politican within US politics. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - my reasoning is included in the accidentally created duplicate move request below. Sahaib (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - He is the most famous Mike Johnson and has significance simply by virtue of being Speaker of the House. I agree with InvadingInvader above that length of time is irrelevant Epicradman123 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support By being the speaker of the US HoR, he's significantly more notable than practically anyone else with that name. Ueutyi (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's not notability, it's ubiquitous association with that name.
    Essentially: we want to be assured that in a two years or more from now, an astronomical proportion of the people searching for "Mike Johnson" will want to find this article.
    There are plenty of other Mike Johnsons prominent in their fields. We don't want there to be large share of readers searching for those guys who have to navigate their way to finding the link the disambiguation page (which will make their intended target page two clicks away rather than one).
    It remains to be seen if this Mike Johnson will be the one nearly all users want to find when they search that name. Plenty of speakers that served a long while are mere footnotes in memory. So why should we assume the guy who has served all but a few hours at this point (and done nothing yet of note in the role) would be a more sought-after search than all of the other Mike Johnsons combined. If there was only one or to other possible Mike Johnson pages people could be seeking, I'd almost certainly-say "yes". But with seventeen other notable individuals people could be seeking, it seems like there's a greater number of readers that would be inconvenienced by making it an straight direct to this subject's article rather than a disambiguation where they can find the seventeen others they might instead be searching.
    We want to convenience the readers and get them where they want to go in the least number of clicks. You should not be comparing this Mike Johnson against singular other Mike Johnsons. Instead, you should be comparing him against all other Mike Johnsons. Will the number of readers who want to arrive at this article when searching "Mike Johnson" far outweigh the ones who hope to find any all of the other Mike/Michael Johnson? SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly the most significant "Mike Johnson" with a Wikipedia page, being that he is US Speaker of the House. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I knew this was coming. Too much WP:RECENTISM. He's dead last out of the outgoing from the dab page Michael Johnson (to which Mike Johnson is a redirect)[1]. Will that change soon? Probably, but that's just speculation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Estar8806: please read Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics where it states "Care should be taken when evaluating terms that are not identical to those of the articles concerned". Michael Johnson≠Mike Johnson. Sahaib (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
People searching Mike Johnson end up in the same place. Anybody who searches for "Mike Johnson" looking for the new speaker will end up on the same dab. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's speculation at all. He literally already is Speaker, and therefore, unlikely all the other Mike/Michael Johnsons, he is 2nd in line to become head of the 3rd largest state on the planet. That's pretty freakin notable. Cpotisch (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Except it is just speculation. WP:CRYSTALBALL explicitly says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions (emphasis my own). It is just a presumption of ours that he will become the primary topic. I agree with you, it will almost certainly happen. Key word being "almost". estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with the suggestion that it's in any way TBD as to whether he is the primary topic. I fully feel that he has already become the primary topic, by virtue of having an extremely important position. You can of course disagree with that, but my argument definitionally isn't one of speculation or presumption, because I'm saying that he has already become the most notable. Cpotisch (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I get that. You're certainly right about long-term significance. I just think we're obliged to hold off for a little while considering the pageviews. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose at the moment. This Mike Johnson has not as of yet obtained ubiquity in recognition as the prime individual associated with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support He's second in line to the presidency, he's a lot more notable than anyone else of the same name regardless of how long he remains in office. Khronicle I (talk)
  • Oppose renaming Michael Johnson as it is an extremely common name for which there can be no primary topic; neutral on moving Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) to Mike Johnson, as unlike the disambiguation page, the nicknamed version seems to be less used, though I am still uncertain. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Cpotisch, can you clarify what you are proposing be done with Michael Johnson if it is moved to Michael Johnson (disambiguation)? Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I'm fairly neutral about "Michael Johnson"? I think it probably makes sense to just redirect that to the dab as well, maybe with Mike as the top option there. Open to suggestions but I don't think that's super important either way for the big question here. Cpotisch (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support He is overwhelmingly more notable than any other person named Mike Johnson. I endorse the move. Floridian (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely the most notable and important Mike Johnson. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support He has became the most famous Mike Johnson in a matter of hours. TheInevitables (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Famous to political buffs maybe. But to many, the many Michael/Mike Johnson's in sports might be more known to them than this Michael Johnson.
    In order to be the default page for a name, he'd need to be near ubiquitously recognized as the primary individual associated with his name. Not slightly-more known, nor simply having held a position/profession of higher prestige. It's all about whether there is strong enough ubiquity.
    And all we know, his name-recognition might be at its peak this very moment. It's pretty probable that he will not be speaker come 2025 or earlier, and will possibly be a footnote in politics.
    Even if he hypothetically goes on to become the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history, he even then might still be all that more-known to the general American public (let alone to the broader world) than the other Michael/Mike Johnsons. Some speakers are just poorly-known in the public consciousness. Poll your average American on who Dennis Hastert (the current record-holder for longest-serving Republican speaker) is, most would never have heard the name let alone be able to tell you who he is. And Hastert has only been out-of-office since 2007. And Hastert is not the only long-serving House speaker that most people would not recognize. Even political buffs would be forgiven for not knowing who Tom Foley was, and he served an entire six-years until 1995 (longer than Nancy Pelosi, and longer than Boehner each did, to put that in perspective). SecretName101 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    It is also worth noting that three past house speakers have disambiguates in their article titles:
    And (in addition to his speakership) John Bell was the third-place finisher in the 1860 presidential election ( 12.6% of the vote), served as secretary of war (briefly) and was as a U.S. Senator for two terms. Far more historically notable than Johnson at this moment, yet he still has a disambiguation because he does not hold sufficiently ubiquitous association with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    1840s, 1860s, 1820s. no one knows them because they're too far back, that's why they have disambiguating titles. Mike Johnson is the speaker right now and is all over national and international news. JM2023 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    As I've said and others have, 24 hours into his speakership is too soon to judge that (just because he is a name people are interested in and are learning of right now) he will be a well-known-figure come two or four years from now who most people want to find when typing "Mike Johnson" more than want all others by that name.
    It is still quite possible this early in that he could instead become a quickly-disregarded footnote whose page visits will largely be from those navigating from the "predecessor" and "successor" link listings in McCarthy and the next speakers' infoboxes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    I suppose there's a point to be made that we don't have to consider every future contingency, we're not renaming the article forever, this is not going to be engraved in stone (well, presumably not). If in 2 years this person falls into obscurity and other Mike Johnsons can contest his placement as the primary Mike Johnson, then you can just change the article title again. Right now, and forseeably until his term is up, he is going to be the most sought Mike Johnson on Wikipedia by quite a lot. JM2023 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    I would definitely consider starting an RM for John Bell, as he is more than likely the primary topic for that name. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Snow close, anyone? Cpotisch (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose He only recently became relatively prominent in a global sense, it is far too soon to change. This name is very common in many different countries, we don’t do this for Mike Brown, Mike Smith, Mike Williams, Mike Jones, Mike Wilson, Mike Davis, or Mike Taylor. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aquabluetesla: those are cherry-picked examples what about Mike McCarthy, Mike Watt, Mike Quinn, Mike Holmes, Mike Farrell, Mike Simpson or Mike Rowe. Sahaib (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sahaib Yes it is cherry-picked. Johnson is the second most common surname in the United States. Every surname I linked is in the top 15, those surnames are nowhere near as common. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaker of the House is second in line to the President of the United States. Alexysun (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
and Senate President Pro Tempore is third in line. Your point?
off the top of your mind, do you even know who the current senate president pro tempore is?? Most people don’t. SecretName101 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Do I have to spoon feed everything to you? My sentence implies that he holds a very powerful position and therefore should be the main Mike Johnson, but apparently you have no inference skills.
Your 2nd question asked something completely irrelevant. You feel that you know a little bit more and wanted to flex your knowledge. Patty Murray btw. Alexysun (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: He is very recently the most prominent Mike Johnson around. However, the question of how long that lasts and whether he remains as speaker precludes us from making a move like James Madison and James Madison (disambiguation). If he's speaker for the next few months and it becomes evident that almost any reference to a "Mike Johnson" sans adjectives is to the new speaker, I think a move could be reconsidered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too soon. The current situation allows us to do a pageview test of all the Mike Johnsons present at Michael Johnson, after the initial hype around the speakership election has died down. As of 2022, he has a plurality but only 34% of the Mike Johnsons. In the last 4 days he is sitting at 97%, but we have no idea where it will ultimately settle. (Note that these percentages are an overestimate, since some Michael Johnsons might also be referred to as Mike Johnson. If we don't filter the massviews, the percentages are actually 3% and 77%, respectively.) We may end up moving it in the end, but prematurely making one topic primary will irreparably bias the pageview results and prevent us from performing this analysis in the future to know whether we made the right decision (since it will be the article people see when they type "Mike Johnson", regardless of whether that is what they intended to see). We should hold off in order to make a data-driven decision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose So the GOP elects yet another zealot and he's more notable than all the other Mike Johnsons in 24h? Give me a break. Until he demonstrates that he can even stay a couple of weeks in the post, Michael Johnson the sprinter will keep being the most notable Mike Johnson by far. In a couple of months, when this Speaker Mike Johnson keeps repeating that you can abort babies until seconds before birth and people believe him, THEN he can be notable enough to be the default Mike Johnson. Americans, ugh. --81.34.198.47 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    And of course it is already being moved. Wikipedia zealots, American zealots, all the same. 81.34.198.47 (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's not very productive, and it's probably disruptive, to express disdain for Americans in a discussion about improving an article with Americans (and I'm not an American either). I can imagine how well that disdain would go over if it was targeted at Indians instead. Actually I don't have to imagine it because someone recently caused outrage at ITN for expressing disdain toward Indians. JM2023 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't determine the notability of an article based on a politician's views on abortion. BlueShirtz (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not directly, at least. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    when this Speaker Mike Johnson keeps repeating that you can abort babies until seconds before birth. Your comment makes no sense. A very anti-abortion person would likely argue that you can do abortions never, not seconds before birth. Someone should probably collapse or delete this !vote and its responses since it may violate WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTFORUM, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, The US isn't the only place on the planet. It's like 331.9 million out of 7.888 billion people. Refer to Michael Johnson for all the other candidates. that this same RM could be run on and a similar oppose could be put with different wording.TarnishedPathtalk 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, While the guy above me's got a ridiculously silly reason for it, after starting off reading this section in strong support, I see the need to at least wait on this change. → Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House) or Mike Johnson (Speaker) could be better, though.GardenCosmos (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok then, Support because he's the leader of the lower house of the bicameral United States Congress which is controlled by the Republican Party and is therefore the highest ranking Republican in the country. He has way more political power than the VP Kamala Harris. He sits behind the President next to her at the SOTU. He will control the agenda of the House until his term expires or he's removed. Name another Mike Johnson that could possibly contest the position of primary topic. JM2023 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Collapsing extended debate
  • Then let's look at how some past House speakers' articles fared in the twenty-days prior to Matt Gaetz's introduction of a motion to vacate McCarthy (9/12 through 10/1)
    here are the ten that came before McCarthy (and here they are again, but with outlier Nancy Pelosi removed)
    and here are the ten who preceded that (worth noting that the one with by far the highest daily average of views, John Nance Garner at a daily average of 554, is better known for having been vice during FDR's first two terms, and twice a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination himself)
    Pretty clear that being a speaker does not give a longterm guarantee of a subject being a highly-sought-out article. It makes it possibly doubtful at this point that Johnson will remain a more desired search result than all other Mike Johnson's combined.
    SecretName101 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Time to let others comment. You're nearing the WP:BLUDGEON point. Nemov (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Bludgeoning (per that link) typically "means making the same argument over and over", did I previously provide these page view links as an argument? No. #NotBludgeoning if you are entering new supporting evidence. SecretName101 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Let me quote direectly from the essay. Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. This is exactly what you're doing. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. JM2023 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    if he becomes less famous long after he retires, then you can change the article title then. you're doing WP:CRYSTAL. JM2023 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    No. Assuming sustained prominence as a desired search term far surpassing the combined interest in all seventeen other Mike/Michael Johnson after less than 24 hours in the news would be WP:CRYSTAL SecretName101 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    If assuming the current Speaker of the House and leader of the congressional Republican Party is going to continue being famous is WP:CRYSTAL, then literally everything is and we should just have no primary topics at all for anything. JM2023 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    We aren't here debating if he'll be "famous". That'd be more in line with WP:Notability, and I do not see us discussing the deletion of this article. Were are here discussing whether he'd be enough of a desired search term above all other Mike Johnsons (combined) here and into the future SecretName101 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    the difference being I'm looking at the near future and you are looking at the far future. there is no reason to believe the current speaker of the house is not going to be a more desired search term than all other mike johnsons. what you're doing is looking at other speakers from long ago and at their pageviews, which you then project onto this current speaker; thats more speculative. It is almost as certain that the speaker will be the primary Mike Johnson as long as he is speaker as it is that large grey animals will be the primary Elephant. And besides, "fame" is basically "search popularity". JM2023 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    @JM2023 Also challenging me on which other Mike Johnson could be a primary topic is quite a strawman when I am arguing for the target Mike Johnson to continue to redirect to Michael Johnson (disambiguation) due to there being a lack of a candidate with significant-enough claim to be a primary topic above the combined interest in the other Mike/Michael Johnsons SecretName101 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    You misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to argue that another one could be the primary topic, I'm asking you to argue that another one could challenge this one's position as primary topic i.e., someone who is of sufficient fame that it makes none of them the primary topic. I know what you are arguing. JM2023 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Hence why it is a complete strawman ("informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction") SecretName101 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    you can quote the definition of strawman all you want but unless you can demonstrate how it applies its nonsensical to do so. I argued extensively that he was the primary topic, and asked you if you could name another mike johnson who could justify this one not being the primary topic. thats not a strawman. i'm not refuting an argument that is not under discussion. you said yourself that you're arguing that none of them should be the primary topic, I asked you to show why you believe that in spite of my own argument. JM2023 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment "He's second in line to the [US] presidency" has been repeatedly offered as if it's self-evidently an argument for primary topic status. Is the idea here that, if asked to rank a list of identically named people (artists, athletes, politicians...) by order of importance, one should always pick the one who orbits closest to the US president? Are we building an encyclopedia in which article subjects are primarily appraised by their relationship to the US president? Because if that's the encyclopedia that we're building, that sucks. Einsof (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    the highest level of political prominence is rather well-illustrated through representation by reminding others that someone's legally within 2 heartbeats of being the head of state and government of the world's sole superpower. Although it's still better for those people to do as I did and add another comment listing other reasons. And of course it's not always the case that the argument is sensical anyway; If Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson were both named Mike Johnson then obviously this one would not be the primary topic. JM2023 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    The idea that USA is the world's sole superpower may have been accepted in the 90s right after the Soviet Union fell, but that status has been diminishing since, and may now be an oversimplification. Please see Superpower#Post-Cold War era. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Regardless of if the USA is the world's "sole superpower," it is at the very least one of only a handful. Epicradman123 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    "The US is a superpower" doesn't get you any closer to a successful argument for why someone in this person's position should be considered more important than other people with the same name. Essentially it's an argument that Wikipedia should assess the importance of human subjects by their ability to do things like facilitate bombing campaigns, incentivize the conversion of oil into plastic, or whatever else superpowers do these days. You've made no argument at all for why those things are more important than music, technology, sports, or anything else that people with the same name may have been involved in. Einsof (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For now, very news-y. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.He is second line for Presidency.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Support he’s now the most prevalent Mike Johnson. Even if he’s speaker for a short time, he’ll still be the most prevalent Mike Johnson. Though the opposition does have valid reasoning, but I still support the change.--✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Please rename the page as James "Mike" Johnson. As he should respect his given name by his parents instead of asking us to use his chosen name. DMLouis1975 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — DMLouis1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia follows what the sources say, not what you want him to be called or what his government name is. his full name is at the start of the lede, titles are for common names. no one calls him james. JM2023 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@DMLouis1975 that would be in violation of WP:COMMONAME SecretName101 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
oh look at that we actually agreed on something. JM2023 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough evidence yet to prove this subject's notability is a WP:RECENTISM issue. That, and there are quite a few "Mike Johnson" subjects at Michael Johnson. (By the way, FYI to everyone using "WP:TOOSOON" here as I almost did: You may want to read the content of that essay as it is about notability for the subject's article's existence, not about gauging the subject's notability above others.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I also oppose any disambiguator changes to the title, considering all other disambiguators suggested so far violate WP:PRECISE against "Louisiana politician" since the phrase "Louisiana politician" is not ambiguous in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    "Louisiana politician" implies he is a politician in the State of Louisiana, which he is not; the State of Louisiana is a different government than the federal House of Representatives. JM2023 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    No, it implies that the politician represents or represented the state of Louisiana in any capacity, federally or locally, by the voters. (I'd recommend researching Wikipedia a bit next time before making such a obviously bogus claim.) In fact, this subject, being a member of the house, technically only represents the district that voted him into office since those are who he technically represents and the only constituency that can vote for and/or against him in elections, regardless of what miscellaneous title any federal entity also bestows on him. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    I don't know how "researching Wikipedia" would change my not-bogus claim that the average reader would see "[state] politician" and think that it means the politician is at the state level. ANd he's not just a representative either; he's in charge of half a branch of federal government. This isn't just a "miscellaneous title". JM2023 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    "I don't know how "researching Wikipedia" would change my not-bogus claim that the average reader would see "[state] politician" and think that it means the politician is at the state level. "Precedence with how disambiguators are set up in other article titles" is the answer. I've been dabbing for decades (it's what I prefer to do here), so I know this is the case. Also, regarding "ANd he's not just a representative either; he's in charge of half a branch of federal government.": As much "power" as that title may hold, it's still a miscellaneous title that was bestowed upon this individual while still a representative by some entity other than the voters of the politician's constituency ... nothing wrong there with an accurate use of a word. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    the point is that it's not just a title, he's the leader of half the federal legislature. That gives him a lot of power and has nothing to do with representing the state of Louisiana. And the point still stands that it looks provincial, especially when the one other Mike Johnson American politician was a state-level one from Oklahoma. Hypothetically, would you accept Mike Johnson (speaker)? Regardless, supposed precedents can be ignored and there are no firm rules, and if we can have primary topics where we would have for example both a "Mike Johnson" and a "Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician)" I don't see why we can't have a "Mike Johnson (politician) and a "Mike Johnson" (Oklahoma politician)" if this Mike Johnson is obviously the primary topic in terms of politicians. JM2023 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    For the record, I am dropping the stick here as this argument is becoming unnecessarily circular. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Support no other Mike Johnson has obtained such a high office. Until he leaves congress or the speakership he will easily remain as the most relevant Mike Johnson. TheFellaVB (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Mike Johnson due to his high office is far more prominent than the many other Mike Johnson’s that share his name. I would note that I also believe Michael Johnson should direct to disambiguation not to this Mike Johnson. Dashing24 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. "Mike Johnson" is a very common name, shared by many topics. Most people haven't heard of this politician, and that might stay true if he doesn't last long in his one-day-old position. It would also be nice to hear the opinion of Necrothesp, who seems familiar with the convention for naming of articles about politicians on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Pinging @Necrothesp: for you SecretName101 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Initially I was supportive of the change but having read above arguments I think there is some reasonable grounds to hold off on making the change. I don't think he will nessicarily be more notable than all other Mike Johnsons combined beyond the current interest in him. Support putting him at the top of the disambig page. Support changing from "louisiana politican" to something like "politician".--TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The difficulty in looking up this Mike Johnson in Wikipedia got a mention in Politico for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Figured something happened with third party sources that led to more participation here, but I didn't have any hint of what it was until now. (I'm the one who added the {{Not a ballot}} tag.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Why are you whispering? JM2023 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Why do you care? Are your actions rationalizing the tag I placed? Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    What's with the sudden hostile tone? I just wanted to know why your reply was so small compared to the rest, I had never seen that before and I wondered if it meant something different.
    What does Are your actions rationalizing the tag I placed mean? Are you accusing me of canvassing or accusing me of being canvassed? I was here long before you placed that tag. I am here because he was nominated at ITN, I came to the article and wanted to fix the fact that his podcast was basically being promoted in the article with an external link, so I went to the talk page to see if anyone had said anything about it before I changed it, stumbling into this proposal. JM2023 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    @MZMcBride does it not just say an Irish politician didn't know about the politician and turned to Wikipedia to find out? Not that he found it difficult to find the person on Wikipedia, which isn't the same thing? — Karnataka talk 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    he did find it difficult to find the specific article apparently:

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

    JM2023 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, thanks. — Karnataka talk 07:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose; even if he is House Speaker (for now), he's hardly the most well known "Mike/Michael Johnson". Trivialist (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Truly a genuine question: who is then? While both names are common, I can't think of a more famous Mike/Michael Johnson. Moncrief (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    That answer probably varies significantly depending on where the reader lives. DJ Cane (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Mike Johnson due to his high position and notability compared to others with the same name. The current title using Louisiana politician makes it sound like he's just some state government official in Baton Rouge. BogLogs (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    that's also what i thought it looks like JM2023 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - probably the most worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) — StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose Premature request. Mike Johnson is a very common name and he is not the most famous person with this name. Dl.thinker (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - The current name Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) is no longer the most appropriate title. Either Mike Johnson or something like Mike Johnson (House Speaker) would be more appropriate. I think that he is likely the most notable of all Mike Johnsons. But I also agree with arguments stating that the metric that should be targeted is reducing the time spent by users getting to their intended article. In this case, he would likely need to be the intended target for the majority of searches for his name / more notable than all other Mike Johnsons combined. Not sure if it's possible to make a data driven decision here, but that would be the ideal approach.
YordleSquire (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If being Speaker of the House made him automatically primary then George Thomas, who was Speaker of the House of Commons for seven years (and an MP for 38) and extremely well-known in the UK, would clearly also be primary. However, he isn't. And neither is this Speaker, especially since he's only just been elected. His position doesn't make him automatically the primary topic when there are so many others by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Comment: Your point is well taken, but I just wanted to very briefly mention that the US Speaker of the House is a far less ceremonial position than its UK equivalent. It's a partisan position in the US, among other differences. Moncrief (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    I'm aware of that, but that doesn't make the holder of the post any more or less notable. George Thomas was an incredibly well-known figure in Britain during his seven years in office, probably the best-known Speaker of the 20th century, yet he is not primary. My point is that I don't think we can say this newly-elected Speaker should immediately become primary topic simply because of his position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    At least he doesn't have a parenthesis in his article name. Having a title: "1st Viscount Tonypandy" in the article name actually looks great. Alexysun (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait. I feel like it's too soon to decide whether or not he will be topical in the future. He's not even the most popular Mike/Michael Johnson; according to my research, there are at least two Michael Johnsons who have more page views than him. The best option is to wait. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to another disambiguation, however. Spinixster (chat!) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Good graph. I'm guessing the subject will have a bit of a spike in October. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Funny it just happens to end in September, right before this Mike Johnson became notable. If in 2 years he is no longer notable then editors can change the title to something else. JM2023 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    I thought that was because that particular tool doesn't show the current month, but maybe there is conspiracy afoot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's not to say anyone conspired, like you said there is no data there for the current month, but I think that's more of a reason that recent page views should have also been included so that we can also see this month's data next to the other data, since this person was basically unknown until this month. People can and do become notable overnight, especially when elected to the highest position of the Republican Party and the leader of half a branch of government. JM2023 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Per recent page views, this page had 35,372 views on 24 October 2023, then had about 30 times more page views the next day with 1,019,344 views on 25 October 2023, but then the view count went down by more than half then next day with 418,605 page views on 26 October 2023. Until there are more days' page views on record, the 50% drop in views, should the trend continue, validate WP:RECENTISM claims that traditionally happen after news about a subject breaks. In addition, there is also the WP:WORLDWIDE issue; notability of this subject in the United States (temporary or otherwise) does not necessarily extend to English-reading audiences in countries other than the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    I can't speak for the entire world outside of the US obviously, but I will say that (1) I am not American (2) I do not live in the United States (3) I am part of the English-reading audience, and I don't really anticipate this Mike Johnson's page views falling down close to any others (and besides, almost all other Mike Johnsons are also Americans anyway). I also don't think we should entirely discount the United States notability of this figure given the US has a higher population than every other primarily English-speaking country combined. JM2023 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    "...the US has a higher population than every other primarily English-speaking country combined. Incorrect: India has English as a primary language and has a population that is about 4x the size of the United States, and this for some reason has to be mentioned in almost every discussion to make the "US has the most English-speaking population" claim. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    please see this map for more information. JM2023 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Steel1943: The "US has the most English-speaking population" claim is correct, the US has over twice the amount of India per List of countries by English-speaking population. Sahaib (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Either way though, some editors tend to weigh all English-speaking countries equally when it comes to a subject's notability, regardless of individual English-speaking populations of the respective countries. So, I still believe there is a valid WP:WORLDWIDE bias claim here. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support While page view counts are helpful, the comparison should be with others with the title Mike Johnson, rather than the sprinter or fighter who call themselves Michael Johnson. In any case, the Speaker of the US House is of sufficient prominence in the English speaking world to be considered the primary topic. Less for their position in the line of succession, which is somewhat theoretical, but as the legislative leader of one of the houses and leader in some respects of their party (even if the former president is the de facto leader). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Using data from before 25 October is not relevant for this discussion. People do become more notable overnight due to changing events, and that's exactly what happened here. Moncrief (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, data from before 25 October is relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose recentism, can be reopened later — Karnataka talk 11:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it’s too soon, too recent and too common a name to jump the gun so soon. JamesVilla44 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the move to Mike Johnson per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC- oppose anything with Michael Johnson. StAnselm (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Due to notability Bokmanrocks01 (talk)
  • Support Mike Johnson, but no change to the DAB at Michael Johnson. There are a lot of bad arguments on both sides: just because there are "a lot" of Michael Johnson's doesn't mean there is no primary topic, and just because he is on the list of US presidential succession doesn't mean he is the primary topic.
    None of the people named Mike/Michael Johnson were especially notable before the recent Speaker's election, and the two most prominent by pageviews are exclusively "Michael" in sources. I don't see any suggestion that there is another "Mike Johnson" that is even close to being as notable to the new Speaker; he is the primary topic. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Mike Johnson per reasons stated above. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is perhaps the one time WP:RECENTISM should be ignored. We also gave King Charles (Charles III) a free pass when his regnal name was confirmed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Ha, I voted "oppose" in that request as well, and then the thing ended up being closed early after igniting more figurative flames than this discussion currently has. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    I do not think the office of speaker and the monarch of the UK and more than a dozen other countries are equally prominent in infamy. Note: speaker of the House does not get their face plastered on currency and emblem plastered on mail boxes and portrait hung in schools and government offices. Nobody swears an oath to the speaker “and his heirs.” SecretName101 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Additionally, King Charles was up against royalty from either much smaller nations, a long time ago, or both. The current king of several major powers is significantly more notable than people who died over a hundred years ago. DJ Cane (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for now. This decision should be driven by data, and we don't have enough of it yet. My proposed standard would be that Speaker Mike Johnson retain more than twice as many pageviews as all other Mike Johnsons combined, measured in about a month or so (to allow for the intense interest in him right now to level out). I am supportive, however, of changing (Louisiana politician) to something else.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I echo the sentiments of numerous others on the basis of WP:RECENTISM. I do think it would be appropriate to change to something like (U.S. Congressman) like User:SecretName101 suggested. That said, do we want to change it to that now and then change it again in a few months if it becomes clear that moving this page to Mike Johnson is appropriate? I lean slightly no on that front but won't vote oppose if we have that discussion in the future. DJ Cane (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing any parenthetical disambiguation, but Support changing the parenthetical disambiguation from "(Louisiana politician)" to "(Speaker of the House)". He is now much better known as the Speaker of the House than as an elected official from Louisiana. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaker of what house? Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives? Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives? Speaker of the House of Commons in Canada? Einsof (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't matter which House, because (as far as I can tell), there are no other Michael Johnsons that are Speakers of any other House. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps Michael Johnson (U.S House Speaker)? SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Or Michael Johnson (U.S Speaker of the House) SecretName101 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Either flavor works for me. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Mike Johnson per reasons state above, if not that then at least it should be changed to Mike Johnson (politician) SixulaTalk 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    What about
    ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    This same argument can be made against both Mike Johnson or Mike Johnson (politician), but both have the same counterargument, that being that Mike Johnson is either the primary Mike Johnson or the primary Mike Johnson (politician). Also, there is only one other Mike Johnson there, the rest are Michael Johnsons, and this guy's real name is James Johnson, not Michael Johnson. JM2023 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    Only the Oklahoma guy is called "Mike", however. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    sometimes, even if “Mike” is not the most common name variant used to refer to an individual, the individual still might be occasional referee to by “Mike”.
    for instance, even though they are more commonly referred to as “Michael”, I have occasionally heard both Michael Dukakis and Michael Del Zotto referred to as “Mike”. So you cannot rule out that some people searching “Mike Johnson” will be looking for someone with a “Michael Johnson” article
    BUT I feel FAR safer with him being the primary for the disambiguate “politician” than I would at this moment for his entire name . Therefore I’m not opposed to that. SecretName101 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    To my non-American eyes, having one American (Oklahoma politician) and one (Politician) would look a bit weird though. I'm not against changing this article to (Speaker) or something like that. If things change, we can change it again. But, I think no change is the way to go atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- clearly recentism -- let's at least wait to see whether he lasts longer than the proverbial lettuce. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity: that is a bad comparison as Liz Truss's short tenure added to her notability globally and resulted in the lettuce article you linked. Sahaib (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I strongly support and encourage everyone to do so. We are talking about the third most powerful (tbh I would say second) person in the country; yet some still assert that he is confused with other Mike Johnsons. That is a fallacious statement! He is the leader of the Republican agenda in the Congress and currently everyone's eyes are on him. That would be ridiculous to have (Louisiana politician) as his article's name as if he is just an ordinary politician. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait a little bit and see what the PRIMARYTOPIC will be later on. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support third most powerful (tbh I would say second) person in the country Yger (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as WP:TOOSOON, and the glaringly obvious fact that the disamgiguation page has far too many other articles about people with the same name for any one of them to be the primary topic. The proposal is infected with recentism. 100 years from now, will anyone care who the politician was, compared to an artist whose work has endured for that duration? I think not. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    Is there a guideline that says we have to be confident that in 100 years our primary topic articles are still primary topics? A lot of editors' arguments make it seem like these titles are set in stone. JM2023 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    Well, it's up to the editors 100 years later whether to keep or change the article's name :) EloquentEditor (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak support I believe, as others have mentioned that this Mike Johnson is, and will continue to be regardless of what happens for quite some time, the primary topic, because either (a) Mike Johnson will continue as Speaker like normal, and will be commonly searched for that reason, or (b) he will resign or be removed for some (probably notable) reason, and will be searched for that reason. I definitely do see the point that others citing WP:TOSOON are making, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke10.27 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Very clearly the primary topic at this point. Thmymerc (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - for reasons articulated by other supporters. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The new Speaker is clearly the primary topic by a wide margin. As to the earlier discussion on what to do with Michael Johnson, redirect that to the (to be created) Michael Johnson (disambiguation) Bestagon ⬡ 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - As many have noted, he is the most notable. Should probably redirect MAGA Mike to him, too. Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for the time being. Not only are there a lot of notable people named Michael Johnson, there are a lot of notable people named Mike Johnson specifically. The Louisiana politician certainly isn't the primary topic with respect to usage – looking at pageview stats, his monthly average views can be surpassed by combining as few as three other same-named figures. As for significance, while I agree that he likely has more significance than any one other Mike Johnson, he hasn't yet had time to build a lasting reputation in the public eye; that is to say, I don't think he's yet reached enough long-term significance to justify giving him WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status. (He may yet become a more apparent PRIMARYTOPIC, of course, but right now all we can appraise are the facts as they currently stand.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Notice that pageview stats go to September 2023, and he became notable in October 2023 when he was elected Speaker. You need to look at recent page views to get the picture. JM2023 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    That's a good point – I'd seen that he had large spikes before (e.g. in 2019 when he was working the impeachment trial) and had assumed that the Speaker view spike was comparable in scope to those. But taking the daily pageviews over a longer term, his recent spike absolutely dwarfs his previous jumps. Changing my !vote to neutral on this one. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:TOOSOON there is simply no evidence at all offered that WORLDWIDE the name is recognisable to anyone other than US-politics buffs. The name is very generic (unlike say [[Mitch McConnell|the previous speaker) - and probably unrecognisable even to many readers who are aware of the recent speaker-election dramas. Even if he is destined to become the best known person in a pretty big field of namesakes, he isn't yet recognisable on his own. If the change proposed were to 'American politician' or similar, I could see the sense, but not this change, this soon. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
    Mitch McConnell was not the previous speaker, he is the current minority leader in the senate. JM (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Are there any reliable sources showing Mike Johnson had any control over the site, building, supporting it, and/or tied to any of his beliefs? If not then at best you could make mention as part of what his wife does for work/beliefs section. ContentEditman (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
That's pretty easy, actually. They co-hosted Truth be Told (podcast) on religious topics that has been widely discussed as anti-LGBT. The podcast is specifically referenced in the Vanity Fair article about the remarks in question. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is GovTrack not a reliable source?

In section "Immigration," a fact sourced to GovTrack is marked as [better source needed]. Is GovTrack not a reliable source? Luke10.27 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a perfect source as it lacks rigorous editorial oversight. However, I believe that many editors have concluded that its contents are generally accurate enough to warrant use (when needed) until preferable sources are located. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps another editor can use Govtrack sources with the Veterans section and re-add? Twillisjr (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Covenant Eyes

Johnson has gone on the record saying he uses the software, with his 17-year-old son as his “accountability partner”. This has drawn criticism for the inherent security issues that come from a sitting member of Congress using such an app. [2] 2600:1014:B072:E984:A06A:7823:15CC:5190 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The scoop came through Rolling Stone, a deprecated source on political matters. Speaking very frankly, this is really not that notable. If there are formal proposals that Johnson should be prohibited from accessing certain classified information or general sustained coverage about this topic, maybe we can figure out a way to include it. But the way that a couple of media outlets that definitely aren't papers of record have discussed this subject suggests less journalistic investigation than sensationalism about something fairly typical among several million Americans. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
TNR verifies he's talked about it elsewhere, National Catholic Register defends it and notes the online mockery, Deseret News, LATimes (op-ed), Fox News, Newsweek (2), Guardian, NYMag have all covered it. Insider noted his use, traces how it is mandated by courts, and discusses the possible security issues (2). Several link to Wired's coverage of the possible security issues with it (2, interviewing MacArthur Justice Center, GWU, National Bail Fund Network), which talk about its use in "legal settings". Covenant Eyes' help page confirms it works through taking screenshots. Seems it's notable enough, run of the mill or security issues or not. tedder (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I say wait another week. Not everything that receives coverage is encyclopedic, but this seems like it could merit inclusion given the breadth of coverage. If it's still getting mentioned in a week, the variety of sources now discussing it enables a very nuanced take. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

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

Disagree When a public official has selected his or her official portrait, we should generally use that as the first image unless there's a good reason not to (e.g., it's woefully out of date). Here, I don't even see much difference between the two photos. Nothing about the photo you link to screams "Speaker" to me. A photo of Johnson wielding the gavel would be a good addition, for further down in the article. By way of comparison, in the Kevin McCarthy article, the principal photo is his official photo. A photo of him holding the gavel is included further down. JamesMLane t c 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
"Informal portrait" is the wrong caption, but this is a preferable photo. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I also disagree. The current portrait is sufficient until an official speaker's one is released, à la McCarthy. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The current photo is better for now. For one, it's an official portrait. For another, the alternative has some weird blurring on the bottom, reducing its clarity. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4th disagree. current photo is official portrait, proposed photo is a candid shot at a weird angle with blurring on the bottom. JM (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Johnson/Archive_2&oldid=1236893196"