Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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


 * Tagging editors who were previously involved in this discussion above., , , , , , , , , , and  so we don't continue the conversation above, as there's not going to be an uncontroversial choice outside of this. Multiple users have also requested a RFC on the matter. Therefore, while a last resort, I created one. KlayCax (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also tagging editors not directly involved but at least tangentially related to this discussion., , , . KlayCax (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion really. I do think that if a politician votes for something, it should be added. There is a certain deception about politicians behaviors that deflect what they actually stand for when push comes to shove, to other discussions. Transparency is something we are blessed on the internet to have, so we can uncover the truth. Please review the Veterans section of this talk page, because disabled veterans are being misled. Twillisjr (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Include (Note: RFC starter): Large-scale and overwhelming mention in biographies of Johnson in the international press. Clearly meets the boundaries of notability.
 * Sodomy laws were supported by many political figures — alongside a significant percentage of the general public — in the early 2000s. This has only recently become a stance that was seen as "negative". It is a misapplication of WP: NPOV and not an instance of bias to include what ABC News labeled a "prominent" (likely the most) amicus brief of the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
 * Johnson notably spent years advocating for the criminalization of gay sex and it is a notable part of his biography per an abundance of many, many, many, many, many reliable sources. This is an obvious no-brainer for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Include weight reflected in sources should be reflected in the article. ஃ (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. Received widespread coverage in RSs, and correspondingly there are multiple paragraphs about it in the relevant subsection of this article. The lede must therefore summarize this information. Einsof (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Given this detail's level of coverage in reliable sources as well its proportionate coverage in the Wikipedia article itself, it seems to be warranted per WP:DUE and MOS:LEADBIO. - Aoidh (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. I think the editors before me have hit the nail on the head here. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons listed in short discussion before this editor rushed to create another RFC. This information isn't central to this biography. It's certainly a popular WP:RECENT topic for a person just introduced to the country. This information is adequately covered in the article, but contentious content like this should wait to be included in the lead until time has passed per WP:LEADBIO that states well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. Johnson is notable for being a politician and being speaker of the house. What happened 20 years ago is fair game to include, but it's the reason this biography exist or should be a part of the lead. Nemov (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Events from twenty years ago aren't recent events, so the portion of WP:LEADBIO that you quoted is inapplicable. Ditto for any appeal to WP:RECENTISM, which makes it clear in its first sentence that it is dealing with an imbalanced focus on recent events (emphasis added). Einsof (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage of what happened 20 years ago is recent. If this was why he was notable then this article would have existed 15 years ago. The historical perspective here is clouded because we have an avalanche in coverage over the past week. Surveying this historical perspective can be difficult on contentious topics like biographies for politicians, but patience is best used in these situations. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage of what happened 20 years ago is recent. That's not a workable criterion for excluding information. It would mean that any time an old event receives a new round of media coverage, it could be scrubbed from an article because now the coverage is recent again. Einsof (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The information isn't being excluded or scubbed. It's receiving undue attention in the lead because of a recent coverage. You haven't addressed the historical perspective. Nemov (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't argue for exclusion based on historical perspective; you argued for exclusion by invoking guidelines that are inapplicable because they only apply to recent events. These events happened two decades ago. Einsof (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Include It's being reported in recent days by mainstream news outlets which obviously consider it significant. Clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV to include. KlayCax has supplied enough information to show that this is the case and a consensus here from uninvolved editors will surmount any COI from their declared support of the opposing Democratic Party. To those who say that the information was not included on the page a week ago, well, he wasn't a major national political figure a week ago either, and there wasn't such an abundance of sources covering his actions. JM2023 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include Very much of who he is and wildly reported. No reason to leave this out. ContentEditman (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reason Nemov already noted, along with the fact that this has only recently come to light. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The time is rather unimportant. It is verifiably notable. And once notable, always notable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Include, of course. The issue is decided on the context itself of Johnson's proposal. By every kind of social and legal consideration, consensual sex between adults, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual or any other kind of sex, has been for a long time permissible in most countries, and, in particular, in the United States. Hence, American politician Johnson's initiative represents a significant anachronism that inevitably shapes his whole political and ideological agenda. No trivial incident this. It fully deserves a place in the summary offered by the lede. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems a weird stance to me for the specific text. The text seems to concentrate on Johnson's efforts up to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 which is only when became permissible in all of the US. Perhaps Johnson's efforts didn't end there but the proposed text doesn't IMO convey it. Even in worldwide terms, a read of decriminalisation of homosexuality suggests that it was only in the 1980s and 1990s when you could really say it became "permissible in most countries", I mean heck it was only 1981 when you got the first court case saying it should not be criminalised and after that were it became a requirement to joint he EU. While 1980s and 1990s is before 2003, I don't think I would say something which only happened then is a long time before 2003. If Johnson made active efforts to overturn such a landmark Supreme Court case, this IMO might be worth mentioning without getting into permissibility outside the US. But the proposed text IMO doesn't do that instead it seems to suggest his efforts culminated in a failed attempt to prevent that decision. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, I could offer my counter arguments about the chronology but it'd be a distraction to the main RfC-point. The question asked is, as follows: "Is this piece of information neutral and notable enough to include in the lead?" Now, I would not know what "neutral" is supposed to mean there but, as I suggested, the contested "piece of information" should find a place in the lead. (That piece is: "While working at the Alliance Defending Freedom, he advocated for the criminalization of gay sex and wrote a prominent amicus brief opposing the eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).") The lead of every Wikipedia article presents a concise overview of the article's topic and summarizes the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The sentence proposed in this RfC is fine and fitting for the lead; in the text, the information can, of course, be expanded. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Include for now, lead follows body, and there is enough content in the body about this that it merits a mention in the lead for now. but i want to note that this man’s political career has, in many ways, just begun. he is arguably now the third most powerful individual on the planet, and it is highly likely that this article will soon have enough additional notable things to discuss about him that the amount of weight assigned to this one, narrow controversy could eventually become undue. isadora of ibiza   (talk)  21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no way this man is the third most powerful on the planet. For one thing, he's only the leader of a rather undisciplined parliamentary caucus which just finished stabbing its former leader in the back and could barely come together to elect either him or his predecessor, and in the US there is a second, more powerful chamber, and a head of state with real veto power. Secondly, who do you consider the second? Kamala as VP has no constitutional power except to break ties in the Senate. She only gets power if Joe is incapacitated. Thirdly, there are men with autocratic control over large and populous nuclear power countries like Xi in China, Putin in Russia, and to a more democratic extent Modi in India and Sunak in Britain; there is no way being house speaker puts him ahead of any of them. In summary, although his position and power makes him well known enough to be the primary topic, his power level is highly overrated in your own !vote JM2023 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i never said that Kamala was number two. i know if i were him i wouldn’t be introducing myself as the thirty-fifth most powerful man on the planet, right after AMLO but before Elon Musk. do you really think that the proportion of coverage devoted towards this one facet of his life will not become diluted in the face of the role he has just taken on?
 * isadora of ibiza  (talk)  06:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I were him, I wouldn't be introducing myself by commenting on how powerful I am in the planet period. It avoids people thinking I'm crazy for overestimating my power, or frankly just for saying it. I could be wrong, but I suspect even the vast majority of US presidents except possibly for one notable recent exception who's obvious but I won't mention for BLP reasons, never introduced themselves as the most powerful person on the planet no matter if they genuinely believe it. Beyond people just thinking you're crazy to do that regardless of whether they believe you, there's the aspect of real power means you don't need to tell everyone how powerful you are. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. I count 14 in support and 3 opposed.  Does constitute sufficient (82%) majority? SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @SocDoneLeft, please note that this is not a vote. All final decisions are based on arguments that each person gives. Whoever's argument is stronger will be the final decision, no matter how many people vote for a side. &mdash; Karnataka  talk  07:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. Supporting the criminalization of homosexuality is an extraordinarily uncommon stance, one that is not embraced even among the most conservative Americans. It's highly doubtful that any previous U.S. House Speaker has invested as much effort in combating the rights of the LGBT population as Johnson has. Considering his influential position as second-in-line and the extensive media coverage surrounding his distinctive anti-LGBT rhetoric, this information is undeniably pertinent for inclusion in the lead section of the article. Guycn2 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include his hardline anti-homosexuality stance is probably what the average person would know and remember him for. Not mentioning that is WP:UNDUE and borders on whitewashing. Dronebogus (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the average person knows that Johnson is the new speaker of the House. Some people want very badly for the average person to know that Johnson wrote a controversial brief in a Supreme Court case 20 years ago. MonMothma (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mainstream media. They are who decides what gets significant coverage and therefore what is WP:DUE which is why Wikipedia can be wrong. JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. Per what others have said. His views and actions on the topic are clearly well-known and well-documented for him. To me, WP:LEADBIO and WP:DUE clearly dictate his views and actions regarding this topic need to be included in the lead. Wikipedialuva (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would have to say that there is overwhelming weight for inclusion. As long as it is worded neutrally and accurately. lead follows body. If there is enough weight in the body it should be mentioned in the lead proportionate to its weight in the body.  MaximusEditor (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Include I have not yet edited the article but have watched its construction with the interest of our reader in mind. In todays world-wide readership (referring to Wikipedia for pertinent information when a "new" individual of importance emerges) Johnson's past (and possibly current) beliefs regarding sodomy laws and homosexuality are factual and worthy of mention. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   08:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include as above —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include - looking through the article's history, it looks like this was recently added. Considering he is now second in line for the presidency, after the VP, are his views about dehumanizing LGBTQ+ people historically significant? According to the weight of reliable sources reporting on this, yes it is DUE for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 08:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include in broad strokes as his efforts to this effect helped raise his profile and are arguably his most notable non-congressional works, but no need to pull out that specific amicus brief. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose specific proposal Support general proposal of including has opposition to gay rights. Johnson is on record (Globe & Mail) as saying "“The state is right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual conduct,” he wrote in an op-ed from the time. In others, he described same-sex relationships as “inherently unnatural,” “harmful and costly,” as well as a “dangerous lifestyle.” These were statements made in his own name. I'm very reluctant to make him personally responsible for statements made in his professional capacity while working for ADF. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include in some form; coverage on this aspect is absolutely overwhelming and makes up a significant part of the overall coverage the subject has received. Neither can it really be called recentism or a "recent event" when it reflects views he has held going back twenty years. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not of central or primary importance for the subject.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not overshadow his career. Per WP:RECENT, it's just the media responding to his recently-elected position as US speaker. Jerium (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Include. After receiving a notice of the existence of this discussion today I've read all the comments here and in the article itself. I believe Johnson's extreme homophobia is an important part of his worldview and it belongs in the lede. It's one personal core characteristic that is unlikely to change. It is an important signpost revealing his ignorance and includes as an article of faith that the world came into being in October 4004 B.C. (See the Ussher chronology}. He doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. He believes that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from Trump. I'm amazed that he was able to graduate from Loyola law school and I worry for the U.S. with him being at the helm of the House and second in line for the presidency. Wikipedia readers should have available this understanding his worldview from the initial paragraph.Activist (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Activist, while I agree that this should be included in the lead, I think your rationale is demonstrative of why so many other editors might have concern regarding including this material. Wikipedia strives to collect and reflect reliable sources, not leave editors with a subjective impression. I hope that the coming months allows this article to retain its current content but use fewer POV'd references entitled "Mike Johnson Hates America, But He Believes He Can Save It" or "21 Not-Fun Facts About Speaker Mike Johnson". ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings, all. I'm afraid I agree with everything Pbritti wrote above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pbritti is right. MonMothma (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Include in some form or another. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  13:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike's Money?
There was a report by The Daily Beast about how Mike Johnson doesn't have a bank account. He hasn't disclosed any assets as a member of Congress in several years. The takeaways seem to be that he either lives paycheck to paycheck or he's hiding something. I was surprised that there's no mention of it on this page. This is probably noteworthy under the Personal Life section for now, right? Jcc724 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find a couple of strong sources on this, I'd say it's probably worth briefly mentioning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say so, then its due for the personal life section. probably shouldnt add the speculation as to whether or not "he's hiding something". JM (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, adding in our own insight or "speculation" breaches WP:OR. As editors we are only here to document what WP:RS say about a subject.  If you can provide some RS we can start there. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Support (note: RFC submitter) per reliable sources. It's entirely in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, as shown by the FA-tier articles on Yassar Arafat, Steve Biko, and Carlos Castillo Armas, among others. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources:
 * Newsweek:
 * Bloomberg:
 * Sky News:
 * I:
 * Vox:
 * Diario AS:
 * Oppose Setting aside the o WP:RFCBEFORE issue with this RFC... this content is barely mentioned in the rest of the article. but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The lead should follow the body. If this is to be mentioned it needs to be fleshed out more in the article before being included in the lead. Nemov (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: There are a lot of "get to know him" pieces flying off the presses right now. I would like to wait a month and revisit sources from before, during, and after his speaker candidacy to test whether this is a consistent label in RSs. I think there's good reason to expect that "Christian right" or something close to that will be in the lead at some point, but the media environment surrounding him is too hot and lacks the critical depth that I would prefer to see. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:BLPLEAD which states the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. It is clear that there is already material in the article explicitly covering that he is affiliated to the Christian Right at the top of the "Political positions" section which flows into the various stances he would implicitly take as part of his affiliation with the Christian Right in the various sub-sections in that section. There are also WP:RS which state this and it would therefore be WP:DUE to state it in the lede in line with MOS:BLPLEAD. Where about in the lede is a different question that has not been asked in this RfC and I don't think MOS:FIRSTBIO is the relevant policy to quote as that deals with the opening sentence/paragraph and it is clear that the lede is 4 paragraphs long. TarnishedPathtalk 04:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This was originally included in the first paragraph which is why WP:FIRSTBIO was cited. Nemov (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose i want to highlight the central justification here:Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political careerevery sentence we publish in the article about a living person should meet these criteria. if it fails to meet these critera, it should not be in the article, period.not all of the material in an article should go in the lead. not all of the material in an article can go in the lead. to justify including something in the lead, there must be a better reason than it simply meeting the bare minimum standards of being in line with what reliable sources state. isadora of ibiza  (talk)  04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Setting aside the o WP:RFCBEFORE issue with this RFC... this content is barely mentioned in the rest of the article. but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The lead should follow the body. If this is to be mentioned it needs to be fleshed out more in the article before being included in the lead. Nemov (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: There are a lot of "get to know him" pieces flying off the presses right now. I would like to wait a month and revisit sources from before, during, and after his speaker candidacy to test whether this is a consistent label in RSs. I think there's good reason to expect that "Christian right" or something close to that will be in the lead at some point, but the media environment surrounding him is too hot and lacks the critical depth that I would prefer to see. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:BLPLEAD which states the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. It is clear that there is already material in the article explicitly covering that he is affiliated to the Christian Right at the top of the "Political positions" section which flows into the various stances he would implicitly take as part of his affiliation with the Christian Right in the various sub-sections in that section. There are also WP:RS which state this and it would therefore be WP:DUE to state it in the lede in line with MOS:BLPLEAD. Where about in the lede is a different question that has not been asked in this RfC and I don't think MOS:FIRSTBIO is the relevant policy to quote as that deals with the opening sentence/paragraph and it is clear that the lede is 4 paragraphs long. TarnishedPathtalk 04:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This was originally included in the first paragraph which is why WP:FIRSTBIO was cited. Nemov (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose i want to highlight the central justification here:Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political careerevery sentence we publish in the article about a living person should meet these criteria. if it fails to meet these critera, it should not be in the article, period.not all of the material in an article should go in the lead. not all of the material in an article can go in the lead. to justify including something in the lead, there must be a better reason than it simply meeting the bare minimum standards of being in line with what reliable sources state. isadora of ibiza  (talk)  04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * First, I'm not seeing where there has been prior discussion about this issue that would warrant an RfC to send out the bots and notify the whole project. We generally don't open RfCs after an hour of discussion between exactly two people, especially on a subject that...let's be honest...most of us just figured out exists at all.Second, why is this the least bit controversial? "Conservative Christian" isn't an epithet. It's not like one of these articles where we're debating labeling someone a terrorist. Johnson doesn't seem to have any qualms about the characterization, quite the contrary, seems to wear it as a badge of honor. Half the article is about how conservative Christianity has been his North Star in basically every facet of his life.  G M G  talk  10:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The original objection was this edit which introduced "Christian right faction" to the 2nd sentence of the lead without explanation. Instead of discussing it to find a solution the editor rushed into creating a RFC. Nemov (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably would have been best to discuss first, I was summoned to an RfC yesterday by the bot where the person starting the RfC was proposing some pretty uncontroversial reorganisation, of two sections in which there was duplication. They hadn't even been bold and attempted the edits at that point, so there was obviously no contention to be had. I was a little annoyed and told them that they should just do it. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Europeans are horrified by these beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support major part of this politician's outward reputation that can be seen as significant by many &mdash; Karnataka  talk  11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Close as malformed this RFC is too vague to establish a consensus for anything. Certainly the article should not ignore his religious faith or his political ideology.  But it also shouldn't look at a few liberal outlets pejoratively calling him a "Christian nationalist" and claim that is a neutral statement. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  Given the politics of his day, and the circumstances that led to him becoming Speaker of the House, it's at least as relevant that he is a part of the Christian right as it is that he is part of the Republican Party. Carleas (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose without seeing some proposed wording. The problem is that by itself it is too vague, both in terms of what it means to be a "member" and also what we mean by "Christian right". Of the sources helpfully supplied by User:KlayCax, I News makes it clear that it's the Christian right faction of the Republican Party, while Newsweek is vaguer about it. Bloomberg and Vox talk about how the Christian right likes and supports Johnson without necessarily implying that he is a member (whatever that means). So what we have now is good ("Johnson is a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party" under political positions) - anything beyond that probably shouldn't be in WP voice. Membership of a party faction is somewhat well defined - membership of a cultural movement is less so. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How about this, ?
 * Does that work with you? KlayCax (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for coming up with something more concrete. No, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Possibly the third. StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for coming up with something more concrete. No, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Possibly the third. StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Very much describes him and has major references of support. ContentEditman (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Many U.S. politicians are (or at least profess to be) Christians. In most cases, that fact is not important enough to be in the lead. In this instance, however, Johnson himself has stated it to be paramount: "I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘… People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview."  "‘Go pick up a Bible’: Speaker Mike Johnson defends anti-LGBTQ+ views"  This self-summary is also consistent with his overall bio, in that his career before election to Congress is far more religiously oriented than that of most politicians. JamesMLane t c 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not as defining as being the speaker of the house, while it also violates NPOV. Not all pertinent material needs to be in the lead, and in this case it doesn't meet other criteria. Let&#39;srun (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- extensively covered by sources, (in Europe it's probably the most commented on aspect of his election), he seems to wear it as a badge of honor and it gives a unifying context to many of his beliefs and positions. Probably not in the opening para, but in second or third, whichever it fits best thematically. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Extensive, sustained coverage in high-quality sources; this is plainly a defining aspect of his notability. People argue above that it is less defining than his being speaker, but internationally it is a major aspect of why his election as speaker is notable. Many high-quality recent sources mention it in their initial one-sentence summary of him, showing its centrality to the topic. The arguments that it would be NPOV to omit it are particularly baffling; NPOV is about reflecting the sources, which in this case emphasize it, not about portraying subjects the way editors personally believe is best. In this case it would be POV to omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose: His affiliation is not close to the main reason he is notable and not a significant part of the article. In my opinion it also violates NPOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Who moved the page back?
We had a discussion on this that resulted in the move to just (politician). Please do not move the page without a discussion first. I will be moving it back to what was agreed upon in the discussion now. Alexysun (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The decision and reasoning behind moving the article back is available at Move review/Log/2023 November. Scoutguy138 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote one of the participants in the move review ; there was no explicit consensus for a move to (politician). As the closer says, . Curbon7 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to have "What disambiguator should we suggest in the RM" discussion first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bartendered one (politician) is likely the one to most gain consensus, as there is a good argument that he is the primary topic of the politicians named Mike Johnson. Other proposals were Mike Johnson (congressman) and Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House), but I think those are probably too clunky (though it is worth noting John Robertson (congressman) and Patrick Henry (U.S. congressman) and William Duer (U.S. Congressman) are named as such). Curbon7 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Henry and Duer have those titles only because there were other politicians by that name from the same state. I have moved Robertson. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm against having one (politician) and one (Oklahoma politician). IMO (speaker) is ok atm, there are no other Mike or Michael Johnson (speakers) with en-WP articles atm. But my current first choice is sticking with (Louisiana politician), it's good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my research for the close for requested move, I found that (speaker) was easily the most common form for disambiguation of legislative speakers. This can be seen with English Thomas Charlton (speaker), the Canadian Newfoundlander George Henry Emerson (speaker), the Punjabi Darbara Singh (speaker), the New Yorker James W. Husted (speaker), and many more. However, at one of the New Yorker speakers were later moved to (New York politician) as can be seen with William Baker (New York politician). I also found (speaker) can sometimes be confused with public speakers as in cases like Joseph Martin (speaker), Pam Warren (speaker), and Terry Kennedy (speaker). I would also need to note that, for the most part, several of the legislative speakers I found using the (speaker) disambiguation were at the subnational level (when they weren't British). Still, if I had to pick a disambiguation that emphasized Johnson's role as Speaker of the House, then I would go with (speaker). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that difficult. If we're going to spend time debating on whether it should be Louisiana politician or politician, we might as well just do nothing for that amount of time. It's not that deep. Anyone who reads it does not give half a shit. Alexysun (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The only one of the proposed disambiguators here that's actually unambigous and couldn't be interpreted as applying to at least one other person on the disambiguation page is (Speaker of the House). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is to launch a requested move with (speaker) and (politician) as the only other two options (current title also being a possibility). If we start including other forms that are less common, then we'd end up with several variations on (speaker). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pppery: Not sure I'd go with that one since it violates WP:NCDAB #3. "Speaker of the House" is a proper noun, so it shouldn't be used. As I said above, (speaker) has some precedent at least. Per the rest of NCDAB, If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any.
 * Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

So is anyone going to propose the move? It would be RM: "Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician" to "Mike Johnson (politician)" or "Mike Johnson (speaker)" and as long as there is a consensus to move, whichever option gets more votes is the one we go with? Feels like that would not actually be consensus, and would result in another move overturn, which would just be a huge waste of time.

So I propose a better option: RM "Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)" to "Mike Johnson (politician)", and make it CLEAR in the opening argument that if editors think (politician) is better than (Louisiana politician), even if they prefer other options, to just !vote (politician) since it would still be prefereable to them, when given a binary choice.

And that if we get a consensus to move, then only AFTER that should editors then submit new RMs to change it from (politician) to something more specific. Making it clear that the new title would NOT be set in stone, and that anyone can propose a new option, but AFTER the closure of the "(politician)" one.

The original RM was a consensus to move, just not where to move; if we make sure people know that they should first choose between the lesser of two evils in order to get it changed for the better at all, I think it has a higher chance of passing. JM (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem of course is that this framing inappropriately prejudices the outcome in favor of that partial disambiguation which may not be what people truly want. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said the next step would be for editors to propose other moves past that partial disambiguation. The point is that we have to start somewhere if we're going to take it anywhere at all, so it might as well be the most favoured option from the last discussion, and when this one closes someone can propose another move. JM (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. See  below. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 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: no consensus to move to a partially disambiguated title. There is some interest in a "speaker"-related disambiguator, so further discussion on that front may prove productive, and editors are free to start another RM at any time (not that I would necessarily recommend doing so). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson (politician) – The previous discussion concluded with a consensus to move this page. However, opinions were split on where this page should be moved. While the closing editor moved the page to Mike Johnson (politician), this was undone upon review by outside parties. The diversity of proposals in the last discussion is why it failed to provide a conclusive consensus. Because of that, this proposal is binary. Discussion about any further move(s) may occur later, but for this discussion please only choose one of the following: Thank you, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A: Do not move and keep page as Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)
 * Option B: Move page to Mike Johnson (politician)


 * Option B per what I wrote above. He's a US federal politician from Lousiana, not a Louisiana state politician; the current title makes that ambiguous. Not only that, he's the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, which makes him the most powerful person both in the US House and in the US Congress overall. Now look at pageviews: there are only two "Mike Johnson (______ politician)" pages. |Mike_Johnson_(Oklahoma_politician) Pageviews; This Mike Johnson on most days gets at least 100x the pageviews than the other one, and on many days the other one doesn't even get any pageviews at all. clearly this one is the primary politician.
 * Just to make it clear, this is a binary proposal, but the result is NOT set in stone - the title can be changed again. So if you think there is a better option that is not here, you could just wait and propose it once this proposal is closed, and choose which of the two options here you think are better, because it's still better to have a subpar improvement than no improvement at all. JM (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He's a US federal politician from Lousiana, not a Louisiana state politician... Irrelevant, given this is standard disambiguation for all American politicians, state or federal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option B: The subject is the most notable Mike Johnson to hold political office, and may eventually become the most notable Mike Johnson (perhaps eventually by such a margin to warrant no disambiguation in the page name). For now, Option B satisfies the need to reflect this elevated notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option B: Given that it's likely for a reader to be seeking this over other politicians, while considering the commonality of the name, seems like a good case for a PDAB primary topic. &mdash;siro&chi;o 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A: The guy was barely known before he became Speaker, and it's too soon to determine how long he'll last in that job. The 'option B' votes, in my opinion, suffer from WP:RECENTISM. I'd rather have "(speaker)" as the disambiguator but that isn't one of the choices here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * |Mike_Johnson_(Oklahoma_politician) He's usually been getting 100x or more the pageviews than the other Mike Johnson politician for at least 7 years, increasing with time. How is that recentism, and how is him maybe not lasting as Speaker relevant, in light of that? JM (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A, per WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That page appears to support option B, especially when considering this section showing various partially disambiguated article titles and their justifications being extremely high pageview ratios, which is also the case with Mike Johnson. JM (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PDAB doesn't state that high pageview ratios automatically justify a move to the PDAB title. In this case, I don't see the higher threshold being met, given the existence of Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician), Michael Johnson (Australian politician), Michael Johnson (Alaska politician), Michael Johnson (Wisconsin politician), Michael Johnson (Missouri politician), and Michael T. Johnson. 162 etc. (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Michael Johnson is not the same as Mike Johnson. And this one's real name is James Johnson, not Michael Johnson. But just to prove a point, I put in all those names, and |Mike_Johnson_(Oklahoma_politician)|Michael_Johnson_(Australian_politician)|Michael_Johnson_(Alaska_politician)|Michael_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician)|Michael_Johnson_(Missouri_politician)|Michael_T._Johnson most of them usually have 0 pageviews a day, while this Mike Johnson often has over 100, for multiple years. JM (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. Not the only politician named named as such, and not the only notable politician named as such. Einsof (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment adding that in the previous RM, by my count, 60 editors expressed support for any move whether they opposed the proposed move or not; while 26 editors expressed opposition without necessarily specifying whether they opposed any move; that was 70% agreement to move it somewhere else. JM (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As for why I think Option B, for me it makes the most sense for the page following the original RM that I closed (which was partially overturned). It's a decent compromise. PDABs are exceptional, but they are known to happen occasionally. In this case, we have to |Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) compare Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician) to this page since that is the only other Mike Johnson who is a politician. Oklahoma is at 201-229 views (7 on average daily); Louisiana is at 43,985-45,173 views (1,457 daily average). That's a pageview ratio of about 175! For perspective, compare People (magazine) and People (Australian magazine) which is less than half that ratio. These are both contemporary American Republican politicians. One is a Speaker of the House of Representatives; the other was an Oklahoma State Senator. WP:RECENTISM is not going to apply here. That's where I'm at, and there's a strong case to be made that this page meets the standards set by WP:PDAB. If the consensus didn't have to be explicit (which was my mistake for not knowing), then this page would already be (politician). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) I also don't think you are giving enough credit to people who support (speaker) over both other options. There's no clear path to get to there from (politician), but there is a much clearer path if this proposal gets voted down. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option B. I don't see why an Option C for (speaker) wasn't proposed, and I would encourage to amend this request quickly to allow for it. Discussion fatigue is a thing...
 * The reason option C was not proposed was made clear in the proposal (and in my comment). If this isn't binary, if there are three options, then there will be a consensus to move somewhere without a consensus to move to somewhere specific and the whole thing will get overturned again. Which is exactly what happened last time. And it would be a WAY bigger waste of time than simply proposing multiple binary choices in successive RMs. JM (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pppery above. Yes, by doing this way we may be more likely to get a move to a specific location, but it gives a huge advantage to supporters of (politician). The only reason the last RM was overturned was because too much of the discussion focused on whether Mike Johnson should have any disambiguation and not enough was discussion explicitly on the merits of having a PDAB or the like.
 * There is a clear path, all that has to be done is that an RM has to be proposed to change (politician) to (speaker). As for "giving a huge advantage to supporters of (politician)", well, as I said, it's a binary choice or else it probably won't pass. with 2 proposed destinations, they pull each other down. The reason it makes more sense that (politician) was chosen here is because you yourself closed the last discussion with the result of a general consensus in favour of (politician), and the fact that this page was previously PDABed with (politician). JM (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment So we had a good discussion above where it was concurred that (speaker) is valid and used in cases like this, and yet it isn't an option? So now the only choice is option A which I don't like, and option B which I don't like. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one do you like better? After we are done with this RM anyone can propose another RM between (politician) and (speaker) so that we don't keep splitting the vote despite having a consensus to move.
 * I understand that this introduces a problem where Option B, whether (politician) or (speaker), gets the advantage in that hypothetical subsequent RM, but it's either do that or not get it moved at all. Since most people agree that it should be moved, I don't think people should oppose the whole RM, because it's just going to result in no move at all, which is a result most of us are against. JM (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue with the last RfC is that it was so disorganized that it naturally became no consensus. Having more options is not a negative, but it must be in such a way that it does not make the discussion a trainwreck. I understand the premise of "incremental change, we can change it again later", but my view is why don't we just include it now? To quote above, discussion fatigue is a thing and this is now the third (counting the move review) discussion on this. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I selected a binary between no move and (politician) because those are two consensus-driven names this article has had. As there is precedent for both and there remains substantial opposition to the current name, I presented the two primary names. Naturally, any RM is going to favor some proposals over others. As there is no deadline (well, besides maybe Johnson going the way of McCarthy), this is a suitable middle ground. As of right now, I want no parenthetical disambiguation, but there was apparently consensus against this in the last RM. I'm willing to endure an iterative process if it produces a consensus decision, even if the ultimate name isn't what I want. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. Otherwise it's clear incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A Common name and gives clear indication on who it is right away. No real reason to change IMO. ContentEditman (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A The alternative is not an improvement IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A Regretfully, per my arguments above. Though the status quo is not great, I think Option B is worse. Curbon7 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C: Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House), that's how he is best known, much better than hailing from Louisiana. Option B is not a good option, given that there are lots of other Mike Johnsons who are politicians. Isabela ciao (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isabela ciao: As I said above, the most appropriate version of that disambiguation would be (speaker). It's what we use for a Speaker of the House of Commons (Thomas Charlton). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal would certainly be better than either Options A or B as proposed above, but I think just "speaker" as the disambiguating term would not be sufficient, because without the context provided by the words "of the house", the word "speaker" would most commonly be interpreted as a person who speaks. Isabela ciao (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking the opposite when MJL mentioned it above, I think (speaker) should be the political office and others should be (public speaker), (motivational speaker) or whatever. But that is another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * With Option A taking a clear lead here, I suggest waiting for this RM to close and then proposing both Isabela ciao's and MJL's disambiguators. Considering general support for a move, I think that a three-option vote including both those proposals and a no-move could yield a clear consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You could consider waiting 6-12 months before starting another RM. Or, you know, say "Well, that's that then." There's been quite a lot of Mike Johnson RM-discussion lately. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * yet a consensus clearly wanted the article moved somewhere (60 in favour and 26 opposed in the first RM). If we just don't have RMs, most editors are not getting what they want, because the article just won't be moved. although I understand that "fatigue" is an issue. JM (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Move somewhere is not enough, you need a move here consensus. I'm doubtful you'll get one as things are atm, even if you keep making new RM:s, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that moving somewhere is not enough, I'm just saying that not moving it at all is unwanted by most participants, so further RMs, like this one, could result in a move. But as far as I can tell, I doubt a consensus will be reached to move somewhere specific. People favour one option over others and don't compromise, and so it probably won't be moved. I for one preferred no disambiguation and compromised for (politician) here. Oh well. JM (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are specifically trying to avoid splitting the vote with Option Cs... JM (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The way the question is posed, there is really only one option to choose from: Option B.
 * Option A is a default if Option B is not accepted.
 * I think the best approach would be to close this survey, since there is a clear consensus against Option B (and open up a new survey with a menu for the following options for the disambiguating terms: A) Speaker, B) Speake of the House, C) Speaker of the US House of Representatives, D) no disambiguating term (i.e. he'll be the default Mike Johnson), or E) leave as is (Louisiana politician).
 * If there is no consensus for one of the choice, I would then go into a second round with only the two most popular choices
 * Isabela ciao (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's basically what we're already doing, and this is the second round. The first RM had everyone advocating for different titles, which you listed above. The most popular one was (politician), and it was closed as such, and the page was moved to "Mike Johnson (politician)". Then the RM was overturned in a move review, because although the consensus was to change (60 in favour, 26 opposed) and the most popular option was (politician), it wasn't a consensus in favour of (politician). In this RM, the goal was to coalesce around (politician) as the most popular destination from the first RM, and the way to do that was by putting it up against the current title as the only proposed destination, like most RMs. Instead, we've ended up with the same mess as before, where people just !vote for whatever and there is no consensus to move to somewhere specific. At this point this article is just going to have to stay where it is. JM (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the community is so indecisive, perhaps @Jimbo should just step in and make a ruling. Isabela ciao (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, if the community really can't make a decision by consensus, it goes to ArbCom. Before early this year, Arbcom decisions could be appealed to Jimbo, but that rule was changed, and I don't think he has that role anymore. And also that Jimbo reads many discussions but rarely intervenes. I for one don't know if we should have an unelected judge who can just step in when consensus does not occur, and it would run contrary to the norm of Wikipedia functioning by consensus. Although Wikipedia welcomes his input like it does for any editor, I'm sure he's a rather busy person with other things to do. JM (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus is a very common phenomenon in WP-discussions. It means nothing changes and people can do other stuff instead (it's a big website), possibly but not necessarily revisiting at a later time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed Moses?
Not sure we can include this, bu last month  Doug Weller  talk 12:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024
In this phrase:

Jeanne Johnson and the late James Patrick "Pat" Johnson (who died in 2016)

please remove "the late", since (who died in 2016) conveys this information. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! NotAGenious (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Social Security and Medicare
This entire section is cited to primary sources and will be removed unless secondary sources are added. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The section is relevant, describing Johnson's position on Social Security and Medicare. The sources are necessary for verification. Removal would not be justified, and there is no policy that dictates removal. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is explicit on this and primary sources are used to verify a secondary source, they arent to be used by themselves. I did find a secondary source and included it in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BLPPRIMARY says not to use primary sources to support assertions made about a living person. We are not "asserting" anything about Johnson here, we are simply stating Johnson's own assertions, in his own words. BLPPRIMARY is intended to prevent original research. That isn't what we're doing here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no real reason to remove it and should stay. Could be expanded on I agree, but do not agree with removal. ContentEditman (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Appears somebody did add a CNN citation to the end of the few sentences in the section, so we can put this to bed. ✅ MaximusEditor (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Young-earth creationist
In the beginning of this article, the following is written:

"A young-earth creationist, Johnson sat on the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention between 2004 and 2012."

Not only is this unsourced, it's irrelevant to his political career as there's no following sentence that would indicate this being relevant to his political career. The next paragraph just goes into detail about how he began his political career. I think it would be best if this section was moved to the Personal life section of the article. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV on Ukraine
With by, it is clear that some explanation is needed to indicate why the added content needs to be removed wholesale. Some of the content can be restored with adjustments, but other sources are wholly unacceptable in a biography of a living person due to reliability concerns, particularly when alternatives exist. An opinion piece, like this one, should not dictate how the article is phrased. Additionally, it's notable that no reasons are given for why Johnson has opposed the spending, despite his rationales being widely reported.

Several passages are also original research, prohibited in a BLP:
 * There has been considerable speculation regarding Johnson's motives
 * Between fall 2023 and spring 2024, Russian forces have capitalized on the weakened Ukrainian air defense caused by Johnson's blocking of American security assistance, which allowed them to increasingly damage Ukrainian energy infrastructure, with 80% of all thermal power plants destroyed in April 2024

These edits should be reverted and will be pending a day for discussion (it's a BLP, so I want to move quickly). My previous attempts to remove the POV content included the restoration of content relating to foreign leaders opposing Johnson's actions, as this seems immensely relevant to the article; my edits to this effect were also reverted by Wicorbottt. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note, evidently in response to the BLP and POV issues. However, they do not fundamentally resolve either issue and retain POV language in wikivoice while also keeping a misleading alteration to the content on donations from a corporation that did business in Russia. Pending any support for these changes, they'll be removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone who meticulously supports every statement with quotes from globally recognized publications of harboring a one-sided perspective demands a remarkable level of audacity, especially if there is reason to believe that there is a COI. I have diligently addressed all points of criticism. I am receptive to suggestions for enhancement, yet outright deleting entire paragraphs under flimsy pretexts is vandalism. Wicorbottt (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wicorbottt WP:BLP is not a "flimsy pretext". —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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) 19:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting draft, but it largely strikes me as original research. Do you have some sources that you would recommend that explicitly identify the coalition's consistent membership, its origins, and its continued activity? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These are the best ones.   Esolo5002 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I remain unconvinced that there's enough here to directly make an article on. Maybe consider merging some of your work onto the article about this particular Congress. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough sources specifically treating it as a topic like this to support its own article, at least not right now. In particular only one of them really uses the term "coalition." Using it for an article title like this implies there was a formal coalition government, which there isn't. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you made a very good job. The informal coalition between Democrats and Republicans is an interesting topic which deserves at least some mention on wikipedia, though I don't know whether it warrants an article of its own. I think a good compromise would be turning your draft article into a section of the "118th United States Congress" article. Revangarde568 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)