Talk:October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election/Archive 1

Merge Discussion
There is an ongoing discussion whether Efforts to remove Kevin McCarthy should be merged with this article. Please comment there. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this Speaker voting cycle is going to take a lot longer than last time, justifying its own dedicated page, and it's no longer an 'effort' to remove McCarthy, he has been removed so the previous page is redundant. This justifies this more specific page taking over from the old one. Rmcmullin (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump has been nominated. https://x.com/reptroynehls/status/1709342759172059159?s=46&t=cr_XgNJjvBkqxvXNgSDlIw 2603:8000:3E43:4D00:15D:293:AEB2:E6C (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The official nomination procedure probably does not consider Twitter posts as formal nominations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove Motion to vacate and Vote to vacate sections
These are sections simply ripped from the Removal of Kevin McCarthy. This page is about the election of the next Speaker, not the events that led to the removal of the last one. That is its own event, which can be chronicled in a host of relevant pages including also McCarthy's own. The results should be referenced in text form in the page intro and that's it. 206.71.246.250 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. My suggestion doesn't look popular. After seeing no support, I don't want to waste other people's time with it. (non-admin closure) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → Upcoming election for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives – The election has not yet been scheduled, and there is no guarantee it will begin or conclude in October or even in 2023. In the meantime, Patrick McHenry is serving as speaker pro tempore, and can continue to do so. The election of Kevin McCarthy took 15 ballots, and the upcoming election could take time. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to wait until after next week before we consider changing it. Congress should reconvene on the 11th so best to wait and see what happens. TobiasHunter (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong oppose The election starts as soon as the previous speaker is no longer in office (as all the House can do is vote for a speaker or adjourn), even if no votes are held. If this doesn't get resolved this month, then we could rename the article, of course, but this RM is extremely premature. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment that "all the House can do is vote for a speaker or adjourn" (if that is true, this article should say that, but it doesn't). As far as I can tell, it is a question open to interpretation, e.g., per https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/can-house-pass-legislation-after-mccarthy-ousted-speaker-why-answer-is-unclear/536-ea3aaf83-6152-41dd-9dea-9ed5f9bbc5b4. Apparently the rule in question does not directly say that other matters cannot be part of what is "necessary and appropriate" under the circumstances (and doesn't explicitly say that adjourning is allowed, for that matter). The speaker pro tempore can continue to act as the speaker until the election of a speaker or the election of another speaker pro tempore, however long that takes. Also, if the rules are something self-established by the house, can't the house change its rules? This is not something written in the U.S. Constitution, or even in law. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball; if we do not know when the election will occur, why are we using an article title that says it is an October 2023 election? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant to this situation. The vote is planned to take place next week. Reliable sources have reported this. We can use common sense here. And, again, even if for some reason the voting did not start until November, the correct title would still include October, as the election started this month, with the vacancy in the office of the speaker. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose because pretty soon the election will take place and we'll have to rename it again, very likely to the exact name we have now! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: This source confirms that "A majority of the House conference can vote to change their own rules", so the rules are not an insurmountable obstacle to getting business done and postponing or changing the process for selection of a new speaker. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Scalise Dropped Out
I don't have as much experience on these types of pages, but confirmed that Scalise has dropped out. Please reformat page again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyediting99 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements
I've removed all entries where a post to Twitter, Facebook, etc. is used as the only means of verification. This goes against consensus established with WP:ENDORSE, specifically criterion 2:
 * 2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
 * This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

Feel free to re-add entries with proper verification, i.e., citing independent reliable sources. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is a problem with WP:ENDORSE or just this implementation, but WP:SELFSOURCE seems to indicate a tweet from a politician about their own opinion (on who should be speaker) is a usable source, right? Or am I misunderstanding?
 * I feel like WP:ENDORSE probably is trying to prevent a source that is a tweet about someone else's endorsement. 2600:4040:29F4:C00:309D:191F:7D92:A98C (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, tweeting an endorsement pretty clearly constitutes a reliably sourced endorsement. Additionally, the short timescale and internal partisan nature of this particular election leads me to think that even if WP:ENDORSE doesn't strictly support it, it's necessary to a good, helpful article that they be included - strong indications of how particular representatives will vote, sourced to their own words, is worth more for understanding the situation than a list only of endorsements reported on by third parties Luisa Koala (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two users above. It seems like the tweets we have been citing fulfill the five points in WP:SELFSOURCE I also argue that this election is different from most elections with endorsements because the representatives doing the endorsements are directly voting in the election. I have attempted to replace tweets with citations from independent sources, where possible, but I think we should consider using tweet endorsements here. Baconheimian (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But what if an endorsement is made by a politician on their own Social Media account? The Independent Source might be referencing the Social Media Post by the politician in question. BlueOcean02 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note, several conservative organizations and individuals signed a letter endorsing Jordan: I'm only posting here because the article doesn't link to the letter or the full list of endorsers. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Quality of sources and Washington Examiner
We should try to avoid relying on low-quality sources, especially where WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply. I notice several citations to the Washington Examiner. That is a source that should be treated with caution, as noted in WP:RSPSS. Do we think those citations are appropriate? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As one of the people responsible for adding the Washington Examiner citation I don't think it is inappropriate in this context since the claims being made are not extraordinary and the Examiner is broadly politically supportive of both candidates. I added it primarily because it seemed WP:SELFSOURCE was in place. If WP:SELFSOURCE is no longer in place and tweets from official congressional accounts are accepted, I have no problem replacing the citations with tweet citations. Baconheimian (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the comment about WP:SELFSOURCE. I think the spirit is similar to WP:ABOUTSELF (a.k.a. WP:TWITTER). I don't see a big problem with tweet citations for verifying that the person who wrote them said what they said, and WP:ABOUTSELF allows that. The Washington Examiner is being cited to report about what other people have said, not what the Washington Examiner said. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, realize now that I was getting my policies mixed up. Let me rephrase what I meant to say above: I used the Examiner as a source because it appeared that tweet citations were being removed for being against WP:ENDORSE. I figured citing the Examiner, which was the only place I could find reference to many of these endorsements, was better than not citing them at all. I completely agree with you that we should cite tweets, given that they are from official congressional accounts but at the time I cited the Examiner, I did so believing that if I cited a tweet, that would lead to the entire endorsement being removed later on for violating WP:ENDORSE. If tweets are now being accepted as valid citations (which I totally support) I'm fine with removing the Examiner citations. Baconheimian (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. Also, WP:RSPSS doesn't absolutely forbid references to the Examiner. It just says to treat them with caution. It's a WP:PARTISAN source, but much of this is about what's happening among Republicans, not between the Republicans and the Democrats. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Date ranges
challenged a lot of date ranges in this edit. Each of those date ranges seems easily verifiable to me, although it's probably true that they are unsourced in this article. The individual articles about the people in question would probably contain this information and citations to sources to verify it, but digging up sources for all of that and putting them into this article would be a tedious effort and would clog the article with citations to things that are not about the election of the Speaker of the House. I do think the date ranges are helpful here. What should be done about that? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, factual claims (besides the obscenely obvious some might or might not argue) must be cited in each individual article where they are mentioned. The dates may be useful for a particular reader. But the they can easily visit the individual politician's page and discover that information for themselves if they want it. This was implicitly understood at the most recent speaker election article. In my edit, I spot checked the nearby citations for the date ranges listed in the article and found no mention of them. Thrakkx (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump eligibility
An editor removed the remark about Trump being potentially ineligible for the speaker position due to his indictments, which was sourced to this article (and is also discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). The edit summary said this information was "not relevant". A couple of others have removed it before, but I did not see any edit summaries explaining why they removed it, and thought perhaps the removals were accidental or due to just wanting to provide the latest news. I think that information is highly relevant, and could have been a factor in his saying he would not seek the position (although I would not suggest to say that in the article without a reliable source to cite for it). The current GOP Rule 26(a) and Democratic Rule 4 for the House seem to say he would be ineligible for the position because of that. What do others think about mentioning this in the article? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on Verify This, which you cited, (Emphasis mine.)  Not sure if VT is anywhere close to reliable, but it seems that he isn't actually ineligible and is unintentionally misleading.  (Tangent: VT is apparently related to Tegna Inc. in some way, but seems obscure.  Doesn't matter that both MSN and KHOU cited/source VT regarding notability as the articles are considered syndicated content.)
 * Additionally, WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, HUFFPOST politics, Independent Journal Review (listed five below this link), and WP:NEWSWEEK apply, which would be barriers to using the sources listed. (Last three would need consensus to use.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the sources. The first source I cited was The Hill, which per WP:THEHILL is marked green and considered generally reliable, so we can just use that one. It says that a Trump speakership "may not be possible under current GOP House conference rules". It is the one that was removed from [is cited in] the article. KHOU (a CBS station) and Verify This may also be adequately reliable – the fact that KHOU mentioned that the issue was pointed out somewhere else first is not necessarily a problem. The removed content didn't say he is definitely ineligible –  it said he is "potentially ineligible", which seems like a pretty mild characterization to me. If you're suggesting we should just ignore what the House Rules say, because they "aren't legally binding and aren't always followed", then we should delete a lot of what the article is about, because the whole process of selection of a speaker is based on the rules. Fox News already has four articles cited in six places in the current article –  maybe Fox News is a problem, but it's a larger problem than for this particular aspect. Some of the others are marked as needing caution when citing, not as forbidden for citing. Do you think this is relevant for inclusion? I think it is, and I think sufficient reliable sources are available. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Trump's ineligible if they abide by their own rules- but they are of course free to change their rules. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Like all the other rules, such as the rules for the ballot process for selecting a speaker, and the rules about what the role of the speaker is, and the fact that the House has a role called the speaker? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The House can choose its speaker however it wishes- the Constitution says that the House shall choose its Speaker, and that the House can set its own rules. However, I believe that the "eligibility" rules are for the GOP caucus itself, not the House as a body. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Small correction above – the source citation remains in the article; it's only the phrase "potentially ineligible due to indictments" (inside of parentheses) that was removed (which was the only reason that source is cited, as far as I know). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure on Hill. KHOU isn't reliable in this situation as it is a syndicated copy of the Verify This article, while VT is only sourced four times on Wikipedia in what appears to be its 7th year of existence.  (Not to mention that I struggled to find any website that links to VT in a news article.)  To continue on, I didn't suggest ignoring the House Rules nor deleting content.  Just that it seems like there is misleading information out there that he is barred from running.  (Also, Fox News cannot be cited at all unless it is for non-political or non-science news per FOXNEWS, so those will need to be pulled.)  Anyways, yes to relevance and I would prefer more higher quality sources, but yes that could be included.   --Super Goku V (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Second Vote Endorsements
Now that Scalise is dropped out we're going to need to figure out how to form at the page. My thinking is that we should keep the current endorsements section intact and make it subservient to the "First vote" heading. We should create a "Second vote" heading and create an entirely new list of endorsements there. 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Baconheimian (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say hold off at the moment. We aren’t quite certain what the process will be. I’m assuming you’re correct in your assumption of a second vote, but I think we need to make sure that is what they actually do. Who knows, they may just allow Jordan to be the nominee. KD0710 (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is looking like it can get really complicated really fast, and Conference members are switching their endorsements in real time. Rogers endorsed Austin Scott, then went back to McCarthy, both within the last 45 minutes. I think a separate section for the second round is necessary. TransTheftAuto (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see Austin Scott is now running so my proposal is to revert the First Vote section to how it was right before the vote actually occurred. From that point on it won't be touched again. Scott and Jordan will now appear as declared candidates under a Second vote heading. Baconheimian (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * And the second vote endorsements should not presume that individuals will maintain their loyalties to Jordan or anyone else expressed in the first effort at nomination. As endorsements that were made at that time were made with Scalise as a counter-option and without the knowledge of how the first effort to endorse played-out. SecretName101 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it’s now clear that a second vote section, along with endorsements for that round should be done. The Second vote endorsements should start fresh. KD0710 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a second round endorsements box for Jim Jordan. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the entire Republican nomination process just needs to be split into multiple sections, for each round of nominations. Even if it ultimately stops at this second round, there's still a lot of overlapping information. TransTheftAuto (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)