Talk:Patrick McHenry

Infidelity
I personally know at least one intern he had sex with. Where are the references to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.0.251 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

IP issues?
It seems a lot of the issues mentioned below are by IP 65.40.234.49. Should this be pursued by the admins? I'm not going to try to hold a one-person whinefest here, but it certainly seems that that IP (and the Jason Deans IP) are clearly editing to hide or otherwise maliciously damage information (I'm under the impression it's McHenry staffers). Thoughts? --Ziegfest (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing content
To all the anonymous editors: quit unilaterally removing content without a good reason and/or consensus.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed non-neutral, poorly-sourced content, in accordance with commonly accepted standards for biographies of living persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.194.118.11 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, good to see that the National Republican Congressional Committee is so well versed in wikipedia guidelines. Forget about COI?--150.212.40.71 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was the NRCC, although the citation was to... a blog written by a Democratic activist with no neutral sourcing in any major or minor media outlet. That said, here's what was removed back in January. You decide whether it should have stayed. --Kallahan (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see the DNC is making sure the NRCC is not muscling into their propaganda domain! 2600:8805:A985:4300:DB54:BF6B:B201:C576 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "According to voter registration applications uncovered by Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, two other men, Matthew Allen Hamilton and Neil Everett Capano, have also registered to vote using Rep. McHenry's home address. Another man, Jason Jent Deans, registered and voted in McHenry's district but used an address outside of the district to receive payments from the McHenry campaign."

McHenry Daily KOS dispute
Upon a semi-revert war with User:Kallahan, I slightly changed the post I made to be more NPOV by not mentioning the blogs, however, I simultaneously added another link to prove that the term "liberal blogs" is legitimate. This should end this dispute, and no further editing is necessary, as it is clear that this should agree with both of our positions, as the facts are preserved. Also, apologies on the "Preceded" typo. --152.17.138.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand... the entry says that it's speculation from a blog and I've always been more of the mind set that if an entry says what it is and it's a notbale blog (which Dalykos is)... then it should be allowed. Indeed... this could be a great example of the lengths DailyKos and other websites are going to in order to hurt McHenry's political career so it may have value from that perspective on top of value from a left wing perspective. On the other hand... ti's a pretty severe peice of speculation. It's largely circumstantial. I'm on the fence... I could go either way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. My main reason for reverting it was because it was new information that had been removed by an experienced editor. If it had been established information that was removed or if the confrontation was between two experienced editors I wouldn't have done so.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
As it says at the top of this discussion page: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The more controversial a claim, the more reputable the source required, generally speaking. Speculation in a blog, unless reported on by notable mainstream media (and then cited to those sources), is unlikely to be a suitable source for such accusations and claims. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits and edit protection
I accept the current incarnation of the page, but I suggest the community assess whether the speculation contained in the second-half of the Controversy section (previously entitled "OPSEC Violation Video in Iraq's Green Zone possibly resulting in three deaths") should be here at all. I worry that the edits made by 152.17.138.92 are meant to make this article decidedly non-NPOV and, rather than encyclopedic, a partisan outgrowth of political blogs. --Kallahan (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know... I actually meant to side with you and remove it completely. I didn;t realize what edit I was reverting... oh well, can;t do nothing now until the protection expires... if you change your mind you may want to appeal to User:Gonzo_fan2007.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That whole section should just go, or be completely rewritten as an extremely short para. Recentism gone mad. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Baby of the House
"Baby of the House" is not a term used in the United States. McHenry is simply referred to as the youngest member of Congress. This should be removed when the edit protection expires. JTRH (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, Baby of the House it is an unnoffial term. Superdelegate is also an unofficial term yet there's an entire page about it (whose page title I disagree with) and that term is used on many other pages in wikipedia. Just because something's unnaoficial doesn't mean it can't be mentioned on wikipedia. Would you also remove all mention of superdelegates?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it should be removed because it's unofficial. I'm saying it should be removed because it is not used in the United States. It is not accurate to say that the youngest member of Congress is referred to as the Baby of the House. JTRH (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
I removed the controversy section entirely, in keeping with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, especially WP:TABLOID. It is simply unacceptable to dominate an article on a living individual with the nine days' wonder of a tabloid flap over a careless comment. The news media are primary sources in this respect and, crucially, they never go back and say "oh, well, we over-reacted a bit there" - they are all about vividness, not impact. We should step back and see how weightier more analytical secondary sources describe this. A short placeholder is fine, but at the earliest opportunity we should go to less immediatist sources - even Newsweek would be a good start, or the Wall Street Journal's overseas edition, which does a remarkably good job of condensing the meat of silly political dramas. If it's not a resignation issue (which it does not appear to be, just routine election time dramatisation of everything any politician says), then we should not overdramatise it ourselves, and we absolutely do not go with blow-by-blow stuff sourced to YouTube, blow by blow belongs on Wikinews and YouTube belongs at dev/null. Feel free to propose a nice short section to be going on with. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully submit that a Member of Congress being accused of violating security procedures in a war zone is hardly "a tabloid flap over a careless comment." This has been widely reported by objective media in North Carolina, and is becoming recognized as a legitimate issue in the Congressman's re-election campaign (even if he's not going to lose because of it). The issue should be re-written (NPOV, non-tabloid) but not removed entirely from this article. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Starting point? --Kallahan (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * McHenry stirred controversy with his remarks on April 1, 2008 regarding a recent trip to Iraq. During his remarks to 150 Republicans attending the Lincoln County GOP Dinner, he called a contractor -- reported first by liberal blogs as a "U.S. soldier" -- performing security duties in Iraq as "a two-bit security guard" because the contractor denied McHenry access to a gym.


 * "We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.


 * It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway."


 * He later apologized, saying "[i]t was a poor choice of words to describe a foreign contractor."


 * I like this so far. Good work! JTRH (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good... the DailyKos thing should stay out unless a reputable news source picks it up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay on the lookout; it appears our motivated IP friend has gotten a Wikipedia account. Special:Contributions/Atomgryo --Kallahan (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will one-time, poor choices of words, followed by an apology or correction, now be included in all biographies? MANY bios will get quite lengthy, with no added value in content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.61.26 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This part of the article hasn't been substantively edited in at least a couple of years. The controversy in question has subsided, so I'd submit that it's less relevant than it was at the time and could probably stand to be edited down, though I'm not sure the incident should be omitted entirely. JTRH (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I have semi-protected this article for a period of one week, largely out of concern for adherence to our biographies of living people policy. Please refrain from adding material concerning the photographs that are being circulated in the blogosphere, and perhaps even linking to a site that carries them. If these allegations are investigated by a reliable news sources (other than blogs, even respected political ones) then it might be appropriate to mention. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Van Tucky 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality
There are plenty of rumors that Patrick McHenry is gay. This is important to his biography, so I believe that it should be mentioned in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Very Good (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumors should be fodder for biographies on Wikipedia? Then there should be an entire page in somebody else's bio re citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.61.26 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
The recent edit by 96.231.117.108 smacks far too much of political advertising, which is far beyond any standard of neutrality. Lines like "Congressman McHenry has fought for adequate veterans' health care for his district." are clearly stuff from his own campaign- any Congressman in the world would say the same thing, and it's not necessary to list out his individual votes like merit badges for an overgrown boy scout. If someone doesn't edit this, I may, but we need to somehow retain the important information and get rid of the blatant self-promotion going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.189.11 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take it up right now, and I invite other (legitimate, non-McHenry) guys to work with the material as it stands. I'm making the decision to remove much of the Hickory Clinic, as many current Congressmen work on similar projects and Wikipedia has yet to chronicle those- it seems needless, lest we all want to begin documenting in excruciating detail every vote made by each Congressman. In addition, a lot of it references back to his website- reads like an ad, go figure. Anyway, thoughts on my edit (coming up in about 10 mins)? --Ziegfest (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick note- McHenry is not involved in H.R. 1616, according to info- which isn't even the bill mentioned. I attached the only one that appears connected to the whole meth topic, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. I have updated the page with the cite to his legislation, H.R. 1616, which was incorporated into larger legislation.  The text (including bill number) can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1616:

Potus128 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last two external links because they both violated NPOV. The second one is a blog that is poorly sourced. Some Members of Congress have external links to their state or national political party, but I can't find any that have hate sites in the list. Ystava (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added them back. The blog is well sourced and referenced in a few newspapers (both the Hickory Daily Record and News@Norman). To remove the link would be to unfairly balance the article pro-McHenry, and honestly, it's only a link anyway. McHenry's site is full of pro-McHenry information and clearly at the top, it's not as if readers will be unfairly biased- and in defense of the site, it is properly sourced even to Wikipedia standards. Far from "attack sites" such as Pat Go Bye Bye, which was on here for some time. To remove it would be meaningless- and considering it's been in newspapers, it's certainly wikipedia-worthy. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The blog is ONLY referenced in two newspapers in a letter to the editor (both letters written by the same person whose POV is clearly not neutral). The article without the link to the blog is not pro-McHenry, it is neutral. The purpose of the article is encyclopedic--NOT POV pushing as you keep doing. Ystava (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding links to help with help requests. First letter to the editor is here. The same letter to the editor was published in the Hickory Daily Record but does not appear to be available online anymore. After some searching, I found it on the writer's personal website here. I tried to resolve this with Ziegfest on my talk page with no success.

This blog is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living persons (BLPs). Specifically: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]" Potus128 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Looking at the site, it contains sources to MANY reputable news and info organizations (The Charlotte Observer, OpenSecrets, etc). Just because it is negative does not make it poorly sourced- scanning the articles, it has more links than a Wikipedia article. From your history, you continue to try to add a blog laughably named "McHenry Rocks"- are we supposed to believe you? Nice try. --71.76.189.11 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the blog you are referencing that Ziegfest repeatedly attempts to insert would not itself meet Wikipedia standards for WP:BLP. A sheer number of links does not indicate that the links are all reliable either WP:CITE. Neither you or Ziegfest appear to be assuming good faith WP:CIVIL. Seeking mediation. --Ystava (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On August 7, the blog Ziegfest keeps using for POV pushing seems to indicate that the editor is working with Ziegfest on this issue. This appears to be a huge violation of WP:COI.

Ziegfest (talk has been warned for breaking the three revert rule WP:3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.234.49 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I've previously commented on similar issues on this article. This is more or less the same issue. There is a serious concern with even using such sources as external links. Caution must be used with all sources, including external links, in biographical articles. Vassyana (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues
see here. Skomorokh 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and here. The owner/editor of this blog is obviously trying to get some attention for his website, not bettering the biography. Potus128 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Subpoena
The fact that he has been served a subpoena isn't newsworthy and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. It just means that someone wants him to testify about some unspecified matter in a court case. The only mention of it in anything else online is on a DailyKos post stating simply that he has been subpoenaed followed by posters speculating as to why. If some details about the nature of the testimony sought come out it could become newsworthy, but as of now it simply isn't so I'm removing the mention. GatorOne (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Patrick McHenry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028214308/http://www.mchenryforcongress.com/ to http://www.mchenryforcongress.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Patrick McHenry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704230015/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0510.wallace-wells.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0510.wallace-wells.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080807160335/http%3A//www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id%3D55 to http://www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id=55
 * Added tag to http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2008/04/03/mchenry-refers-to-soldier-as-two-bit-security-guard/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141212211246/http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=947 to http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=947
 * Added tag to http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080410%2FNRSTAFF%2F472848578
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626212140/http://www.charlotte.com/politics/story/587606.html to http://www.charlotte.com/politics/story/587606.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120104601/http://www.shelbystar.com/news/mchenry_21725___article.html/lay_news.html to http://www.shelbystar.com/news/mchenry_21725___article.html/lay_news.html
 * Added tag to http://www.charlotte.com/217/story/122192.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118200651/http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/countrywides-campaign-contribu.html to http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/countrywides-campaign-contribu.html
 * Added tag to http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2011/may/28/8/editorial-mchenry-should-apologize-voters-ar-1074309/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

2014, 2016 election info?
The sections on how he fared in each reelection attempt seem to stop with 2012. An update for 2014 and 2016 would seem to be in order, along with a section about his 2018 opponent. I would do it myself, but I've got a lot on my plate. was simply looking up the information while reading a piece about different districts that might be the subject of a polling site's tweet about a district race that may be closer than it appears. Lawikitejana (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Acting or not?
As there isn't a consensus on wheater he is Acting Speaker pro tempore or not, I think we should talk about it here. My view is that the House Rules are pretty clear and VoA  and Business Insider  also refer to him as acting. Rogl94 (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see that the House Rules refer to the position of Acting Speaker Pro Tem, they just say that the someone would act as speaker pro tem. There are some sources that refer to the position as acting speaker pro tem. There are others that call the position "Interim Speaker" which strikes me as a descriptor rather than the official job title: CNN, Axios and Forbes. And then there are some that don't use "acting" or "interim": AP, CBS and NBC. 'Acting', 'interim' and 'pro tempore' seem to me to be terms that are mutually exclusive. I would suggest keeping the wording as it is "Speaker pro tempore". Unless there are official documents that refer to McHenry's position as "Acting Speaker pro tempore". Khronicle I (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the title of the office is "Speaker pro tempore" regardless of how the position was obtained, so we shouldn't change that. But as the House rules differentiate between an acting and elected "Speaker pro tempore", I think the information that McHenry is currently acting in that position should at least be included somewhere. Rogl94 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to pretty clear to me that the title should be "Speaker pro tempore" not "Acting Speaker pro tempore". CNN says "Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina on Tuesday became the speaker pro tempore...". The AP says "[McHenry] will serve essentially as the acting speaker — known as speaker pro tempore". The Hill headlines about Nancy Pelosi's eviction from her Capitol offices read McHenry orders Pelosi to vacate Capitol office in one of first acts as Speaker pro tem (pro tem being shorthand for pro tempore). And for what it's worth, Pelosi herself has used "Speaker pro tempore" not "Acting Speaker pro tempore" (I think after two stints as speaker herself she would know the rules regarding succession to the speaker). Unless reliable sources or some official document refer to McHenry as "Acting Speaker pro tempore", we should stick with not using acting as that's what the RS have been doing. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the title of the office is "Speaker pro tempore" regardless of how the position was obtained, so we shouldn't change that. But as the House rules differentiate between an acting and elected "Speaker pro tempore", I think the information that McHenry is currently acting in that position should at least be included somewhere. Rogl94 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that news sources are not reliable in naming the position (acting speaker, interim speaker, speaker pro tempore, etc.) and the fact that the House Rules clearly state that he is acting as Speaker pro temp, and the fact that Speaker pro tempore is elected by the House according to the rules, the title should definitely be Acting Speaker pro tempore.
 * WezouskyMike (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, the House is referring to McHenry as Speaker pro tempore, not Acting Speaker pro tempore estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.house.gov/leadership says nothing but will presumably be updated soon. As the secondary sources have not yet had time to settle, in the meanwhile it seems prudent to use the primary source as WezouskyMike suggests. That doesn't prevent using a shorter version of the title in the body of articles. Nemo 04:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt the distinction matters, but I think that acting Speaker pro tempore is the most accurate title.
 * The rules of the house of representatives say "(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the next Member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end" and "(B) As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision (A)." (emphasis added.) This is the section under which he is appointed and it says "act" or "acting" three times.
 * Furthermore, it says that he "shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of ... a Speaker pro tempore". This language seems at odds with him currently being the Speaker pro tempore, since it implies that he only stays in the role until a Speaker pro tempore is elected.
 * The media seems inconsistent about his title and, in any case, is less authoritative than the house rules. ThomasSteinke 12:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomassteinke (talk • contribs)

What do you think of "Acting since" instead of "Assumed office" in the infobox as a compromise? Rogl94 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

He was Speaker pro temp, not Acting Speaker pro temp. The "pro temp" bit, means "acting", or temporarily serving. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the rules are still pretty clear. He was Speaker pro tempore in an acting fashion, as there is also the possibility to be elected as Speaker pro tempore. So "acting" and "pro tempore" are not synonymous here. McGovern's Committee on Rules Democrats sheet even explicitly called it "Acting Speaker pro tempore". Additionally, this WaPo article also says that "McHenry's title is technically acting speaker pro tempore."  Rogl94 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I give up. At least put the wording 'Acting' in front of 'Speaker pro tempore', not underneath it. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW - I made related changes on this matter, at the List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy & Mike Johnson pages. If we're going to say he was Acting Speaker pro temp, rather than Speaker pro temp? Best to be consistent. PS - Also, I've contacted WikiProject Politics for more input 'here', on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Either he was acting speaker, or he was speaker pro tempore. Both imply impermanence. Acting speaker pro tempore is a bit too much. I see the Congressional Record referred to him as "Speaker pro tempore", here. He was speaker pro tempore until the House cared to elect a speaker, or another speaker pro tempore (presumably because it didn't like who was speaker pro tem but wasn't in a position to elect a speaker). The McGovern sheet is simply the position of the minority of the Rules Committee and I don't think that equates to anything. I don't understand why we should vary from that, absent perhaps capitalization. An act saying that someone shall act in an office doesn't make them an acting incumbent. For example, the never-utilized text in the Presidential succession act of 1947, "then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President." would not have made an acting president (even before the 25th Amendment".Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In agreement - "Speaker pro tempore of the United States House of Representatives" is the correct title. I just got tired of the prefix "Acting" being repeatedly re-addeded into this bio & so just gave up. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the Acting should be in front of the Speaker pro tempore as that isn't the office's name, but I disagree with @Wehwalt and still think he was Speaker pro tempore in an acting capacity. Therefore I put the "Acting" under the office name and still think it is the most correct way for the situation. "Acting" here means he is or now was "in office" (as otherwise stands there) and that in an acting capacity. I also think we should keep the "Acting" underneath as you can be elected as Speaker pro tempore and otherwise it feels like we are ignoring the "act as" part of the sentence in the rules on purpose. Compare e.g. the Walter Scheel article which handles it the same way. Obviously another country, but somewhat comparable, as only the chancellor is elected by the parliament and the ministers are chosen by the chancellor, like McCarthy's list. Rogl94 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is, though, there's no difference between becoming Speaker pro tem by designation of the Speaker and becoming it by vote of the House. Either way, you're there until either a) there is a Speaker or b) the House votes in someone else as Speaker pro tem. The only difference is the manner of appointment. Additionally, the Congressional Record calls him Speaker pro tem and I just don't see how we go against that. The Congressional Record is pretty authoritative on such subjects. I see, for example, in the Senate section, (see page S5125 of above source) where a senator is appointed acting president pro tempore, as permitted by the rules, and he is thereafter referred to by that full title. Were McHenry the acting Speaker pro tempore, I have no doubt that the CR would be very careful to call him by that title. It does not. I think we have to go with the way the House designates its officials, anything else is original research. Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I moved the 'Acting' note out of the infobox & put it into the page content, while removing the word 'Acting', out of the infobox. I'm hoping this compromise will be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The compromise was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)