Jump to content

Talk:Kevin McCarthy/Archive 1

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

Another Kevin McCarthy

There is an Iowa politician named Kevin McCarthy, too. He is the Majority Leader for the Iowa House of Representatives. I'm not sure how to change that in the main page so I am just letting people know here. 71.38.165.184 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Drew Miller

Now there is a hatnote:
For other people with similar names, see Kevin McCarthy.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are plenty of sources out there, so there is no reason not to have proper citations in the article. Please help improve the article by adding citations. If you could, please use the {{cite}} template when adding sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Town Hall video is borderline RS - if these facts are true, there should be better sourcing for them. Tvoz/talk 17:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the Town Hall Video should go. There is absolutely no indication that it is a Reliable Source, i.e., one with editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. One of the "facts" it currently cites already has another, better citation. The other is trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Spacey

I removed the sentence about Kevin Spacey. It is trivia. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 16:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

– Most likely to be selected as the next Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Even taking into consideration the slight possibility that someone else becomes Speaker, McCarthy's present position as Majority Leader has already qualified him to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note: Those who care to delve into discussions of politicians becoming primary topics, may be interested in the prolonged exchanges at Talk:Bob Brown#Recent move and Talk:Bob Brown#Requested move —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is he already primary topic? Wikipedia article traffic statistics [1] will be able to provide page views, otherwise we're just speculating and should wait until he is elected and (possibly) has the most page views. Zarcadia (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per page views provided and speculating on his possible future primary status. Zarcadia (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The actor (last 90 days) is more viewed than this guy (last 90 days). Also, neither is more significant than the other. Per WP:NWCFTM, let's make the name a base title for dabpage. George Ho (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kevin McCarthy (actor) is currently equally notable and has been generating more traffic. Furthermore, page moves should not be preemptively made based on mere speculation or recent news. And the comparison to Bob Brown is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, as Brown also has the credentials of being one of the key founders of a political party. Also, as someone pointed out on Talk:Bob Brown#Requested move, there seemed to be nobody else listed on Bob Brown (disambiguation) "whose significance, both locally and internationally, is [more] substantial". One the other hand, the aforementioned Kevin McCarthy (actor) seems to have equal significance, with over two hundred television and film roles, and Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Furthermore, just because someone is a politician, it does not automatically give carte blanche to make this person the primary topic. Comparing a majority leader in the U.S. Congress to one of the key founders of an Australian political party is like comparing apples and oranges. In general, national U.S. polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans do not know, or cannot identify, the majority leaders in the U.S. Congress, even the Speaker of the House.[2][3] This does become a factor in depressing search results and traffic stats (if most people do not know who these people are, they are not going to search for them). I fail to understand how these U.S. majority leaders should automatically become the primary topic if they are not, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reads, "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". And if most Americans do not know, or do not care, who these majority leaders are, that does not give confidence that there is such long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A bit of clarification would appear to be needed in explaining the reason for mentioning Bob Brown. With all due respect to Green Parties around the world as well as Australian political figures, there was no intention to compare the two politicians directly or to point out that WP:other stuff exists, but rather to demonstrate the bar height required for primary topic selection as evidenced by the arguments presented in the two lengthy discussions at Talk:Bob Brown. Most disambiguation pages do not have primary topics and some editors did not agree that among the 21 Bob Browns listed at the dab page the retired politician was the most notable. The Kevin McCarthy dab page presents a smaller field of only 9 names, with the Oscar-nominated actor a likely candidate in past years for proposed elevation to primary topic. However, since the California politician is about to become the second-most-powerful figure in U.S. government, public apathy and ignorance notwithstanding (presentation of information as well as education being among the key functions of Wikipedia) the construct of name order has shifted. One need only examine article and talk page traffic over the past five years at the John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi articles to realize the future of Kevin McCarthy's entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Zzyzx11. In fact, I'd argue the actor is probably more notable than anyone else at this point, though that will probably change now to where no one is significantly more notable. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States politicians and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As of this writing, there are no other candidates. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, but I also highly doubt this subject is the primary topic per worldwide opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside any further elaboration upon WP:Other stuff exists and Bob Brown's worldwide primacy over 20 other Bob Browns, Kevin McCarthy will shortly become the second-most-powerful figure in U.S. government. His article traffic may be expected to be at least comparable to that of John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid (the primary topic over 4 other Harry Reids at the Harry Reid (disambiguation) page). Another instructive discussion may be found at Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 1#Requested move, which resulted, on January 26, 2011, in the move of Paul Ryan (politician) (one of 10 Paul Ryans on the dab page) to Paul Ryan. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What changed? He is still a politician and there are others with that name. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It Depends - If he is elected the Speaker of the House, then I believe a move is proper, because being the presiding officer over one of the three branches of the U.S. federal government not only brings significant attention and traffic, but higher stature.   Spartan7W §   23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I looked back 18 months ago, the March 2014 stats. Kevin McCarthy the actor's article got about 325 times as many views as KM the politician's. Now both are off the charts in the last 11 days or so. I submit we apply Occam's Razor: The increase in the actor's page view is likely the result of the sudden interest in the majority leader/heir apparent with viewers often going to the wrong page and the huge increase in the politician's page is likely because he suddenly has become very notable. In addition to the Hannity interview, Rachel Maddow aired several clips of a speech that may see wide circulation, viz. "...McCarthy gave on Monday to the John Hay Initiative in Washington. McCarthy repeatedly fumbled his words, making a lot of the speech incoherent." URL is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-kevin-mccarthy-speech-english-language_560d5a35e4b0af3706dfc389 Activist (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming this subject "Kevin McCarthy," as if he is now the primary meaning. He might be after a year or two as speaker, but he isn't now. However, Activist makes a good point that people may be going to the actor's page looking for this subject. It might be appropriate to change the actor's page to "Kevin McCarthy (actor)" and to make "Kevin McCarthy" into a disambiguation page - recognizing that neither of them is the primary meaning right now. After this discussion is closed (assuming the result is "no move"), we may want to start a second discussion proposing that neither of them be the primary subject and "Kevin McCarthy" be a DAB page. I see that George Ho already proposed this, and I concur. However I believe that should be a separate discussion, probably carried out at the current "Kevin McCarthy" article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Kevin McCarthy" title is already at dabpage, MelanieN. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction! and I will WP:TROUT myself for the goof. I could have sworn that a day or two ago I searched for "Kevin McCarthy" and wound up at the actor's page. And I misunderstood your comment "let's make the name a base title for dabpage". Anyhow, no change is necessary now. In the future it might be clearer to change this title from "Kevin McCarthy (California politician)" to something like "Kevin McCarthy (Speaker of the House)" since he will not be primarily known as a California person. Or at least make a redirect from "Kevin McCarthy (Speaker of the House)". --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The claim seems to be that he is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, my emphasis). This has not been established and is probably not true, it's even been credibly suggested above that the actor (who appeared in over two hundred television and film roles, had the lead role in the now highly acclaimed film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and was nominated for an Academy Award and won a Golden Globe Award for his role in Death of a Salesman (1951 film)) is on his own a more likely search term. The much more likely seems to be false on this alone. The all the other topics combined is an even higher hurdle. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ways and Means

Is there a reason we must call it the "powerful" Ways and Means Committee? I'm removing that adjective, but if it's some worldwide policy, I guess you can replace it. Thmazing (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some envisioned infobox

Kevin McCarthy/Archive 1
Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives
Elect
Assuming office
October 30, 2015
SucceedingJohn Boehner (resigning)

Speakership Election

The House has scheduled elections for Speaker on October 8, 2015, this coming Tuesday. McCarthy is looking likely to be the next Speaker, and while we cannot know until his election, I have prepared an infobox entry for 'Speaker-elect' as he might be until October 30.   Spartan7W §   00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's this coming Thursday. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Was. -- AstroU (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [Now postponed.]

Reverted deletion

The deleted material that I've restored is both notable and properly sourced. No rationale was provided for the deletion. Please read the source before undoing this revert and feel free to argue the case, but don't delete without justification. The comments about the inexperience of the presumptive speaker are ubiquitous, not just originating from a single source. Activist (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the information should be kept, but not in the lead, and not with a vague comment like "relatively inexperienced". (I also think "presumptive" overstates the situation, but that's another discussion.) I think there should be a sentence in the body of the article, at the end of the "Party leadership" section, citing this source: Kevin McCarthy would be the least-experienced House speaker since 1891. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the point raised by MelanieN about moving the question of experience to the "leadership" section is well taken. I made that move, with more definitive language as suggested. However, in the absence of what appears to be any other viable candidates for the Speakership at this point, and the short time left before Boehner's replacement is scheduled to be chosen, McCarthy seems to have a lock on it, leaving him indeed "presumptive," at this point, subject to change when the vote is taken and the successor confirmed. I would also note that when Crisp was chosen as Speaker in 1891, he was not in the line of presidential succession. Activist (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A lock on it? We'll see. [4] --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You may be right. This article claims that a possible 50 (presumably Tea Party) reps would not vote for McCarthy. They'd actually only need about 28 to stop his candidacy. Ideologically, they'd likely prefer Chaffetz, who has been in Congress for less than seven years. Here's the URL http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/politics/jason-chaffetz-kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker/ The question is, could Chaffetz get 218? Activist (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Our crystal balls aren't functioning properly. Suggesting what will happen in the leadership election, rather than reporting on what did happen, violates Wikipedia's policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not part of the article, obviously. It's germane because the discussion reflects a effort at reaching consensus regarding the issue of what to do with the page, now or in the future. This issue will probably be resolved on Thursday, unless no one has the votes to get elected. Activist (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
For instance, with regard the H.C. page, you wrote: This article is pretty bloated already and we have another year and two months of this ahead of us for this "email controversy" (assuming she's the nominee) to continue to develop, so we shouldn't be falling victim to WP:RECENTISM and adding news details that are contraindicated by WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (These consideration regarding her seems like an analogous situation to the one regarding K.M., wouldn't you say so?) Activist (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the news of McCarthy dropping out of the race suggests the "presumptive Speaker" bit that an IP just removed from the lead shouldn't have been there in the first place. On the other hand, this is such an interesting event that I think the speakership election needs an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Within living memory, the majority leader always became speaker. Therefore, upon John Boehner's announcement, Kevin McCarthy immediately became the "presumptive Speaker", as confirmed by most political observers. The current situation reflects the nature of present political alignment, but does not necessarily portend a revision in future majority leader to speaker successions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It proves the old Yogi Berra adage: "It ain't over 'till it's over." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Did vandalism HERE cause McCarthy to withdraw?

The media is full of the charge that vandalism here at WIKIPEDIA was the cause of McCarthy's withdrawal from the Speaker's race. Should this be mentioned in the article itself? Do we ignore it? How do we deal with this?YoursT (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be silly. There's a rumor that he had an affair, which is the reason he dropped out, and then the rumor was added to his bio and reverted. The rumor is a WP:BLP violation and won't be going in the articles unless there's confirmation. Something along the Cindy Gamrat / Todd Courser variety. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This is also probably just vandalism from some hack with nothing better to do there. I doubt it's part of a grand conspiracy.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The rumor was posted for less than a minute before Cluebot reverted it. However, if there is media coverage regarding the alleged impact of the rumor posting, that would be interesting. We don't need to get into recentism, but are there any links to RS for the alleged impact of Wikipedia?--Nowa (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, here is one link to a reliable source, I think, a Post article that leads off with:
"WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy abruptly withdrew his promising bid to become speaker Thursday as the married congressman was accused of having an affair with another married House member in an anonymous posting on Wikipedia."
The word "as" indicates to me that the Post, at least, sees the Wikipedia posting as a/the primary factor in McCarthy dropping out. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it was originally posted (with references to a source deemed unreliable) for about 10 minutes, before being deleted by Muboshqu. What made that change noteworthy was the origination: an IP address assigned to the US Dept. of Homeland Security. After the disclosure of the US Secret Service (which is part of DHS) disciplining an agent that advocated exposure of embarrassing details about another candidate for Speaker (Jason Chaffetz), it became noteworthy -- albeit coincidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.182.254 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the comment left by user Muboshgu in performing the revert, "mv BS allegation sourced to Breitbart, the only source worse than Fox News". Hmmm. I wonder what he considers "reliable" sources. Although I agree with the need for accuracy and verifiability in biographies of living people, it's attitudes such as this on the part of some Wikipedia editors that make all articles here dealing with politics, political figures, political commentators and politicized technical and scientific subjects a complete joke, not worth the time reading or quoting. Garbage in, garbage out. — QuicksilverT @ 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. The difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid is that an encyclopedia's content is not determined by the political correctness of the day. For example, any newspaper published by blacks for the black population, specifically in Alabama, in the 1950s would not have been considered a reliable source by the white media of that time. There are loads of perhaps well intended Wikipedia editors, imo, who use our rules in a much too controlling and limiting fashion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I consider NPOV sources to be NPOV, and if you think Breitbart or Fox News are NPOV, I've got a bridge to sell you. I have since seen the affair allegation in more traditional RS publications, but it's Beltway gossip and a big BLP no-no. We should include it if (a) it's proven true, and/or (b) it's proven to be part of the reason McCarthy dropped out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No source that offers any sort of counterbalance to the Leftist Media Bloc—consisting of "mainstream media" such as NYT, WP, HuffPo, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.—is hereby declared non-NPOV. Welcome to the Soviet Union.--Artaxerxes 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you really going to try to defend Breitbart as a source? You really want to go there? Shirley Sherrod would like a word with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple reports this morning that Ellmers addressed a party meeting and thanked them for their support, in the face of emails alleging the affair that were sent to a subset of Representatives -- literally minutes before McCarthy withdrew from the Speaker election. And for the suggestion that the Wikipedia edit caused his withdrawal: it's not likely. The rumor has been swirling at least since the beginning of 2015, resulting in a cease-and-desist order to a website by Ellmers' attorney. However, I'm not sure if any of the reporting sources are considered reliable. (71.252.182.254 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC))
Wikipedia...conveniently ignores its own source rules and BLP rules. I hope wiki gets sued by McCarthy and discovery uproots the violaters. This wasn't vandalism, as per this header, it was libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.226.22 (talk) 14:02, October 9, 2015
Oh please. McCarthy and Ellmers would probably be better served going after Politico and Huff Po, and The Hill, which have written about the rumors and how they may indeed be part of the reason McCarthy dropped out. Based on those sources, I'm wondering if this is a "when there's smoke, there's fire" kind of a thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Muboshqu, you've inadvertently revealed your own bias, and its exactly what Quicksilver was complaining about. You have disparaged Breitbart and FoxNews for not being NPOV (and rightly so, in my opinion). But, you just cited Politico, HuffPo, and The Hill as sources you trust -- even though they reported the same rumors that you discounted because it was from Breitbart. To use your own words: if you believe those sources are NPOV, I've got a bridge to sell you. I can also cite instances for typical "reliable sources" that were not NPOV (Killian documents controversy and Dateline_NBC#General_Motors_vs._NBC). Shouldn't they be blackballed, as well? 71.252.182.254 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Did I? Does anyone not consider Huff Po, Politico, or The Hill to be "reliable" under the definition of RS (aside from you, apparently)? Politico and The Hill are certainly "Beltway establishment" publications, while Huff Po has to me been seeming to take notes from Drudge in terms of style (just check out their front page), but they do actual reporting, so why wouldn't they be valid? Far left and far right wing sources shouldn't be used, but these three aren't in either of those categories. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"The rumor was posted for less than a minute before Cluebot reverted it. However, if there is media coverage regarding the alleged impact of the rumor posting, that would be interesting. We don't need to get into recentism, but are there any links to RS for the alleged impact of Wikipedia?--Nowa (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)"

It's now trending on facebook, but with no "Top Posts", and the "Latest Posts" only have a story by "ringoffireradio" and "dailycaller" which don't sound too promising, but the trend could feedback to more RSes. B137 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted links above (before discussion devolved into partisanship) links from Huff Po, The Hill, and Politico that discuss the rumor. That lessens the BLP problem, but I don't know if it should be included. We need to hear that it was a factor in McCarthy dropping out, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just browsing news and came upon this Thursday Post article that leads off with:
"WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy abruptly withdrew his promising bid to become speaker Thursday as the married congressman was accused of having an affair with another married House member in an anonymous posting on Wikipedia."
The word "as" indicates to me that the Post, at least, sees the Wikipedia posting as a/the primary factor in McCarthy dropping out. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Umm, the New York Post is known for sensationalism. I would certainly not accept them as a reliable source for this. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
ok thanks, Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article traffic on October 10, 2015

Although the above WP:RM discussion has been closed as No move, it may be worth noting, as a matter of historical record, today's 30-day article traffic for the 9 entries at Kevin McCarthy (disambiguation) page:

In casting an "Oppose" vote, the last voter, above, (Andrewa) noted that "[T]he claim seems to be that he is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, my emphasis). This has not been established and is probably not true….. The much more likely seems to be false on this alone. The all the other topics combined is an even higher hurdle." On the basis of current traffic, Kevin McCarthy (California politician) is, obviously, many times above all others combined. However, in order to sidestep skewed statistics due to WP:RECENTISM, these statistics should be re-examined on November 15, December 15 and January 15 to determine if another vote is warranted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The spike in page views that are clearly linked to the Boehner resignation announcement and the last two days of shitshow make a simple page view comparison unreliable. I agree that waiting a little longer to see to what extent evidence supports this as a possible primary target after all the brouhaha has calmed down. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Recentism.... In a few weeks, the arguments made at the move request will stand. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DHS investigation

Should the article mention that DHS is investigating whether 1 of its employees posted the affair allegation? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's currently posted here. Airplaneman ✈ 08:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually that's not correct. The DHS IP did not add the content, only added the references. Looks at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renee_Ellmers&action=history and you see a user Ctbrowne added the affair information. It was removed and the DHS IP just added references to it. So blogs just said it was the DHS IP that added it as its not a "news" worth to say DHS IP added references. JimHoffer11111 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added a few more words to clarify, but I've based it on the CBS article, not our own analysis of the edits. Perhaps there are more sources on this. Usually I hate this "inside baseball" stuff but it is all over the media. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The syntax was a bit messed up (afraid I messed it up a bit myself), but I've tried to clarify. The wording about "rumors" doesn't seem appropriate. I think the paragraph is OK now. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
RE: user Ctbrowne: they did add the affair allegation to the Renee Ellmers article, but not to this article. The allegation as well as the Breitbart source were added to this article by the IP in a single edit. So the information in this article, that it was added by an anonymous editor traceable to the DHS, is correct. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "anonymous edits": It is true that we here at Wikipedia refer to IP edits as "anonymous." But in the real world, the vast majority of editors, by using pseudonyms like mine, are anonymous, logged in or not. If that IP editor had created an account called "TangoZulu" or "JohnSmith" he'd still be anonymous. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In fact, by showing its IP, it was actually less anonymous than logged-in edits. I suggest we avoid "anonymous" nomenclature in describing those edits. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is better (re: anonymous). Referring again to the Ctbrowne comment above, actually Ctbrowne was just the first of several people who added some kind of allegation to the Renee Elmers page over the past couple of weeks; all of them were promptly removed and revdel'ed. Ctbrowne was NOT the one who added it on October 8. That was added four times by four different IPs; presumably the DHP addresses were first two, the ones that began with 216.81. The information was added to this article by a completely different address, ‪2601:146:c300:f5c5:423:f8fc:3821:d10b‬ . None of this can go into the article since it has not been reported; just for our information here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. Wasn't aware of that. I imagine a SPI is not possible for CtBrowne because SPIs don't link IPs to specific accounts? In this instance, such an SPI would have real-world implications. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any need to go after Ctbrowne. They posted it about two weeks earlier than the others. On October 8 (presumably when the Breitbart story came out?) it was posted at the Renee Elmers article five times, by three different IPs, before the article was semi-protected - and even after semi-protection it has been added twice more by autoconfirmed users. Here at the Kevin McCarthy article it was posted only once before the article was semi-protected, and hasn't been added since. IMO this shows the double standard we hold men and women to - the fact that everybody is falling all over themselves to add the allegations to her article, but his, not so much. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I misread the history here. The first addition to this article was by the same address as the Ellers article: ‪216.81.81.85‬ . It was then added twice more by other IPs before this article was protected. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

I did some restructuring of the article here, with reasoning explained in the edit summaries. I'm still not entirely happy with it, mainly because his candidacy for house speakership is currently buried deep in subsections, but I think my changes make the presentation of information more intuitive. Thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 08:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

McCarthy withdrawal rationale

I just readded some content to the article despite disapproval. I figured I would explain the rationale for my edit. My position is simple, WP:WELLKNOWN covers this exact situation. There is even an example listed which fits perfectly:

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. Yes
He or she denies it Yes
but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations Yes: Politico, Vox, New York magazine were the first I found in a Google News search
and there is a public scandal. McCarthy exited a race to become Speaker of the House, that's a big deal
The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. Agree
However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. Agree
If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Agree

I'm a little more torn about whether such material belongs in the Renee Ellmers article, leaning on the side of not including it until there is more useful information that we can say besides "she was accused of having an affair and she denied it." But I think it would be major a disservice to readers to not this information in both the Speakership race and the Kevin McCarthy articles. NW (Talk) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A mountain from a molehill. The allegation is from one trolling edit from an IP registered to the Department of Homeland Security. It sounds like a lot of bull until a real person comes forward or the affair is substantially confirmed.--MONGO 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This is one of those borderline situations that is always a pain, as is the Wikipedia element. I tend to think both belong because of the attention that has been given to them. It's not as if we're being used as a sounding board for stuff on fringe websites. Both the alleged affair and the Wikipedia edits are all over the media. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, that is in fact not the case. This has been circling Right Wing news for weeks and weeks. NW (Talk)
At this point the reasons for his withdrawal are simply speculation, and IMO the entire new edit should be reverted as speculation. In particular, the story line that "the affair allegation led to his resignation" is baseless speculation and should not be in the article. The allegation itself, and the fact that it was traced to DHS, does belong in the article and is there (but quite properly it is not sourced to any "right wing news" sources). But linking the allegation to his decision to withdraw is going beyond the sources and should not be there. When we get some solid information about why he withdrew we can add it. For now we have only his own statement, that he realized he didn't have the votes. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: No both the DHS and Wikipedia material were removed and should be reinstated. I agree with your other comments. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
When and where was consensus reached to remove that information? Anyhow, the current paragraph is poor. It should start out with the reasons McCarthy himself gave for withdrawing, rather than with media speculation. I am going to replace the current first sentence with something that gives his own rationale, and add the information that he will remain on as majority leader. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe consensus was reached for that removal. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not as NuclearWarfare claims a public scandal...McCarthy appeared to have insufficient support to gain the position of Speaker. It's not a scandal to drop out of the running if you strongly suspect you cannot win.--MONGO 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Article traffic on April 10, 2016 (update of above)

Six months ago, under above section header Article traffic on October 10, 2015, the subject of this article had traffic of 142,294, which was more than 10 times greater that all the other topics combined. It may be of interest to determine whether another WP:RM is warranted if such high traffic has continued half a year later:

The 30-day period covered is March 9 to April 9, 2016. However, in order to sample a broader view, there is a second number (in parentheses) which covers January 1 to April 9, 2016. The numbers have dropped considerably, but it is still evident that Kevin McCarthy (California politician) has higher traffic than all the others combined. If such proportions continue for another six months, another RM on the same subject would be warranted around October 10, 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On October 10, 2016, in the absence of any intervening comments, it may be prudent to wait until April 10, 2017, thus moving beyond the November election and current WP:RECENTISM. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's not make any more RMs. The competing person is the late actor: this year proves it. Also, how does the politician's career surpass the actor's career? Being a US majority leader is not as notable as being an actor. George Ho (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
On April 10, 2017, a year after the above traffic count, the results still resemble those of 18 months ago, a year ago and six months ago — Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (California politician) continues to have much more traffic than all the others combined, with Kevin McCarthy (actor), who had been the primary topic in Wikipedia's earliest years, still in second place, with about 10,000 fewer visits than the politician. We can wait another six months, until October 10, 2017, for another RM, but as long the politician occupies such a high-profile powerful post, his numbers will only continue to grow exponentially. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Party leadership section is poorly written

Some paragraphs under the "Party leadership" section are simply poorly written, both in terms of grammar and meaning. Specifically, it seems like they're the sections describing McCarthy's various gaffes. I mention this because I was just trying to clean one up but quickly realized it's a larger problem, so if someone's out there who's more invested in this article than me (a mere passerby), please rewrite those paragraphs. Subcortical (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This section does not have any reasonable coherence, and it places events out of chronological order. It reads more like a list or random and mostly embarrassing pieces of trivia than a legitimate description of McCarthy's tenure as Majority Leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.237.185 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Kevin McCarthy (California politician). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Should lead include "Putin pays Trump" comment?

Not sure its lead worthy. --Malerooster (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I think our treatment in the text is overblown. This obviously WAS a joke; he didn't actually believe that they are paid by the Kremlin, just joking about their admiration for Russia and Putin. I'm sorry to see this get blown up into some kind of scandalous accusation and would like to see it trimmed. MelanieN alt (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "This obviously WAS ...?" Any evidence? Is this the McCarthy promoting department or an independant medium? Here are his own words: "There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump. Swear to God." Besides this, there IS evidence proving Trump's economic links to Putin and Moskau, and of Trump being paid by the KGB. 79.231.62.97 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think it was a joke. Why "obviously"? Kevin McCarthy today just pardoned the whacked out rep from Georgia Marjorie Greene and did nothing to strip her of her committee assignments. The man's judgement is as unhinged as SHE is and so to state that McCarthy was joking about Trump's connections to Putin is really disingenuous. How do you know. The whole Republican pot stinks so bad you'd smell it from outer space. Why WOULD he kid about that when it's actually true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.58 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" instead of "false" claims re 2020 election

I would suggest "unsubstantiated claims" instead of "false claims" in the 4th paragraph, in order to preserve the sense of a neutral point of veiw. (Here is the current wording: "After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud, McCarthy falsely claimed that Trump had won the election and took part in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.") -Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:806:8201:1964:7DE4:26C4:6B4D:22B9 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying "unsubstantiated" in place of "false" isn't WP:NPOV. It's WP:FALSEBALANCE, which compromises NPOV. We need to call a spade a spade. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Kevin McCarthy (California politician). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

About the deli

About that deli he started, there were some recent changes and reversions. I wonder if we should mention the deli at all since sources provide multiple contradictory versions of the story. Per the National Review [5], he started it at age 19 (the description of it as “Subway before there was Subway” is puffery which makes the whole report suspect). His official House biography [6] (a primary, self-authored source) says he stated it at age 21 and sold it to put himself through college. The current source, NPR [7], says he opened it while he was a student at CSU-Bakersfield, using lottery winnings plus stock market gains; it doesn’t say when or why he sold it. This is all contradictory enough that I am wondering if we should leave it out entirely and delete the remaining sentence, While an undergraduate, he opened his first business, a delicatessen, after winning $5,000 with a lottery ticket.[11] Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: Your thoughts on this? --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with dropping it, since the sources are so contradictory. Rewrote the section to remove the reference. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

About the rumored affair

I believe there is longstanding consensus not to mention the name of the other party named in the extramarital affair rumors; do we need to reaffirm that? --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life

I was just wondering if anyone else agreed with me in that the personal life section seemed a little short? While all the information on his career is nice, I feel as though a little more on the man would give a more well-rounded look at him. -Jpoiry (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

House Majority leaders

I'd recommend that in the infobox here & in all past House majority leaders, that we either delete the House speaker or change the section from leader to speaker, in order to remove potential confusion. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Gun Control

Why is there no section about his position on gun control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.78.126 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is always a work in progress. If you have sources that we can use for that section, we can start one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove Asian Americans Section

Are we seriously gonna devote an entire section on 'Asian Americans' based on a single 'no' vote for a resolution 'condemning anti-Asian racism'? Reminder, this is a simple resolution and not a bill-- it has no force of law. Undue weight and the section as written is not NPOV. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek cited, looks fine to me. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, Newsweek post-2013 is not generally reliable and should not be used for contentious claims. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what is "contentious" given that the vote is cited to the congressional record and the section cites both to Newsweek and USA Today. Retain the section, and add PBS as an additional source, confirming the quote with similar coverage.
Quote: "Several House Republicans spoke against the resolution. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said it was “just another opportunity to attack the president.” Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs called it “woke culture on steroids.” Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said it was “ridiculous” and a “waste of time” as the House was about to adjourn for the week and Democrats and the White House have so far failed to agree on additional coronavirus relief."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/house-condemns-racism-against-asian-americans-amid-pandemic 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
As the user who closed the last discussion on Newsweak, this is exactly the type of citation there was consensus to try and avoid. We're dealing with a WP:BLP here of a controversial politician about a controversial subject. Other publications (including PBS NewsHour) should generally be used instead. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 election

It would be helpful in adding info about the recent election as this will be a turning point for politics in the generations to come. Diana2thsd (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Diana2thsd. Specific detailed suggestions accompanied by links to reliable sources are welcomed. Vague generalities? Not so much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Mccarthy (California politician)

shoudnt he be renamed into just kevin mccarthy because there is a Kevin McCarty who is a litteral Californian politician, and this Kevin is a federal politician i propose to switch the names — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuanLoud (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2021

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: Not moved, no evidence that this is the primary topic for long-term significance. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


– Per pageviews, the House minority leader is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The politicians have 441,101 pageviews (12,253 on daily basis) from 1 January to 5 February. Kevin McCarthy (actor), who is died in 2010 and was a highly-acclaimed actor during his lifetime, only have 25,303 pageviews (703 on daily basis) at the same time. In addition, other articles named "Kevin McCarthy" even only have merely hundreds pageviews in the last few days. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nomination. Over five years ago, at Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested move 26 September 2015, there was only one "support" vote for raising the then-majority leader to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Now, even though he has been reduced to minority leader, his page views have risen exponentially due to ongoing events at the Capitol. Even page-view competition from the Oscar-nominated late actor has been dramatically diminished. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Kevin McCarthy (politician): The reason for the increased pageviews is likely the current political climate. Before around mid-July 2020, the pageviews of this article compared to that of the actor were not far enough off from each other for me to say that there would be a clear primary topic. One of the 2 aspects mainly considered is that of long-term notability. The actor hasn't been involved in many news events recently so I doubt his pageviews will decrease much. It is hard to tell how much enduring notability this politician has particularly given the elevated pageview counts due to recent events. Because of that, I think it is too soon to say that this politician is the primary topic. However, it is obvious at this point that this is the primary topic for a politician named Kevin McCarthy. Username6892 04:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
We've had these WP:INCDAB discussions before, with Thriller (album) the most obvious example. No one is happy with incomplete disambiguations and this one is no different. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pageviews have been heavily skewed within the past few months due to recentism, as the California politician has been in the news lately due to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and other related ongoing events. Essentially, the OP and Roman Spinner's current comments above basically admit this. This does not offset the long-term notability of the actor. Nor does it offset what I previously mentioned in the 2015 discussion that, under normal long-term circumstances (i.e. before everything political seemed to always revolve around Donald Trump and his supporters), polls show that most American do not remember the names of the leaders in the U.S. Congress. We do not have a crystal ball. Whether Trump is convicted in his second impeachment trial within the next few weeks and disappears from public life, it remains to be seen if Kevin McCarthy the California politician will still be in the news long-term to generate the same consistent pageviews. And please do not talk to me about WP:OSE this time, because for every successful RM like Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 1#Requested move decided on the basis of recent traffic statistics verses long-term notability, there are also several failed ones like all those listed on Template:BillOReillyRMArchive. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The present imbalance of views, however, is extreme and it does not take a WP:CRYSTALBALL to determine that it will continue at least for the next two years and likely beyond. In the long run, there is also precedent in the case of a politician who was raised to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when he was heavily in the news — Talk:Scott Walker#Requested move 13 July 2015 — and then un-primaried a year later when he became yesterday's news — Talk:Scott Walker#Requested move 9 August 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that situation. Notice that I was one of those who opposed the Scott Walker page move in 2015, and supported reverting it back about 13 months later?[8] That is just another example why we should not be moving articles back and forth based on RECENTISM and news spikes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If McCarthy's current prominence was a Scott Walker-like one-year phenomenon of Wisconsin-based RECENTISM and occasional national news spikes, then there would be little support for his elevation to primary. However, his very-high-profile position as Minority Leader, at least for the next two years and as potential Speaker afterwards, has resulted in such extreme and continuing imbalance of views that we would not be serving Wikipedia users if we did not respond. If, at some distant or not-so-distant point in the future, a Walker-like depreciation is submitted for RM, it can be assessed on its merits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, you guys are still speculating on if's' -- if he becomes House Speaker, if he maintains his very-high-profile position. Wait until he no longer is in the public eye, when Trump and his supporters are no longer constantly in the news, when (as I basically stated above) it is back to "normal" like it was before Trump, and then reassess based on the 10-year test. I have been consistent whether here, on the Scott Walker articles, or something like the Apple vs. Apple, Inc discussions. Wikipedia loses credibility when we continue to move pages back and forth primarily based on current pageviews and search result that are heavily skewed because of recentism and news spikes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In addition for being a primary topic, "Kevin McCarthy" without disambiguator in Google search overwhelmingly refers to the Californian politician regardless it tie to recent events. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, While long-term significance is a factor per Zzyxz11 argument, historical age is not determinative and a topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (Kevin McCarthy refers to actor by many entertainers), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. 182.1.230.155 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's because a a google/search engine test usually is heavily skewed to recent news articles. It is not a good determination of the "general audience". If I did a google search of gamestop, for example, most results I get are related to the GameStop short squeeze or its stock. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per pageviews. When general audience worldwide think "Kevin McCarthy", they almost entirely refer to an Californian Republican who currently served as House Minority Leader than an critically-acclaimed actor who died in 2010. Even when you compare this to Iowan and Illinois politician with same name, he is clear PRIMARYTOPIC. 120.188.64.200 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I do find it interesting that all three IP's that have commented to far, the OP 36.68.194.127,[9] 182.1.230.155,[10] and 120.188.64.200,[11] all geolocate to ISPs in Indonesia. Fine, I'll use the localized www.google.co.id site for this: Compare how many results you get with Kevin McCarthy Trump versus just Kevin McCarthy -Trump A significant percentage of the recent results appears to be due to McCarthy supporting and/or being associated with Trump. There is a reason why I keep on mentioning Trump in my previous comments, and wanting to wait until everything calms down again when the major U.S. national media stop focusing on Trump and his supporters all the time. And I want to know whether it gets back to a time when it was pre-Trump when a significant majority of Americans could not identify the House Speaker.[12] Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
You must know, unless media coverage of Trump and its allies is going to be reduced or vanished from U.S. media, he will still be the main spotlight of U.S. national politics despite he is only House Minority Leader since 2019, presumably because his rule in House Republican Caucuses. Your comment that McCarthy is well known because his supporting and/or being associated with Trump is partially not true, because he is well known long before Trump become President, most recently in 2015 when he become House Majority Leader. In fact, major U.S. networks will continue to focusing its coverage on Trump and his supporters/GOP allies more than Democrats for time being despite majority of Americans could not identify the House Speaker, Majority/Minority Leaders, and its members. 182.1.230.155 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The actor is too notable for there to be a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This feels a little WP:CRYSTALBALLish, given that he has yet to become Speaker (and it's not a 100% sure thing he will, even if/when the GOP reclaims the House majority). Remember when Scott Walker (politician) briefly occupied Scott Walker based on nothing more than recentism? Given the actor's significance, we should try to avoid potential repeats of such a scenario. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm too proud for the critically-acclaimed actor who dies nearly a decade ago, but he cannot compare to this GOP politician who most people currently known. Even he is not House Speaker (assuming GOP reclaims House majority position on 2022 election), he will be remain important and popular figure in the US politics for many years to come. 116.206.35.20 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clear-cut case of Recentism. The noteworthiness of the GOP politician does not outweigh that of an Academy Award nominee. ValarianB (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Closing admin, please note that the four IP users in this discussion all Geolocate to Indonesia.
    36.68.194.127. Nominator, Jambi City
    182.1.230.155, voted support, Palembang
    120.188.64.200, voted support, Jakarta
    116.206.35.20, voted weak support, Palembang
3 cities, 4 ISPs, all have the same decent command of English, but make the same slight grammatical errors (know vs. known, "who is died", mixing up singular vs. plural). ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2021 (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.

Revert

@NedFausa: regarding this edit, I thought my wording the most neutral of the available sources. Which is the "singular opinion" expressed? Was it the "kiss the ring" image, far from unique to the impartial media I quoted, or was the medieval monarchy touch shared by many media ("antipope"), including as reported by Republican party organs ("kiss the ring"), the "bending the knee", "homage", "exile". What part is not reported by the preponderance of sources? GPinkerton (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: You cited one source for the opinion that "It looks like congressman McCarthy went to kiss the king's ring, seeking forgiveness and absolution for the momentary lapse" and "abjectly prostrating himself at the foot of the exiled king's throne." If you have additional sources, I request that you paraphrase them and use multiple references to support the metaphors of McCarthy kissing the king's ring, seeking absolution, and abjectly prostrating himself. A separate reference for each such instance of groveling would be ideal. NedFausa (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
NedFausa, the fact is that Sopel is not writing an opinion piece, rather, the BBC's editorial voice is saying that it looks that way, and the other sources are merely evidence of this, showing that it is reported that way. Wouldn't it over-complicate things if we started examining all the angles ("antipope", GoT, "exile", "other body parts") and historical comparisons (Antipope Benedict XIII, Napoleon, Chiang Kai-shek, Ferdinand Marcos) that various media put on the basic imagery of repentant homage-swearing? GPinkerton (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: I reject your characterization of Jon Sopel's opinion piece headlined "A Republican grandee pays court to Donald Trump" as impartial media. Sopel is after all the author of the book A Year At The Circus: Inside Trump's White House (2019), the mere title of which succinctly conveys his anti-Trump bias. NedFausa (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
NedFausa, as I said, it is not an opinion piece, and it wrong to claim otherwise. "anti-Trump bias" is not something the BBC engages in. Is there some reason this article should display a pro-Trump bias by omitting these commonly-reported facts? GPinkerton (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: You are repeating yourself. Since we have clearly expressed our differences on this point of contention, and are at an impasse, I suggest we await other editors' observations. NedFausa (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC on McCarthy's ring-kissing

Snow closing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the following text be re-added to the article? If not, how should this information be included? 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Jon Sopel wrote for BBC News "It looks like congressman McCarthy went to kiss the king's ring, seeking forgiveness and absolution for the momentary lapse" and "abjectly prostrating himself at the foot of the exiled king's throne."[1]

References

  1. ^ Sopel, Jon (2021-01-29). "A Republican grandee pays court to Donald Trump". BBC News. Retrieved 2021-02-05.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Survey

Discussion

I struggle to think why a person who thinks this is kind of extreme partisan writing is acceptable should continue to edit political articles. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Turns out this, and many other RFC postings, were made by GPinkerton in violation of a topic ban. [13] Closing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Correction: This proposal was not made in violation of a topic ban; their topic ban at that time was more limited in scope, to Middle East topics. I saw that the user is currently banned from the article and talk namespaces, but they actually proposed this RfC a few hours before that, so they were not in violation at that time. I also saw at ANI that “In anticipating the site ban, GPinkerton has launched a crusade to push as much wild POV content as they can before they are banned,” which led to their current ban from article and talk spaces. However, this RfC appears to have been made in good faith, as a followup to the discussion above. So I will change the closure to “snow close,” and from hat to archive. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (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.

Yes, that was too much. But the section at Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Capitol riot and reaction now doesn't say anything about what he did during the insurrection (didn't he call Trump about that?) and nothing about how he was criticized for his change of position, which is what the removed text went overboard on. Can someone work on an acceptable representation of what went down there? Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2021

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 After 30 days I don't see any consensus for this move. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

– I am requesting this move on the basis that the California politician has become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name, due to his positions of major leadership in the United States Congress. MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Original request by BigRed606: I am requesting a move because I think the more known figure Kevin McCarthy (California politician) title should be called Kevin McCarthy. I understand the need to there to be differentiations between the Kevin McCarthy articles title, but wouldn’t it make more sense that the more known figure of the multiple Kevin McCarthy’s have the title Kevin McCarthy.

Ps since the the other Kevin McCarthy’s already have the the their distinguishable ( ) explaining the difference between them in the title, we can just leave the rest of the articles like that and only change this article. BigRed606 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC) BigRed606 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Thanks for calling this to my attention. This guy is the only one of the namesakes who holds national office - and a significant national office at that. It is appropriate that he be the person at the undisambiguated name. The article should, of course, have a hatnote with the usual wording to see "Kevin McCarthy (disambiguation)" for other people of the same name. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that the significance and coverage of this KMc is far greater than Kevin McCarthy (Iowa politician) and all other KMc's, to the point where we can call this KMc the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - This Kevin McCarthy gets far more pageviews than any of the others; over the past year, he's had 3,711 average daily views, while Kevin McCarthy (actor) trails him at 585, and all the other Kevins are even farther behind. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As per above my original request. BigRed606 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To be a devil's advocate here, and although it looks like I'm in the minority now, my position has not really changed since either the last requested move discussion on 6 February 2021 or the previous one back in 2015. Pageviews and a google/search engine tests currently are heavily skewed because of recentism. This does not offset the long-term notability of the actor. Nor does it offset what I previously mentioned in the 2015 discussion that, under normal long-term circumstances, polls show that most American do not usually remember the names of the leaders in the U.S. Congress. The politician may get all these spikes now, but it does not guarantee it in the future. Maybe in a couple more years after the 2022 elections or when he eventually steps down from that position in the U.S. House of Representatives. Or when the major U.S. national media finally stop focusing on him as one of the major "bad guys" opposing President Biden. And maybe 10 years from now when everything is back to "normal", but not within the eight months since that last February 2021 RM discussion. I have been consistent on this, whether opposing the RM on Paul Ryan or something like the 2020 Apple vs. Apple, Inc discussions. Wikipedia loses credibility when we continue to move pages back and forth primarily based on current pageviews and search results that are heavily skewed because of recentism and news spikes. Like moving Scott Walker to primary topic only to revert it back. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zzyzx11 makes a convincing point; any argument to move is heavily influenced by recentism, and as such we should wait until we can determine whether he is the primary topic under long-term significance rather than present notability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, BigRed606, Muboshgu and ModernDayTrilobyte. At this point, recentism should no longer be an issue since this Kevin McCarthy has been far exceeding the combined views for all the other bearers of this name over the last seven years, since 2014.-- Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "Recentism" is a poor argument. An online encyclopedia isn't a static set of documents, as topics change in the real world, we should follow suit. It is plainly obvious that this Kevin McCarthy has surpassed the other Kevin McCarthies to become the primary topic. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above. This McCarthy is clearly primary with respect to usage, and I think there's a reasonable argument that he's also primary with respect to long-term significance: given the choice between a major party's Congressional leader and an actor mainly remembered for a single role (and various other forgotten figures), I think history will continue to emphasize this McCarthy over the others. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator and other comments. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I believe this RM was proposed on February 6, 2021 by an IP 36.68.194.127, but it were quietly rejected due to recentism, which is no longer an issue here. 180.254.163.140 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, generally per the above. It is hard to see how the leading historical significance of the California politician would recede or be eclipsed. BD2412 T 02:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support The current minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives is certainly the most prominent Kevin McCarthy out there, by far. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No clear primary topic. The actor is also extremely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The page views are pretty convincing. -- Calidum 16:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait (meaning oppose for now). The pageviews aren't very stable[14]. In March 2020 the California politician's pageviews dipped down to 20K views, while the actor's views were 16K - that's close. This despite the fact that the politician has been House Minority leader since 2019. As for long term significance there are great arguments on both sides, so lets wait until the politician is out of the news cycle and have this discussion again. I agree with Zzyzx11's point on not moving articles back and forth too much.VR talk 00:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose it isn't just the recentism issue. There are numerous Kevin McCarthys. I am about to add another. The disambig page makes sense as the main page. Page view comparisons would have to look at all the others combined. And not just now but when there is someone else holding that office. Frankly this proposal of putting all the other Kevin McCarthys as subordinate to this one is disturbing. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- as per the others, recentism and other qualified notable individuals. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support after over 5 years of off-and-on debate where people claim RECENTISM against this move, I must discount that argument. After all, we explicitly consider "usage" in assessing the primary topic; if the entirety of the past 5 years is too recent to consider there is nothing left. There are two articles which could conceivably be the primary topic, the hatnote should link to the actor as well as the DAB per If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page. The page views are clear; and for long-term significance a person who has already spent 10 years in the leadership of the US House seems to surpass the star of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and little else of note. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    @力: why do you say "entirety of the past 5 years"? In my !vote I explained how in March 2020 the politician and actor had about the same page views.VR talk 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I want to re-iterate that the "long-term significance" argument by Oppose voters is completely ludicrous. In 100 years, will people care more about an actor with two notable film credits, or a politician in the top leadership of the United States House of Representatives for a decade? They are saying "the politician is newer so it's RECENTISM", which is simply inaccurate. Furthermore, several arguments (most blatantly FloridaArmy's) are not based in policy; we have DABs when there are many people of a name, but it is clear only two individuals have enough page views or claims of importance to even be considered in a primary topic discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hmmm. California politician who's in the news these days vs. legendary character actor who has terrified the public since 1956? Easy call. No clear primary. Primary topics are not determined purely on routine news coverage, but even if they were... Given the way the GOP rotates floor leaders, ten years from now nobody will be looking for this article but one hundred years from now people will be trying to find out more about who played Biff in the Oscar winning "Death of a Salesman." I can go on Newspapers.com and find hundreds of movie reviews which specifically call out McCarthy's performances as they appeared. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Expand upon the essential nature of "long-term significance" in determining WP:Primary topic. One of the general principles mentioned at link is "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative." I think we can all agree on that. I'll assert here the actor earned sufficent notability for inclusion 70 years ago for his Golden Globe win; his career in theater goes farther back than that. McCarthy's first Broadway credit, in which he played the entire 472 performance run of Abe Lincoln in Illinois (play) won the 1939 Pulitzer Prize for drama. In 1943, U.S. Army Air Forces Sgt. Kevin McCarthy appeared in 212 performances of Winged Victory (play) by Moss Hart, of which a film was made in 1944. In 1960, he created the role of Val Ackerman (conservative senator from Wyoming) in the succcessful Advise and Consent (play), also made into a film. He had the lead in Cactus Flower (play), supporting role in Vonnegut's play Happy Birthday, Wanda June off- and on-Broadway. Graduated Actor's Studio with Brando. Thousands of Broadway performances. A hundred movies and over two hundred IMDB credits over eight decades. And then UHF (film). He's been significant enough to have an encyclopedia article about him since before the California politican was a twinkle in his parents' eyes. An actor's actor. Seen by hundreds of millions of movie and tv watchers over 70 + years. The politician? Lots of news hits now because of his involvement with his party's attack on the Capitol. That's what recentism is. Not that it merely happened recently but that we overfocus on it because we see more of it in the current moment. And the current media profit strategy drowns us with this political material mercilessly. The politician is TODAY. The actor is FOREVER. BusterD (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Questions: Is there some reason we're suddenly remeasuring consensus nine months after a previous discussion on the exact same move? Three threads up? Has the politician suddenly become more encyclopedic? What changed? BusterD (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
He is the Minority leader of the US House of Representatives and could potentially be the Speaker of the US House of Representatives in the near future, after the 2022 elections, if Republicans take control of the House. He has been mentioned heavily in past nine months not just because of the January 6 incident, but also various of other topics and reasons. Do you think he will be mentioned less heavily if he potentially becomes Speaker after 2022? I am sorry at this point a A high ranking member of Congress who gets a lot of coverage weekly trumps a actor, regardless if he has award to his name. BigRed606 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I consider the above "answer" to be non-responsive to my questions. Nobody in this discussion has made any case the subject's relative view-ability has changed since the last measure on primary topic in February of this year. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @BigRed606: There are a lot of "if" statements in your answer, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. You're suggesting he might, at some point, in the future become long lasting, notable. But what about the "past nine months," that is what we call WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps this is a good question for you -- given your proposal -- can you tell me something notable about Dennis Hastert without looking him up? Do you know who he was? Probably not most people who have already commented. And that is the point. Now perhaps you might have guessed that he was the speaker of the house, in fact he was the longest serving Republican -- but you see, the vast majority of politicians notability fades after they leave office - they're only extremely important for a brief moment in history. TiggerJay (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: I apologise, I wasn't very clear in my earlier post. This Kevin McCarthy clearly wins on usage, per pageviews and coverage. With regards to long-term significance, this Kevin McCarthy is (in my opinion) more significant as well, although some disagree. However, there is a strong likelihood that he will be speaker in 2023, and we would clearly then have to move it (as you have stated). To me, the fact that we are likely to have to move the page in the future anyway is a good argument to move it now, when usage is so clearly on this Kevin's side. YttriumShrew (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Now it's my turn to call out the poverty of argument. We're not discussing "wins" here. Too much about winning in the discussion above. We're not disputing notability, we're measuring primary topic. Numbers don't tell the whole story anyway, and all numbers don't point in the same direction. There is equally "strong likelihood" that McCarthy loses re-election in his own district like his leadership predecessor Eric Cantor because he's primaried from the right. So ANY such talk's mere speculation and no reason to assert ANY change. Since it may happen, we should do it now? Circular indeed. BusterD (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose as stated by others, there are many notable people with the same name, but there is some relevancy regarding this current politician, potentially would support if the election turns out to where he could become Speaker, but for now, he's a minority leader and does not have any major relevancy to warrant the ownership of the primary article. TheRattyGirl (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject California has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject U.S. Congress has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_McCarthy/Archive_1&oldid=1166569705"