Talk:List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives

Great work

Great job, Southern Texas. Nice page, consistent with other pages, includes pictures. Great work. JasonCNJ 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Southern Texas 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:John mccormack.jpg

Image:John mccormack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph martin.jpg

Image:Joseph martin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Stevenson

Stevenson was definitely speaker for most of the first session of the 23rd Congress. As it stands now, we seem to suggest that there was no speaker for virtually the whole first session, until Bell was elected on June 2 (suspiciously, immediately after Stevenson resigned from the House!). And we apparently say this everywhere. The House website has, for some reason, apparently scrubbed Stevenson's tenure in the 23rd Congress from its pages, but it still lists him in the Congressional Biographical Directory, and every list I've ever seen before today shows him until June 1834. What happened here? john k (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can someone fix the reason that Henry Clay's pictures isn't showing up. CTJF83 chat 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! (I did try to get the photo from the Henry Clay article to show up but couldn't get it to work, so used the painting instead.) Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If there's still a problem, try refreshing your browser. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks guys/gals CTJF83 chat 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't "List of Speakers by state" be number or quantity, since it doesn't list them, or is there a planned expansion to meet billing? 75.203.189.159 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? CTJF83 chat 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tenures

It appears as if, especially early on in the listing, that a Speaker's tenure ended with the close of a Congressional session, instead of the end of their term (or removal by the House). Was it in fact the case that the Speakership expires when the House is not in session? Naturally, there is no Speaker (formally) the beginning of a term and the first seating of the House, but this is different.

Could someone knowledgeable in House procedure look at this perhaps? Uberhill 05:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"aged"

Is it really necessary to put "aged [age at death]" underneath the birth and death dates for each speaker? It's not terribly relevant to the material at hand and at first I took it to mean that this was their age upon becoming speaker. If someone really wants to know how old they were they died, they could just do the math with their birth/death dates. --Jfruh (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Main table format

I’ve made some format changes to the SotH table so that it is consistent with the formatting of similar pages, such as the List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate. Please note that in the speakers’ "party color" column I intentionally used the current Democratic Party meta color ( ) rather than the color currently used in the "party color" column for presidents on the presidents list page ( ). I did so because   is the status quo meta color. There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 on which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party. Please join that discussion if you wish to express your view on this topic. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Drdpw. Why did you delete the numbering of the House Speakers? GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the column looked jumbled at first glance; it counted the number of individuals who have served as speaker rather than the number of speakerships, which is how the table is formatted. As a result, the column’s number sequencing was interrupted multiple times (numbers “1”, “7”, “9”, “32”, “43”, and “44” were repeated) in order to count to 54 in a table with 62 rows. That said, I would note that until January 11, 2016, when an editor, stating that "Speakers are numbered only once", changed it, the column did count (uninterrupted) from 1 to 62. So, if there is a groundswell of support for restoring the column, I’d suggest a return to that numbering pattern. What do others think? Drdpw (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The correct numbering pattern is House Speakers are numbered only once, this includes those who've served non-consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Order of service

@Drdpw: The removal of the order of service from this table is inexplicable. The officers who serve as Speaker are numbered; Paul Ryan is the 54th. No reason was given for their removal. This is plain dumb.   Spartan7W §   16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No need to be insulting Spartan7W. My reasoning for excluding the numbering column was sound, and is explained up page. As you are the 2nd person to bring this up, I add the number column back. Drdpw (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not being insulting. Your reasoning wasn't sound, it made no logical sense. You removed the numbers column because you didn't understand that it numbered them properly and later suggested its reinstatement with a numbering system that doesn't exist. Thats all.   Spartan7W §   16:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added/restored an index number column to the table. Drdpw (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

With Nancy Pelosi set to become the first former Speaker to regain the job in over half a century, I suggest we remember ol' Grover Cleveland and give her separate number as the First AND Second female Speaker. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi will still be the 1st woman to serve as speaker when she retakes the gavel tomorrow. The next (individual) female after her to serve as speaker will be the 2nd. Also, as this is an old conversation, please let it sleep and post only in the active Speakerships conversation below; thanks. Drdpw (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

speakerships

I don't see why if a speaker has non consecutive terms he doesn't have different numbered speakership? AmYisroelChai (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

encyclopedia Britannica counts nonconsecutive speakerships as a new number. [1] AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason why not is that speakers and speakerships are not (aside from encyclopedia Britannica apparently) numbered that way. According to the House of Representatives website, Paul "Ryan is the 54th individual to serve as Speaker of the House". The website makers no mention of his speakership being the 62nd. It stands to reason, therefore, that Wikipedia ought to follow the House's numbering pattern. Drdpw (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The House of Representatives website doesn't give a count at all except to tell you how many individuals have been speaker it just makes sense to me to count each non consecutive term as a new number as it would be if a different person would be elected as we count that way by presidents and governors. AmYisroelChai (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Since as i stated the house website doesn't actually number the speakership except by congress the only numbering we have is from the encyclopedia Britannica which numbers them by nonconsecutive speakerships AmYisroelChai (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It would make more sense to move the "Congress" column to the far-left 1st position (in which case the 1–54 numbering could be eliminated entirely) then to employ a made-up numbering system. The current numbering pattern (Speakers, including those who've served non-consecutive terms, numbered only once) is accurate, whereas the Encyclopedia Britannica pattern is not. Drdpw (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That would work as thats how house.gov counts them

I still don't agree that the numbering is accurate as we don't have any official numbering system it makes more sense to count each non consecutive term as a new number as we see by presidents governors prime ministers and others because if its non consecutive its as if there is a new speaker AmYisroelChai (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the numbers back in, counting non-consecutive terms separately. If Grover Cleveland is officially known as the 22nd and 24th President, then there is literally no reason to treat the Speakership as a different thing. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The house speakers are only numbered once. Please get a consensus first, for the changes you want to make. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What we want & what is, are two different things. Reliable sources have Paul Ryan as the 54th Speaker of the House, not the 62nd. House Speakers aren't numbered the same as US Presidents, nor do they have to be. Even among state governors & lieutenant governors, some states have a different numbering scheme from others. For example: Arkansas numbers its governors who've served non-consecutive terms, multiple times (Bill Clinton, 40th & 42nd governor of Arkansas), while Alabama numbers its non-consecutive term governors only once (George Wallace, 45th governor of Alabama). There's no 'one rule' fits all. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: To what "reliable sources" do you refer? If you're talking about this page, all it says is "Speaker Ryan is the 54th individual to serve as Speaker of the House." (emphasis mine) which is not the same as counting terms. House.gov appears to offer no guidance on this. However, news articles like these [2] [3][4][5] all refer to Paul Ryan as the 62nd Speaker, not the 54th. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We've got PBS, Speaker's page, Politico calling him the 54th speaker. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember ol' Grover Cleveland, consecutive terms is considered ONE, non-consecutive terms is considered More than one. FDR had one presidency, even though he served over three terms, Cleveland had two,separate presidencies.

Prior to the 2Oth Amendment, there were gaps of up to a year between sessions when there was no Speaker and the old one retook his postion without anyone there in the meantime. Sometimes (and this goes back to the very beginning) a person would take over as a full-fledged speaker and then the old guy would take over again. This is a separate speakership. Unless the "rebel Democrats" decide to force a second ballot, Pelosi will be both the 52nd and 55th Speakers. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point I think that we need to wait and see how reliable media sources AND the House of Representatives itself address this issue over the next several weeks, as the numbering convention may evolve. Perhaps numbering her split-tenure/multiple-speakerships will be avoided altogether, and continuing to refer to her as "52nd person to serve as speaker" is awkward at best. If it comes to pass that speakership are counted as presidencies are (in which case Pelosi will be 60th and 63rd speaker), then we (Wikipedia) should follow. We'll have to wait and see. I suggest that we reach an interim consensus on the matter so as to avoid edit-warfare in the near term. Drdpw (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Best thing to do, go with no numbering. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As suggested by GoodDay, I made an RfC on Paul Ryan's (the current Speaker at the time) talk page, and there appears to be a consensus for at least some kind of numbering. However, if we commit to no numbering, then there is no good reason to continue numbering the Speakers on the individual pages either, as we do currently, and á la the Presidents pro tempore of the Senate, which are not numbered. I personally am partial to more information over less, so I would rather go with numbering, up to and including two columns counting Speakership terms and individuals separately. But I am strongly against "no numbering". Nevermore27 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see adding numbers for speakerships as adding "more information." It's not some external data that we're citing and bringing to wikipedia; it's just creating a system based on information already in wikipedia, if you follow the distinction. I think the Presidential numbering is a different case because there is an official, accepted numbering system that the US government actually uses. But if there isn't one that the House or some other official body uses to number speakerships, then I don't see the value in creating such a system out of whole cloth just for the sake of having a list of numbers in a table, and would instead support following the precedent on the president pro tem page. --Jfruh (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this page, adding a "speakership #" column unnecessary, it would neither enhance the table's functionality nor add any meaningful information to it.Drdpw (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drdpw: @Jfruh: There should be consistency across the federal government. I know they're different branches, but we have numbers for all the Cabinet secretaries and while having a number column doesn't necessarily enhance functionality, neither would adding one detract from it. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Consistency isn't such a virtue that we should be making up our own numbering system just to achieve it. If those numbers on the Cabinet secretaries aren't derived from official sources they should go too in my opinion. --Jfruh (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jfruh: "Making up our own numbering system" is extremely disingenuous. There's only two possible ways to number them and multiple news sources use both. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi official portrait

Various people are changing Nancy Pelosi's images for her non-consecutive speakerships. Some believe that the images should be the same (as is every other non-consecutive speakership in this article), while others believe the images should be the official portrait from each term. Which is more appropriate? Nicholemacgregor (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nicholemacgregor: Honestly think it should be the latter. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Adams Republican

@Drdpw: Yes, I'm editing (and removing) the factions (Adams/Adams-Clay/Jackson/Crawford) universally throughout all WP articles. The faction is not necessary except in terms of the 1825 contingent election for U.S. president. If it is necessary to mention, then it ought to be mentioned in the text (if a prominent point) or as a footnote (if merely interesting, but irrelevant). If you think it's important here, then it's ok to keep it. :) —GoldRingChip 20:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi Tbl entry- TE: 4 not 3

In the main table shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi’s entry in the “Terms Elected” or “TE” column be incremented to 4 rather than 3 to reflect the new 2021 term?

Normally I’d just make the edit myself but give the nature of this page; I thought it best to just suggest this change first. Macb103 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

time line

Hastert line is blue, should be red. 208.79.109.214 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi @Drdpw: I see that you have reverted few of my edits. You could have asked me, but no issues. Do you object to any changes? I am open to reconsideration. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I propose the following changes, please let me know if you object to anything rather than reverting. I'm ready to discuss them:

• Mentioning birth-death date: Both List of presidents and vice presidents use this format, which has had a consensus here
• Adding sources for every entry: currently, much of the content is uncited. Adding citation to uncited content should be uncontroversial.
• Bolding the name: a stylic choice, but I want to know why you object to it. FLs like List of first ladies of the United States use that format.
• Adding a key on the top of the table: I'd expect that the reader would like to see the key before reading through the entire list, than after it.
• citing and reformatting the lead

Please let me know your stand on these changes. I am planning to get this list to FL status. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have recently added the information from the table key back into the article above the table, and have added two references to the table at its bottom. I'd of course have no objection were you to include a citation at every Congress or person named. RE:birth-death years, they seem less important on this page than in the POTUS and VPOTUS lists. RE:bolding, I find such styling unnecessary; the person's name is prominent enough fine without it. Also, what would you change in the lead? Drdpw (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Majorly adding citations, and re-organizing a bit (merging those bullet points in the prose) Will get back to this soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

118th Congress Speakership

Speaker has not been elected, I reverted changes that assumed it passed to Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Until an election by the full membership of the House produces a speaker, the speakership is currently vacant. MLHuntley (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@MLHuntley: Thanks; frustratingly, we have a persistent vandal who has not been blocked yet. Drdpw (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

McCarthy was elected at 12:30AM on January 7, 2023 on the 15th ballot. But I'm not going to change this article. Too complex.Michael Martinez (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The introduction to this election states that "the remaining six anti-McCarthy holdouts voted "present" on the 15th ballot". Why is this not shown in the table, since Present votes are shown in earlier elections? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That information is nowhere in this article, might you have intended this comment for some other talk page? Drdpw (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The information is found at 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, saying "On the fifteenth and final ballot, the six remaining Republican holdouts abstained, allowing McCarthy to be elected with 216 votes, or 50.5% of the votes cast for a named candidate."
Yes, I recognize that's a different article. I haven't checked to see whether all of the preceding "Present" votes listed here in this "List" article are specifically referenced here for this page. Nor have I looked to see why the wording is changed from my original post. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaker and Majority party

In the table of Speakers, there is already a column saying which party the Speaker belongs to. I'd like to suggest adding a column to say what party was in the Majority during the person's Speakership. I don't have an example, but I believe a few Speakers were not members of the Majority party. As an indirect nod to "compromise and cooperation", adding a Majority Party column would be of historical interest. 2600:8802:E0D:3E00:24E9:EEA3:575B:C2A5 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

While such a column may be of historical interest, it is outside the scope of this article. Further, such a circumstance has been quite rare in American politics. If it belongs anywhere, such information might be pertinent in the Speaker of the House article, of the , or perhaps the History of the United States House of Representatives article. Drdpw (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speakership vacant

The list says Patrick McHenry is Speaker. What I understand Speakership is vacante. Patrick is just handling the election of next Speaker as clerk did in January and that person is not listed. Andreasfroby (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the speakership is technically vacant, and its unclear whether Patrick actually counts as a full speaker in any regard, might be worth changing this article to reflect that (i.e. maybe not list him as incumbent but as something else). Amshpee (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current listing as the second 118th Speaker in addition to "(acting)" and the note that he only serves as speaker without having the full job is sufficient to draw a distinction, and that he should be listed on the article. Brooklaika (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time the Speaker pro temp has acted while there wasn't an official speaker. As the only person in the position of Speaker, he should be listed, though labeled as acting or interim. Compare if the President and VP were both removed from office and the Speaker became Acting President, they would definitely be listed on List of Presidents of the United States, even though there have been Acting Presidents before. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

He has not been elected as speaker and should not be listed. Note that we do not include temporary acting presidents in the list of U.S. presidents. Now, that might change down the road someday, if the scenario you posit ever comes to pass, as the APOTUS would serve out the remainder of the unexpired term. This speaker pro-tempore will only serve until a new speaker is elected, be that days or weeks (or months) from now. There have been long periods in the past when the speaker's chair was vacant. Someone filled in, as speaker pro-tempore during those vacancies, but those people are not listed, neither are those vacancies noted in the table (as this one should not be when it is over, unless we wish to go back and note every time the speaker's chair was vacant). Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Those vacancies were not the same as these. They did not have the same powers as the current pro temp per RS. KD0710 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

See Speaker pro tempore on how this is different. KD0710 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. The pro temp should be listed. House rules dictate a how this is handled and this Pro Temp has all powers of the Speaker as opposed to in between sessions. Reputable sources indicate that this is the first temporary speaker. Therefore, since they are in the line of succession and have all the power of the office, they should be listed. This is a new scenario the House has never seen, thus listed differently. KD0710 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Line of succession aside (as McHenry is, without question, not Speaker of the House, he is not in the line of succession), your point is well-taken. Drdpw (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right on the line of succession. I misunderstood that aspect. They are able to conduct business in the Chamber but don’t have the Constitutional privileges. KD0710 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Quirk in "Speakers by time in office" table

John Bell is listed ahead of Kevin McCarthy in the "Rank" column (52nd place vs. 53rd) even though McCarthy is listed as serving longer (276 days for McCarthy vs. 275 for Bell). Seems like there's a problem here but I wanted to check in on the talk page before changing anything, in case there's some odd dispute over the number of days or some such. Jfruh (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jfruh: Thanks for noticing that. No one had added McCarthy's end date to timespan template. Drdpw (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

McHenry empowerment

There's discussion on "empowering" McHenry so he can perform the regular duties of Speaker. If that happens he should be included in the list as an acting Speaker. eduardog3000 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the scope of his powers and how the House delineates his status. The authoritative answer to the "should we include McHenry" question will ultimately be discerned by looking to official federal government sources, such as the United States House of Representatives. Drdpw (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Official government sources probably wouldn't list him as he is acting. They're more interested in listing sitting Speakers. But listing acting officials is in the encyclopedic interest of Wikipedia. While short term or limited power acting officials could be omitted, an official explicitly given the full powers of the office should be listed. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Including gaps

If we include the most recent Speakership gap, then I would argue we need to include the other gaps as well. There are several once you go back more than 100 years. Perhaps there is something different about this particular gap, but then I think we need to include that.

And if the idea is that you want to mention the acting Speaker, that makes sense, too. But I would suggest that needs to be mentioned in every gap--or specified that Congress was not in session. — trlkly 22:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A gap in speakership during when Congress is in session is noteworthy; a gap when it's not in session is standard operating procedure and not noteworthy or worth cluttering up the table for. --Jfruh (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)