This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Louisiana / Shreveport / State Legislatures C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - Shreveport (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Mid-importance).

SPA user User:Jeffersondrive has a history of making edits exclusively to this article, done over six weeks from mid-March to late April 2021, and characterizing a deletion of 2,192 characters, text that might have reflected negatively on the subject as a "minor" deletion, covered in part by simultaneous addition of 236 characters in text about a different subject to the article. "Jefferson Drive" is the main avenue on the Capitol Mall on which some of the Smithsonian Institution buildings are located. Activist (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what was written was written like a resume and was made up of uncited additions with bill names (most or all of which never became law, and many of which never made it out of committee). I think it's likely that there's something of a COI here. Plandu (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson only won the internal GOP conference vote and will be the GOP candidate to the speakership. If a majority of voting congressmen choose him, then he will be the speaker. I think the expression "speaker designate" is inaccurate. But I cant edit the page 2804:D84:2280:2400:445E:C8B8:6259:A33C (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@98.97.31.73:. Please stop vandalizing the page. If this continues, I will report. KlayCax (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note a reads, "No record of Johnson exists on the Lousiana Secretary of State website. For this reason it is assumed that Johnson had no competition." I will try to find a better source. Dgndenver (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for Johnson's father's relationship to the Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation is a broken link, and I cannot find another third party source to support that information. It also feels irrelevant to the life of Mike Johnson. Unless another source can be found, I would support the removal of that portion of the early life section. Eventhisacronym (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the lede suddenly five paragraphs for a mostly unknown congressman? It seems like he's not known for anything but becoming Speaker, but every single policy position of his has suddenly been dumped in there as though this were a prominent feature of his. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is receiving heavy traffic and many conflicting edits; it looks like we'll have to trim that down a bit when the frequent editing dies down. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to note that I accepted a revision by @KlayCax which re-added a paragraph in the lede because an IP editor removed it without adequate explanation. The IP editor stated that he felt the information did not need to be in the lede and should be elsewhere in the article, but he completely removed the content and did not re-add it or restructure it elsewhere. With that said, the article is currently under protection anyway. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have universally identified his:

• Opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and cannabis legalization
• Membership in the Christian right faction of the Republican Party
• Attempts to overturn at least some of the 2020 presidential results

As notable aspects of his politics. These three things deserve mention in the lead per WP: Weight. KlayCax (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ledes run longer for major politicians like Speaker so he'll likely have a long lede when this is all over, but it definitely will need trimming once editing dies down a little TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the recent changes to this article seem to reflect political bias; the sources sited are almost entirely articles written today (Oct 25, the day of Johnson's election to speaker) by publications opposed to him. The second paragraph emphasizes those policy positions of his most likely to be unappealing to American voters; eg abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious fundamentalism. It does not mention stances on taxation, federalism, or other issues which are emphasized by his supporters. While his unpopular positions are part of the picture and need to be mentioned, this article is an unbalanced presentation and should be corrected with a more neutral selection of policy positions. It also seems to me that political newspapers hostile to Johnson (e.g. this MSNBC article cited in the second paragraph, which is essentially a hit piece) should not be considered valid sources of information on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.139.1 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@198.160.139.1 What are these publications you say are opposed to him? SecretName101 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax, you re-added this section[[1]] with new sources that do very little to support claim of the section. The same problem exists, the quotes included are from a lawyer on behalf of a client. They may be his real opinions, but that needs to be sourced directly. Also, the blog that's cited isn't exactly a reliable source, but but even if it was it doesn't support the section either. I'm removing the section for now until better sourcing can be found. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also - it’s not even a political position. It shouldn’t be in that section at all. JTW1998+ (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tax breaks are a political policy. KlayCax (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. User, KlayCax, cites from a Salon article and Pharyngula (a blog site) neither of which can be considered valid sources by reasonable and intellectually honest people (including those who may disagree or politically oppose Speaker Johnson). Treibleg (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources are alright as long as they state an uncontroversial fact. Jacobin, Fox News, et al. are all examples of this. The claim itself made in the article is uncontroversial. KlayCax (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to remove the section until there's consensus to include and to avoid edit warring. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If nobody comments on Johnson's anti-biology stance except PZ Myers in his blog, it is not relevant here. His anti-climatology stance has been commented on, so that is OK. He probably disagrees with a lot of other sciences too (especially epidemiology, I expect), but we need good sources for that too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many other sources have also commented on it. It doesn't deserve to go in the lead. But a simple mention within the body of the article doesn't seem problematic. KlayCax (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tax breaks are political policy. So spending 50 words on it doesn't seem that disproportionate. I agree that it doesn't be mentioned in the lead of the article, however. KlayCax (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson – Given that he was just elected Speaker of the House, I would argue that this title should be simplified to simply "Mike Johnson", while the existing Michael Johnson disambig page should be renamed "Michael Johnson (disambiguation)", and the current "Mike Johnson" redirect to that disambiguation page should be removed, in favor of an {other uses} at the top of this article. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Cpotisch (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - He's the first Mike Johnson to obtain such a high position. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Self Support for posterity (reasons listed above). Cpotisch (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RMCOMMENT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - there's now obvious and overwhelming notability for him versus the others. KlayCax (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significance in American politics. TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too soon. We don't know how many days he will hold that position. StrayBolt (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Suppose for the sake of argument he does have an exceptionally short tenure as speaker, then I'd argue that distinction alone would render him a quite notable Speaker of the House historically, certainly enough so to warrant the removal of (Louisiana Politician) from his name (just as many of us are aware of William Henry Harrison as the shortest-tenured President). And of course, if he has a long tenure, the clarificatory ellipse ought be removed as well. Either way, it should be removed, with a disambiguation page like former Speaker Paul Ryan (another generic named speaker). Salmantino24 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Straybolt. Let's give this some time before we make a change. This is a pretty common English name so I would recommend giving this a few months at least. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the speculative notion that simply because he might lose this position in the future, he is any less notable now. That said, if you do want to discuss that possibility, I would point out that (if I'm not mistaken), Kevin McCarthy's article had the exact same change sort of move made after he became speaker, and this was even though he had already signed away most of the stability of the role, with his rules package. It was the right call to do the rename then, and it's the right call now, as in my view, regardless of how long someone held or may hold the role, they inherently become so notable due to their tenure as Speaker that it makes hardly any sense to specify "[state] politician". Cpotisch (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, "mike johnson" is a for more common name. Nemov (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still 3 past speakers which still have disambigs. McCarthy was moved before becoming speaker, and there was some post objection after the move. I could see Mike Johnson would have a hat to the Michael Johnson disambig page. StrayBolt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to change Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) -> Mike Johnson, is the possible appearance of bias on the part of Wikipedia. During the time where Wikipedia has existed, I strongly doubt there would have been a discussion on whether a current Speaker of the House is notable enough for his own name to be the title of that page. The debate itself arises from opinions that his power in the position may be limited or his tenure may be brief, which are subjective and inherently political judgments that Wikipedians ought not engage in. Salmantino24 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't want to be criticized" is not enough of an argument to motivate this change. The only way NOT to be biased is to assess whether this page move makes sense as we would any other article.

I am not convinced that this Mike Johnson (outside of the momentary curiosity after the election) is guaranteed to be the "Mike Johnson" a vast majority of readers want to read about when they search "Mike Johnson".

The goal is to convenience readers, get them to the article they are looking for as quick as possible. Can we say that in a year or two, more people will want to read about this guy than every other Mike Johnson combined? Because, before we inconvenience every reader looking for another Mike Johnson, we need to have confidence that (lastingly), the vast majority of people who will search "Mike Johnson" will hope to be directed to this article and are not hoping to find another result. SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Any US House Speaker seems to be overwhelmingly more notable than pretty much anyone who has the name. I don't think this is a case where TOOSOON would override a Primary topic move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major politican within US politics. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - my reasoning is included in the accidentally created duplicate move request below. Sahaib (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - He is the most famous Mike Johnson and has significance simply by virtue of being Speaker of the House. I agree with InvadingInvader above that length of time is irrelevant Epicradman123 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support By being the speaker of the US HoR, he's significantly more notable than practically anyone else with that name. Ueutyi (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not notability, it's ubiquitous association with that name.

  Essentially: we want to be assured that in a two years or more from now, an astronomical proportion of the people searching for "Mike Johnson" will want to find this article.

  There are plenty of other Mike Johnsons prominent in their fields. We don't want there to be large share of readers searching for those guys who have to navigate their way to finding the link the disambiguation page (which will make their intended target page two clicks away rather than one).

  It remains to be seen if this Mike Johnson will be the one nearly all users want to find when they search that name. Plenty of speakers that served a long while are mere footnotes in memory. So why should we assume the guy who has served all but a few hours at this point (and done nothing yet of note in the role) would be a more sought-after search than all of the other Mike Johnsons combined.

  We want to convenience the readers and get them where they want to go in the least number of clicks. You should not be comparing this Mike Johnson against singular other Mike Johnsons. Instead, you should be comparing him against all other Mike Johnsons. Will the number of readers who want to arrive at this article when searching "Mike Johnson" far outweigh the ones who hope to find any all of the other Mike/Michael Johnson? SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Clearly the most significant "Mike Johnson" with a Wikipedia page, being that he is US Speaker of the House. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - I knew this was coming. Too much WP:RECENTISM. He's dead last out of the outgoing from the dab page Michael Johnson (to which Mike Johnson is a redirect)[2]. Will that change soon? Probably, but that's just speculation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806: please read Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics where it states "Care should be taken when evaluating terms that are not identical to those of the articles concerned". Michael Johnson≠Mike Johnson. Sahaib (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People searching Mike Johnson end up in the same place. Anybody who searches for "Mike Johnson" looking for the new speaker will end up on the same dab. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's speculation at all. He literally already is Speaker, and therefore, unlikely all the other Mike/Michael Johnsons, he is 2nd in line to become head of the 3rd largest state on the planet. That's pretty freakin notable. Cpotisch (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is just speculation. WP:CRYSTALBALL explicitly says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions (emphasis my own). It is just a presumption of ours that he will become the primary topic. I agree with you, it will almost certainly happen. Key word being "almost". estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with the suggestion that it's in any way TBD as to whether he is the primary topic. I fully feel that he has already become the primary topic, by virtue of having an extremely important position. You can of course disagree with that, but my argument definitionally isn't one of speculation or presumption, because I'm saying that he has already become the most notable. Cpotisch (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. You're certainly right about long-term significance. I just think we're obliged to hold off for a little while considering the pageviews. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose at the moment. This Mike Johnson has not as of yet obtained ubiquity in recognition as the prime individual associated with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He's second in line to the presidency, he's a lot more notable than anyone else of the same name regardless of how long he remains in office. Khronicle I (talk)
• Oppose renaming Michael Johnson as it is an extremely common name for which there can be no primary topic; neutral on moving Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) to Mike Johnson, as unlike the disambiguation page, the nicknamed version seems to be less used, though I am still uncertain. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cpotisch, can you clarify what you are proposing be done with Michael Johnson if it is moved to Michael Johnson (disambiguation)? Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I'm fairly neutral about "Michael Johnson"? I think it probably makes sense to just redirect that to the dab as well, maybe with Mike as the top option there. Open to suggestions but I don't think that's super important either way for the big question here. Cpotisch (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support He is overwhelmingly more notable than any other person named Mike Johnson. I endorse the move. Floridian (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely the most notable and important Mike Johnson. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He has became the most famous Mike Johnson in a matter of hours. TheInevitables (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Famous to political buffs maybe. But to many, the many Michael/Mike Johnson's in sports might be more known to them than this Michael Johnson.

  In order to be the default page for a name, he'd need to be near ubiquitously recognized as the primary individual associated with his name. Not slightly-more known, nor simply having held a position/profession of higher prestige. It's all about whether there is strong enough ubiquity.

  And all we know, his name-recognition might be at its peak this very moment. It's pretty probable that he will not be speaker come 2025 or earlier, and will possibly be a footnote in politics.

  Even if he hypothetically goes on to become the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history, he even then might still be all that more-known to the general American public (let alone to the broader world) than the other Michael/Mike Johnsons. Some speakers are just poorly-known in the public consciousness. Poll your average American on who Dennis Hastert (the current record-holder for longest-serving Republican speaker) is, most would never have heard the name let alone be able to tell you who he is. And Hastert has only been out-of-office since 2007. He's not the only long-serving House speaker most people would not recognize. Even political buffs would be forgiven for not knowing who Tom Foley was, and he served an entire six-years until 1995 (longer than Nancy Pelosi, and longer than Boehner to put that in perspective). SecretName101 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also worth noting that three past house speakers have disambiguates in their article titles:

  • John White (Kentucky politician)
  • John Bell (Tennessee politician)
  • John W. Taylor (politician)

  And (in addition to his speakership) John Bell was the third-place finisher in the 1860 presidential election ( 12.6% of the vote), served as secretary of war (briefly) and was as a U.S. Senator for two terms. Far more historically notable than Johnson at this moment, yet he still has a disambiguation because he does not hold sufficiently ubiquitous association with his name. SecretName101 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close, anyone? Cpotisch (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - With how volatile the situation in the House currently is, I do kind of want to see if he can stick around a bit before this is changed, since Mike Johnson is a pretty basic, common name. Maybe just make him the first person listed on the Michael Johnson page for now? SnoopySnoo (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either moving or enacting SnoopySnoo's proposal. As the third highest ranked official in one of the biggest countries he is much more notable than anyone else sharing his name. Jbvann05 21:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We did the same with Kevin McCarthy (California politician). Llevenius (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not until 2022, by which time he had spent an entire eleven years making a name for himself while holding Republican floor leader positions. Until a few hours ago, Johnson was a no-name near-backbencher.

  Also, some of the other Mike Johnsons also have greater prominence in their fields than any of the Kevin McCarthy's do SecretName101 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per User:KlayCax and the others who have made the same or similar arguments although if another person with this extremely common name ever reaches a similar level of prominence, I'll probably wish I hadn't voted like this. City of Silver 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: He is now clearly the most notable person of the Michael Johnsons listed, even if that was not the situation 24 hours ago. It would be a service to WP Users to not have them have to dig through the MJ Disambig page to find the Mike Johnson that most searchers of that term will be looking for. KConWiki (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Reasons of note have been listed PhummyLW (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: By far the most notable person with the name, even if he doesn't last long as Speaker. People in the future are far more likely to study him than any others with the same name. Other reasons for why I support the move have already been said. Derpytoucan (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Despite his election as speaker, I think it is still too early to move per WP:Recentism, especially given the number of notable people with the name. However, I do support making him the first person listed on the Michael Johnson page. Xenryjake (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Extremely generic name and wouldn't be the first speaker with this format, check John Bell (Tennessee politician) and John White (Kentucky politician). Killuminator (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was going to propose switching him over as Mike Johnson (politician) given how he holds a higher office than the other Mike Johnson politician articles that exist. However, keeping him as simply Mike Johnson might be best as well since we did it for Kevin McCarthy and even Jim Jordan. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned earlier, three past house speakers also have disambiguates in their article titles, including John Bell (Tennessee politician), who was the third-place finisher (12+ percent of the vote) in the highly-significant 1860 presidential election. It's not at all about the prestige of the office he holds. It's about whether he is widely considered to be far-and-above the first person who is thought of when the name "Mike Johnson" is mentioned. At this moment, it's ridiculous to assert that he has achieved that level of ubiquitous association with the name "Mike Johnson". SecretName101 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per the reasons well stated above. Moncrief (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as premature. I count 17 other articles titled "Mike Johnson", let's actually see what the pageviews do over the next little while before moving. I absolutely oppose redirecting Michael Johnson to this page as proposed by the nominator as no evidence or argument has been presented that this article is the primary topic for "Michael Johnson" as opposed to Mike. ITBF (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said that Michael Johnson should redirect to this page...? Cpotisch (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Never even heard of this guy 24 hours ago and now he's supposed to be the default over all other people named Mike Johnson? Please. Einsof (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson has said he was the product of an unplanned pregnancy and his parents were teenagers at the time: [3]. I would say this is relevant because Johnson has specifically cited that fact as one reason for his own anti-abortion views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See early life section. MonMothma (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a very important section as Johnson has said extremely controversial things on the issue. Given this, I think it is important that his staunch Christian beliefs are referenced here so readers have the full context of his beliefs. LeonDias19 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @LeonDias19:. The term "traditional Christian view on marriage" seems both unsourced, OR-ish, and disputable. KlayCax (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax I added that as it is the cited article for that section (citation 63). This is him being quoted in that article, “Loss of this status will de-emphasize the importance of traditional marriage to society, weaken it, and place our entire democratic system in jeopardy by eroding its foundation.”

The word “Christian” was added by another user for clarification since he is an Evangelical Christian. LeonDias19 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCaxHere is the source being cited, see paragraph 13

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/mike-johnson-gay-sex-criminalization-kfile/index.html LeonDias19 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's Johnson saying that. Not a news agency. KlayCax (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does "citing his religious beliefs" work? @Leondias19:. I also changed "LGBT rights" to "LGBT rights movement". KlayCax (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works for me LeonDias19 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending RS's, I would personally suggest tagging them as his religious beliefs, often on par with the Christian right InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax: Previously, the political positions were ordered alphabetically. What is the order you've used? SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By implicit notability. However, I'm fine with other rearrangements. KlayCax (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please change: Johnson supports ending American military aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.^[1]

to:

Johnson supports American military aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.^[2]

In the referenced article Johnson said that he support US military aid to Ukraine. Article citation : "For instance, he voted to certify the 2020 presidential election, to allow same-sex marriage, and send aid to Ukraine." JohnSteinSr (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The passages you refer to are talking about Emmer, not Johnson. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnSteinSr: adding, the article says "Unlike Emmer, [Johnson] voted...against more aid to the Ukrainian war effort." I think the text on this article just restates that. City of Silver 21:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we're including the response to Johnson's beliefs from his colleagues in the "Election fraud" section. SocDoneLeft, in your edit summary you said "I think House Republican support for Johnson's beliefs on the 2020 election is important enough to mention (especially as 2024 approaches) given that they may decide 2024's outcome", but this is WP:SYNTH, as none of the sources mention this - further to that, it really still has very little to do with Johnson himself. Pinging you to try get some discussion started and would appreciate any input from others. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: for an example of sources discussing the importance of this support, see Einenkel 2023: """And with all of that said, if there were any questions about how House Republicans feel about the attempted Jan. 6 coup d'etat by Trump et al., this moment during Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar’s speech on the House floor before the speaker vote should put any questions to rest.""" I think that, given the importance of House leadership's and body's beliefs on the results of the 2024 election, it's relevant information. SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SocDoneLeft: I mean, aside from the fact the source is still extraneous to Johnson's actual policy as just being a reaction, the Einenkel source you've just referenced is in the Daily Kos which is regarded on Wikipedia as an unreliable source, per WP:DAILYKOS. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: That's fair -- but in this instance, the Daily Kos article was written by staff, not a user blog. As well: The New Republic writes (immediately above the "booing" video: """Ultimately, it was Johnson’s work that allowed Republicans to seize on the events of January 6 for political profit, helping them transform their brand from dangers to democracy to defenders of electoral integrity, and garner grassroots support and donations from corporate backers who had once denounced them.""" SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a whole, the Daily Kos is regarded as a group blog - this was taken into account in assessing it for its reliability. I take your point on the New Republic aspect, but we need a reliable source on the "Damn right" shout if we're to include at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: I think removing the "damn right" shout would be totally fine. SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds agreeable to me. I'll go ahead and implement that then. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As a whole, the Daily Kos is regarded as a group blog" I have been a member of it for several years. It also reprints and summarizes news items from various sources, and includes book summaries and reviews. Most of the information is cited to other sources. Dimadick (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case it gets removed again, this special politician needs recognition for voting against veterans and disabled veterans more specifically. Add more citations as needed.

Veterans

The PACT ACT, which expanded VA benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during their military service, received a "nay" vote from Johnson.^[1][2] Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV^[3] Johnson votes against cannabis.^[4] Twillisjr (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twillisjr, I checked the QG Digital Publishing source you cited regarding cannabis. I didn't see any mention of Johnson at all. That's why I took it out. Also, both sentences need better sources to establish notability. MonMothma (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a subsection in the article about his position on medical marijuana. MonMothma (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]