Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician): Difference between revisions

On Dec 17, 2023

Line 228: Line 228:

*”’Oppose RfC as written”’ So we had a good discussion above where it was concurred that (speaker) is valid and [[James W. Husted (speaker)|used in cases like this]], and yet it isn’t an option? So now the only choice is option A which I don’t like, and option B which I don’t like. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

*:Which one do you like better? After we are done with this RM anyone can propose another RM between (politician) and (speaker) so that we don’t keep splitting the vote despite having a consensus to move.

*:I understand that this introduces a problem where Option B, whether (politician) or (speaker), gets the advantage in that hypothetical subsequent RM, but it’s either do that or not get it moved at all. Since most people agree that it should be moved, I don’t think people should oppose the whole RM, because it’s just going to result in no move at all, ~~even~~ ~~though~~ most of us ~~want a~~ ~~move~~. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

*:I understand that this introduces a problem where Option B, whether (politician) or (speaker), gets the advantage in that hypothetical subsequent RM, but it’s either do that or not get it moved at all. Since most people agree that it should be moved, I don’t think people should oppose the whole RM, because it’s just going to result in no move at all, most of us . [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to mention affiliation with Christian right in the article lead section. Discussion considers sources and existing content in the article body. As the lead currently states He has been identified as a member of the Christian right, no change to the article is necessary as a result of this discussion. Editors can continue to revise this content in the lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a present disagreement among editors on whether Mike Johnson’s affiliation to the Christian right should be mentioned within the lead.

Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political career.
Opponents state that it is not high-level information, not an important part of his character, and a clear violation of WP: NPOV.

Should it be mentioned? KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support (note: RFC submitter) per reliable sources. It’s entirely in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines, as shown by the FA-tier articles on Yassar Arafat, Steve Biko, and Carlos Castillo Armas,…

Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician): Difference between revisions

Get more stuff like this in your inbox

Get more stuff like this
in your inbox