Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Important Info removed/changed?

A recent edit stemming from an official Government IP shows mentions of legislation completely removed along with other changes that could be seen as opinionated. For example, the sentence

"In 2015 and 2016 Johnson led an anti-abortion 'Life March' in Shreveport-Bossier City."

Was changed to

"Since 2014, Johnson has led the largest annual pro-life event in Louisiana, the 'Life March' in Shreveport-Bossier City, heals in January of each year."

The most important part being that "anti-abortion" (which I believe is the more official term) was changed along with mention of it being the largest even though it's the only known and the article cited doesn't mention its size. This may just be me, but I feel important information was removed from this article and would like to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArightWil (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunate posting of political and social point of view

Shelfpea vandalised this article with absurd statements from the Southern Poverty Law Center. While SPLC did good work, initially, by going after the KKK; it has long ago become an organ of the extreme left wing and violence. It's statements were credited with serious violence against the Family Research Center previously (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/family-research-council-accuses-southern-poverty-law-center-of-sparking-shooters-hatred/2012/08/16/6fd6b46e-e7e9-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html?utm_term=.145cfd83f5cd), and more recently was credited for doing the same in the shooting of Rep. Scalise (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/support-for-southern-poverty-law-center-links-scalise-family-research-council-shooters/article/2625982). SPLC has also been accused of profiting from hate-mongering (http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/12-ways-southern-poverty-law-center-scam-profit-hate-mongering/). Even left wing orgs like Politico have condemned SPLC (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312). I strongly advise that statements by SPLC should not be used or cited in Wikipedia. Admins should monitor Shelfpea with his non-neutral POV and pressing his political and social views in an encyclopedic forum. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia is improved when significant points of view are included. Personal opinions about SPLC are irrelevant to its continued significance, as seen through the extensive use of its work by government and news media. Finally, assuming good faith is a key pillar of Wikipedia. If you have difficulties understanding what is appropriate or how and why Wikipedia works in the way it does, newcomers are encouraged to post questions at the Teahouse. Shelfpea (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

SPLC is NOT a news organization and they are not even close to being neutral. One should assume good faith, but anybody using quotes or references from SPLC and calls it NPOV is not SHOWING good faith. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center was described by the Federalist this way: "What makes the hate list of the Southern Poverty Law Center different from the 'burn book' a high school queen bee keeps in the 2004 movie 'Mean Girls?”' Answer: not much. The burn book was a compilation of insults, gossip, and rumors intended to repel the diva’s 'enemies,' label everybody, and keep herself on top of the heap." It appears to be a libel machine against anything center or right. Here is an article showing how SPLC has blacklisted itself into oblivion: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216494/southern-poverty-law-center-blacklist. Here are just two examples in which SPLC has been linked to hate and serious violence: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/support-for-southern-poverty-law-center-links-scalise-family-research-council-shooters/article/2625982. Shelfpea continues to insist on using their opinion on this article. There is no way Shelfpea can be credible claiming NPOV. Again, Shelfpea should be monitored by admins. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The reliability/neutrality of the SPLC has been discussed ad nausium. It is a wp:RS. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and its archives. Jim1138 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked for the discussion and could not find that SPLC has been judged by a majority of editors to be reliable. But, I do find a lot written about the unreliability and violence caused by this organization. If the FBI says they can't be trusted, that's good enough for me. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on Southern Poverty Law Center as a source):

I have not edited this page, and have no known interaction with either of the two editors engaged here. As I understand the disagreement, the problem is with the text "The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the organization as "virulently anti-gay" and (as) an anti-LGBT hate group." Normally, a bit more talk page discussion would be appreciated before a 3O is offered, but given the high tempers and personal attacks (Civility is one of the five pillars, not AGF) I wanted to step in quickly. Looking through the reliable sources noticeboard, it seems pretty agreeable that SPLC is a valid reliable source for opinions, but not for use as wiki-voice, so the use here with the specific "The Southern Poverty Law Center has..." is acceptable. In addition, other sources such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights agree. That being said, this article is not the place for discussion of the ADF's stances, if the reader wants that they can read the ADF's article. Ideally this article would cover what he did as a part of the ADF, if possible. If keeping the description is needed, I suggest the statement should read something like "...value and sanctity of life,' but has received criticism of its stance on LGBT rights. Then cite the SPLC Profile, the above Newsweek, and then this piece by NBC (or really anything else). Also, the content added in this edit is a violation of WP:NPOV should be worded more neutrally to avoid opinions being stated as fact, by stance of words like "extremist left-wing", "very liberal", and "hate-mongering to scam for money" without attribution to who holds those opinions. (TL;DR)  Using it as an WP:RSOPINION is fine, just be sure to explicitly say it's their opinion. I still recommend not going into too much depth about it because he's the former counsel (and it seems no longer associated?) If this isn't agreeable, we can also discuss other dispute resolution methods as needed. menaechmi (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Menaechmi, I appreciate your cool head in all of this. However, your criticism of "extremist left-wing" and "hate-mongering to scam for money," which have been written about by a number of nonpartisan media, is inconsistent with allowing such quotes as "The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the organization as 'virulently anti-gay' and an anti-LGBT hate group." And I can easily come up with just as many nonpartisan publications that say SPLC has lost its way and is in the business of blacklisting innocent people and organizations for profit. Anyway, I think you make a good point that controversy of discussion about ADF or SPLC should be made in THEIR articles, not on this WP:BLP. For one thing it suggests attitudes or opinions that Johnson doesn't necessarily hold though he may have worked with an organization that some may think does hold such views. In conclusion, criticism of ADF and SPLC should be made on their articles respectively. If you have quotes or references that may be critical of Johnson by what he has said or done, then add it by all means. "Assassination" of character by association is beneath Wikipedia and violates WP:BLP. Therefore, I would like to see how you would write this paragraph while observing WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you had a particular POV, nor that you were WP:POVPUSHING, just that the statements, being written in WP:WikiVoice, implies that opinions are facts. If "extremist left-wing" and "hate-mongering to scam for money" were in quotes, had little <ref> tags next to them, and particularly said something like "The Federalist, in turn describes the SPLC as 'a scam to profit from hate-mongering', while the FBI removed the link to the SPLC's website from their Hate Crimes page." it would be much better. I have struck the above, and worded it so that it conveys that better.

As to how I might rewrite it as it stands, because if you mention what they say they are, you should mention other viewpoints WP:WEIGHT:

 Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004-2012. Prior to his election to Congress, Johnson was also a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom, which describes itself as "a non-profit legal defense and advocacy organization dedicated to religious liberty, traditional family values, and the value and sanctity of life," but has received criticism for their stance on LGBT rights.[1][2][3] Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the non-profit law firm Freedom Guard.

Or, probably best, Because he didn't do anything particularly noteworthy (that I can find covered in reliable sources) while working for them (but it's not very interesting to read):

 "Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004-2012. Prior to his election to Congress, Johnson was also a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the non-profit law firm Freedom Guard."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Menaechmi (talk • contribs) 16:03 August 2017 (UTC) - apparently autosign didn't kick in there...

Menaechmi, I could not find your signature, but I assume the above comments and text are yours. I think both options are great improvements. However, If you point out LGBT criticism of ADF, shouldn't you also add positive analysis by other organization(s) that have a different view? As for the second option, I recall that Johnson argued several cases for ADF before federal circuit courts and won some big cases on their behalf. That is quite notable, but I would have to research the specifics. That is why I am concerned about Shelpea's editing. Rather than do the hard work to dig out the notable work, he resorts to "guilt by association" citations suggesting that he is actually pushing his personal social views. Nonetheless, I would love to see your comments on this. Thanks for your thoughtful and careful approach. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I really am extending past my role as a 3O volunteer here, but the LGBT criticism is there because using the ADF's definition of what they are "a non-profit legal defense and advocacy organization dedicated to religious liberty, traditional family values, and the value and sanctity of life" is a positive analysis by another organization, and is why criticism should be provided when it is included. For example, on Circumnavigation#Human-powered it says "National Geographic lists Colin Angus as being the first to complete a global circumnavigation.[18] However, his journey did not cross the equator or hit the minimum of two antipodal points as stipulated by the rules of Guinness World Records and AdventureStats by Explorersweb.[19][20][21]" The article presents a viewpoint (National Geographic says Colin Angus was first), but because there is a significant other viewpoint, we have to show both sides (...but his travel doesn't qualify according to...). menaechmi (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good points. The only thing I would add is that if issue is made of the different viewpoints people have of ADF, the same should apply to SPLC. There are strong and very polar sentiment about both. That was lacking in the edit by Shelfpea, which was not NPOV in my opinion. My suggestion is to stay encyclopedic and only make reference to his work for ADF leaving out promotional edits and criticisms of ADF. Leave the discussion pro and con of what ADF and SPLC do and the varying perspectives, thereof, to the respective articles on both ADF and SPLC. Readers can follow Wikilinks to ADF and SPLC to find out more. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is how I think the paragraph should look based on recommendations here: Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004-2012. Prior to his election to Congress, Johnson was also a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the non-profit law firm Freedom Guard. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

After just reading the Wikipedia article for Alliance Defending Freedom it appears that the statement added by Shelfpea, "The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the organization as 'virulently anti-gay' and an anti-LGBT hate group," is under WP:NPOV dispute on that article. This conforms with my position that it violates WP:POV. Until that is resolved, the discussion on Shelpea's addition is moot. Therefore, I am restoring the article as it was prior to his edit. Again, admins should monitor Shelpea's edits to avoid pushing personal social and political views. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. That section is under dispute because of the addition of the US Attorney General paragraph. It's potentially POV because it focuses on WP:RECENTISM. In addition, your edit flies in the face of the consensus we were trying to hammer out here - either remove the description of "a non-profit legal defense and advocacy organization dedicated to religious liberty, traditional family values, and the value and sanctity of life" alongside the hate group opinions, or keep both.

And again, please stop assuming bad faith on Shelfpea's part. They have done nothing to deserve these types of accusations, all that user had done is added something to create a more balanced article. Adding a well-sourced opinion and opening a discussion when someone disagrees is a sign of good faith. Assuming that someone is tying to push an agenda is not. I would kindly request that you strike the comments about Shelfpea, as they have no place in a content dispute. menaechmi (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Menaechmi, your facts are wrong on WP:RECENTISM. The article is in dispute on Neutrality. See the quote, "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." That was in response to the posting of the very same quote in dispute here. You are correct that we should assume good faith, but "good faith" must be supported by behavior. Too often WP:AGF has become a defense against criticism for WP:POVPUSH. Having said all of that, I removed the problematic quote until the dispute is resolved on the article of Alliance Defending Freedom. However, I am open to your original idea to remove both qualitative statements in question. The positive statement may be a bit promotional but harmless in my opinion. The Southern Poverty Law Center quote is very inflammatory and does not belong on a WP:BLP unless there is credible evidence that Johnson is a member of a "hate group." Just today another article severely damning the financial activities and motivations by SPLC was published: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/08/31/southern-poverty-law-center-outed-moving-millions-offshore-bank-accounts-531417. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The {{POV section}} was added this edit with the edit summary "Now it's horribly lopsided" immediately after the edit that added "Jeff Session's closed meeting with the ADF, criticism from LGBT rights groups". The statement that is in this article was not called into a neutrality question. - While recentism isn't quite the right POV issue there, the issue is that the entire section focuses mostly on this singular one event.

That might be valid in quite a few cases, this is not one of them. Regardless, WP:Civility takes precedence, even if you choose to assume bad faith.

I thank you for still considering the option, I think it is the most neutral way to present the article, given the politically charged nature surrounding the whole affair (from the SPLC to the ADF to this guy's political campaign). For the record, this would be a better article to link to for the SPLC money issue you described, because it presents the information a little more neutrally (I think it could even be considered a little more damning) menaechmi (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality discussion definitely includes Sessions; but it includes a lot of elements, especially and including the "hate group" claim by SPLC. As for WP:Civility and WP:POVPUSH, I would refer you to the many diffs in this article Shelpea has made in editing. Any objective person would have to conclude WP:POVPUSH. Anyway, I am interested in how you would write this section removing the qualitative conflict passages. Please post it in Talk and I will likely agree. Thanks again. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

SPA User editing only on this article

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)

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)

Johnson is not the "speaker designate"

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)

Vandalism from IP editor

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

"Assumed" is not a RS

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)

Giant lede

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Possible bias

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)

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

WP:RSP lists generally reliable sources in green. Are there sources in yellow or red? We should be weeding content from yellow or red sources out. The MSNBC MaddowBlog article isn't good either per WP:NEWSBLOG, I've removed it. starship.paint (RUN) 06:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed Daily Kos as a source, it's red on WP:RSP. I've also removed Salon, it's yellow on RSP. starship.paint (RUN) 13:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2023 (2)

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: Procedural close as there is already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson – The Louisiana politician is the primary topic in terms of long-term significance having held multiple political positions such as Chair of the Republican Study Committee and Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference and was most likely the primary topic before becoming speaker but now is definitely the primary topic as second in the presidential line of succesion. The Louisiana politician gets twice as many pageviews than the next most viewed article and although it is not more than the others combined, pageviews are not the deciding factor (see this essay) as the next most viewed articles Mike Johnson (ice hockey) and Mike Johnson (bassist) do not really mention anything that would indicate their long-term significance. Sahaib (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a move request for this already in progress. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: sorry the requested move template was added to the page a minute after I added my request. Sahaib (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If only because I already received a reply to mine, would you mind folding your request into that one? Sounds like our reasoning lines up. Cpotisch (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cpotisch: I was talking about the template added at 20:03. Sahaib (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (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.

Request Neutral POV in LGBT section

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)

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

@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)

@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)

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

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

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

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)

Political position ordering

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

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

to:

Johnson supports American military aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

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)

 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)

@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)

References

Inclusion of comments from others about Johnson's beliefs on the election being overturned

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

Politico and opposition research

There have been several removals of the passage beginning "After he emerged as a candidate for speaker" discussing Democratic messaging on Johnson following his selection as a candidate. The passage is referenced to a Politico article. As best I can tell, the removals have accused the passage of partisanship cutting both ways. I don't see any basis for this accusation, as it represents reporting on the messaging presented in opposition to Johnson's speakership. Without this context, we lack sourced specifics on Democratic opposition to Johnson in this new role. Let me know if there are basis for concern that I'm missing here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nysus: I noticed you reverted me. Please feel welcome discuss! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like your addition has been reverted 3 different times by three different people. I believe it to be a bad addition because it has nothing to do with the subject, Mike Johnson. Just as I wouldn’t include what Democrats did in response to Johnson becoming speaker, I wouldn’t include what praise was heaped upon him by supporters. Who cares? It’s irrelevant to the topic. Nysus (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to parse through the sources for someone who was relatively unknown two weeks ago and decide what's central to the biography. This piece seems like it would fit better in an article about the whole election process than it does about this biography. Nemov (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: if such an article pops up, I'll move the info there. I think it would definitely fit there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Source 14 error

I cannot edit due to the page protections, but source 14 from religiondispatches links to the Louisiana state Rep Mike Johnson-different than this US Rep Mike Johnson. Edgarstone412 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Someone has already removed it. starship.paint (RUN) 06:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory Read for Louisiana House of Representatives Section

In the "Louisiana House of Representatives", almost all of the content focuses on the Marriage and Conscience Act which Johnson proposes.

The section concludes:

> On May 19, 2015, the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee voted 10–2 to table the bill, effectively ending its chances to become law. Both Republicans and Democrats voted against the bill; other than Johnson, only Republican Ray Garofalo voted for it. After the bill was tabled, Jindal said that he would issue an executive order to enforce its intent.

This is a cliffhanger and extremely unsatisfying for the reader who likely will want to know the outcome. Did Jindal issue the order? Is it enforced currently? The cited source fortunately has an update article: https://web.archive.org/web/20150522072939/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/gov_bobby_jindal_issues_religi.html

I will go through it tomorrow and update that section if no one else does before me. YordleSquire (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess in addition to that, I would also want to see if the content is actually representative of Johnson's time in the LA House, or if the Marriage and Conscience Act is the only notable thing during that part of his career. YordleSquire (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, YordleSquire. Thanks for raising this issue. MonMothma (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2015 run for Louisiana District 8 seat

Johnson ran for the vacated seat in the early part of 2015. He then had to run again in November. I can't find any information about that race in any press account. He probably ran unopposed. But this should be cited and included in the article. Nysus (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

More about early life

Johnson has said he was the product of an unplanned pregnancy and his parents were teenagers at the time: [4]. 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)

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

His father's obituary is here https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/shreveporttimes/name/james-johnson-obituary?id=11898168 which lists his father's birthdate 9 feb 1953 compared to 30 jan 1972 dob for House speaker means his father was 10 days shy of turning 19 years old (technically a teenager but not a minor). He also had a brother born about a year later Patrick Chris Johnson presumably from the same parents. https://www.searchpeoplefree.com/find/patrick-chris-johnson/17YdePGgyLbu

The mother may have been a minor. Two more siblings 4 years later (Josh & Laura). https://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000053601654989 2601:44:4380:67F0:34B5:FC9B:B8C1:EFF2 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"MAGA Mike" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA Mike has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § MAGA Mike until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is actually at October 31 PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Christian right in lead

Hi, @Nemov:. There's an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that Mike Johnson is a member of the religious right. It's one of the most notable aspects of his character.

Why was this removed? KlayCax (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek:

Johnson is a member of the Christian right who opposes abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results, served on Trump's impeachment defense team. He also is against sending funds to Ukraine, which is a matter of contention in the House.

Bloomberg:

Folksy hero of the Christian right

Sky News:

A lawyer by trade, he was first elected to the House in 2016. He is an evangelical Christian from Louisiana, a member of the Christian right block of conservatives.

I:

Mike Johnson supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election and comes from the party's Christian right faction, supporting a nationwide ban on abortion and pushing to overturn same-sex marriage

Vox:

Johnson’s surprising ascendance is also a win for the Christian right. While Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy all supported conservative policies and viewed the religious right as an essential part of the GOP coalition, Johnson is of that movement

The body also already states he is a member of the Christian right in the positions section. KlayCax (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's a myriad of sources calling him all kinds of things, but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The addition can be fleshed out later in the article, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Nemov (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The term Christian right is entirely neutral and listing ideology in the lead is normative.

  See the (often featured!) articles for Yasser Arafat, Steve Biko, Keir Starmer, Joe Biden, Carlos Castillo Armas, and so on and so forth. KlayCax (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would kindly remind you of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thanks Nemov (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but it's not a violation of MOS:FIRSTBIO. There's nothing controversial about claiming that he's a member of the Christian right.

  Does it not "neutrally describe" him? Is it not a "notable" aspect of his politics? KlayCax (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The lead should stick to high level information. Just the facts and the rest can be fleshed out in more detail later in the article. Nemov (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Saying that he is a member of the Christian right is high level information. It's central to his political beliefs. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  You really created a RFC about this without getting any other feedback? That's a little overkill don't you think? Nemov (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Others objected as well, @Nemov:. You weren't the only one. It's clear that there isn't going to be a consensus otherwise. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Political Positions Summary

Starting a talk topic because I know it will be contentious:

The Political Positions section currently provides a few sentences of summary and then subsections.

The current summary:

> Johnson is a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party. His inaugural speech as speaker of the House emphasized his Southern Baptist beliefs as the basis for his politics.

> His political profile has been defined by his outspoken opposition to gay rights. Johnson holds "ultraconservative positions on abortion [...] and same-sex marriages", according to Bloomberg News.

The sentence "His political profile has been defined by his outspoken opposition to gay rights." stood out to me. 'Defined by' is a very strong and exclusionary phrase. It almost contradicts the long list of other political positions straight after. The single source https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-house-speaker-mike-johnson-spent-years-fighting/story?id=104312903 is definitely reliable and details Johnson's extensive opposition to marriage equality / lgbt rights. But I would not go so far to say that the article can be summarized down to "defining a political profile".

The strongest thing in the article which would suggest opposition to gay rights as the defining feature of his political profile is a third party quote: > Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, in a statement to ABC News, called Johnson "the most anti-equality Speaker in U.S. history" while also noting his past support for efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

If we are going to keep this sentence, we should find other RS that more explicitly state that "outspoken opposition to gay rights" it is the defining feature of his political views. His views are already mentioned in the lede of the article, and then given a thorough treatment in the section, so I hope this Talk is not viewed as trying to bury anything.

I also think that the quotation by HRC president should be included in the LGBT sub section. YordleSquire (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the HRC quote. But wanted to wait a bit before touching the "defined by" sentence. YordleSquire (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Are sodomy laws normal for Yanks? StardustToStardust (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Johnson's support of sodomy laws don't mean they "define" his political profile. One objectionable view doesn't automatically define a person's views especially when there's many other (possibly objectionable) views that are well documented.

His opposition of lgbt rights is extremely well documented by RS and thus should be included in the wikipedia article. I'm not arguing against that...

I am very specifically calling into question the term "defined by".

It would be more accurate to say something like:

"Johnson is especially known for his extensive and outspoken opposition to gay rights." YordleSquire (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

YordleSquire, per reliable sourcing, it's reasonable to argue that his prominence is primarily founded in his opposition to pro-LGBT policies. This is not to say he hasn't garnered attention for other policy positions nor will remain primarily known for his stances on gay issues. However, reliable sourcing has repeatedly emphasized that it is his policy positions on LGBT issues that have primarily driven his political identity to date. However, your alternative phrasing seems acceptable according to sourcing. If you don't find any other opposition, I suggest you make the change. We can discuss further if others have concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

> It's reasonable to argue that his prominence is primarily founded in his opposition to pro-LGBT policies

It's a reasonable argument. (And one that I agree with)

I have a background in mathematics which I guess is why I'm bothered by the term "defined by".

I am more used to the 2nd meaning here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defined

Whereas the sentence is using the term more closely in the 3rd meaning.

In general though, I'm not a fan of reductionist statements especially when it comes to biographical living persons.

I think one key point in establishing prominence of his anti lgbt views is how much of it came before he was an elected official. So I think if there is no further opposition I will replace the sentence with:

"Johnson is especially known for his extensive and outspoken opposition to gay rights which began prior to holding elected office."

I think that resolves my reductionist concerns while also justifying its inclusion in the political view overview. YordleSquire (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed YordleSquire (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

YordleSquire, I agree with your removal of the "defined by" language, which seemed a bit over the top. MonMothma (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Veterans

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. Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV Johnson votes against cannabis. Twillisjr (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

Do you suggest adding the portion about the DAV being in support of it, and Johnson being against Disabled Veterans to the Cannabis subsection? Twillisjr (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not without better sources, no. MonMothma (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this needs better sourcing to establish notability. Someone added it to the article so I'm going to cut the section as WP:OR until better sourcing is added to establish its inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be included imo StardustToStardust (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, seems this is part of the whitewashing you picked up on. Twillisjr (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

His years-long attempts to criminalize consensual same-sex intercourse (which was described by many news organizations as the central part of his politics in the 2000s) was also completely wiped from the lead as well. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Yes, and for good reason. MonMothma (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom Guard work and Answers in Genesis

His Freedom Guard work defending Answers in Genesis seems to obviously merit mention, at least briefly, within the article. It received significant attention from mainstream, reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It was in the article a few hours ago, if I am not mistaken. Do I smell some whitewashing? SecretName101 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is definite whitewashing, @SecretName101:. Information about his attempts to criminalize gay sex has been repeatedly wiped by editors. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I smell disagreement by multiple editors, not whitewashing. MonMothma (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Young Earth Claim

KlayCax, you re-added this section[[5]] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If there is proof that Mike believes in a "young earth", then it should be included in this article, even if a brief amount of text, though I agree it shouldn't be in the lead intro section. 70.179.117.66 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "proof", it is about reliable sources. So, if there are reliable secondary sources that say it, it should be included. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I've recently noticed that several editors are attempting to whitewash the beliefs of Mike Johnson. As someone from Europe looking on the inside, it's absolutely mindboggling that editors are proclaiming that a sitting U.S. Speaker's YEARS LONG attempts to throw LGBT people in jail isn't notable for inclusion.

The story is ALL over our news networks. Is this normal for Yanks? This is something you'd see in Tehran. The attempts to normalize and downplay this belief is horrifying and startling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This issue is certainly notable enough for inclusion. It's just not lead-worthy. MonMothma (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly the most civil comment—let's try to avoid throwing Iranians under any buses. Please don't cast cast aspersions about fellow editors, either. Instead, explicitly indicate what qualifies as whitewashing, suggest alternative phrasing, and provide rationales based on specific reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the government of course. Not the people who are trapped under a totalitarian, ruthless, theocratic regime. A sitting U.S. Speaker who has argued for throwing LGBT people in jail if they have physical intimacy with the ones they love is not normal. It's shocking and horrifying. It's whitewashing to remove his attempts to codify discrimination into law. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: As best I can tell, there have been no significant attempts to remove that information. As it stands, these efforts represent a major proportion of the article on his life. Also, please remember that while Wikipedia does generally favor treating LGBT rights as fundamental human rights based on multiple consensuses, an article talk page is generally not the place to provide your personal opinions or commentary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I get that. It was more like... the fact that a leading U.S. politician has called for the imprisonment of LGBT people if they engage in their forms of sexual activity is notable. You wouldn't find that in almost any other democracy. The BBC has brought it up a lot. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I don't know if that is true, and most of the time it isn't relevant. It is for categorization and it is for the heading "LGBT rights", but I don't think it's all that relevant for the article body, since we are reporting, not evaluating. Anyway, as far as WP:UNDUE goes, I note that CNN says, "New speaker of the House Mike Johnson once wrote in support of the criminalization of gay sex. If it was once, 20 years ago, it shouldn't be more than a sentence or two in the article, but it certainly belongs. Second paragraph of the lead is reasonable. StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with large majority of the editors here, @Anselm:. It is an obvious no brainer that this should remain in. Sodomy laws were prominently supported by many politicians in the early 2000s.

For Johnson specifically, supporting sodomy laws was his most "prominent" action at the ADF and something he spent much of his 1990s and 2000s advocating for, per NBC News. It was entirely mainstream thinking at the time, something he expended a significant amount of energy on, and articles aren't supposed to edit details about their biography to make them look "good" or "bad" by the predominant opinion of the Western World (or more specifically, Americans) in 2023.

The small minority of editors objecting are totally mistaking what WP: NPOV policy is. Reliable sources say it's an extraordinarily notable part of his biography. Therefore, we include it. KlayCax (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's "throwing any Iranians under buses" to state that massive persecution of LGBT people takes place in Tehran JM2023 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

in the united states, it is quite common for people to call for other people to be imprisoned for capricious reasons. it is practically a requirement for anyone running for president. needless to say, such rhetoric is not meant to be taken seriously.

despite the nominal 5.4 percent growth measure, most people in the united states are struggling to get by. they do not have time to worry about why the current president wants to imprison the former president. there are billions of dollars of loans that must be paid back. you will find this is true not only in the united states, but many countries around the world. an essay written twenty years ago is not as relevant as you might suppose. what were you doing twenty years ago? isadora of ibiza (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot speak your neck of the woods of America, but in mine it is NOTcommon bluster to call for an entire characteristic grouping of people (such as LGBTQ, Asian-Americans, Black, Jewish, immigrant, etc.) to be jailed. SecretName101 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Question: has Johnson literally called for that though? SecretName101 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#LGBT rights; for example, writing an amicus curiae brief in support of laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and later writing an article justifying such laws and saying "Homosexuals do not meet the criteria for a suspect class under the equal protection clause because they are neither disadvantaged nor identified on the basis of immutable characteristics, as all are capable of changing their abnormal lifestyles". In short, yes, he has called for imprisonment of homosexuals. JM2023 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @JM2023:. This obviously belongs. It's mindboggling to me that several editors are arguing that these two sentences merit inclusion in the lead:

Before entering politics, he came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages. ... He later founded Freedom Guard, a nonprofit legal ministry designed to represent Christian clients in lawsuits

is judged notable while :

While working at the ADF, he advocated for the criminalization of gay sex and wrote a prominent amicus brief opposing the eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Is deemed somehow controversial when he self-admittedly pushed for it proudly.

The early-2000s were only 20 years ago (not long!), many politicians of the time advocated enforcing sodomy laws, and it was a central focus of his political life at the time. WP: NPOV is being dramatically misapplied by the minority of editors attempting to remove it. While it looks bad to most Americans now, it was mainstream at the time, and objections to mention referring the belief that it "makes him look bad" are completely misunderstanding policy.

Do editors here forget that criminalizing homosexuality was a mainstream political position until the mid-to-late 2000s? It wasn't some trivial proposal. Laws were enforced until 2003. KlayCax (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, how can this issue from the early 2000s be a "central focus" of Johnson's political life when he didn't run for office until more than 10 years later?

I have a problem with you misrepresenting me and the other editors who disagree with you on this point. Who has argued that this sentence you want in the lead shouldn't be included because it would make Johnson "look bad"? Did anyone here actually say that? If so, it must have escaped me.

Other editors should be advised that discussion on this topic is also ongoing above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Balance_and_NPOV. MonMothma (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Because his most prominent actions at the ADF related to criminalizing homosexuality. KlayCax (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, see articles like this. International news agencies are overwhelmingly mentioning it in biographies of him. It clearly surpasses the bounds of notability. KlayCax (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

it's mind boggling to me that 20 years is "not that long ago" because twenty years ago i was in preschool. i can’t speak for others here, but i personally am prepared to move on from things that happened in preschool. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States

I am not sure why this category was added to the article, so I have removed it. It wasn't in the article until Johnson's election as Speaker - is it his election that is part of the movement rather than Johnson himself? We don't generally have individuals in such categories and Matt Walsh is the only other one (i.e sponsoring the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act is insufficient, though that article is certainly in the category). Johnson isn't mentioned in the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States article, either. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if his bill is in there, why shouldn't he be? JM2023 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

to be pedantic, most of his controversial statements regarding LGBT people took place in the 2000s and 2010s. while i'm not convinced either category is appropriate, this argument would be a lot more persuasive if the proposed category were Category:2010s anti-LGBT movement in the United States. which coincidentally, is redlinked. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

i dont think that having most statements in other decades means that his 2020s bill is diminished in importance in the context of the 2020s movement, especially considering the bill is in there. JM2023 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the bill is there is a reason not to have him, though. It's a category for things like bills - not for people. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case for categories, but if so, Matt Walsh should also be removed, given that he is a person. JM2023 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed him with this edit. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Contradictions about the 14-year-old African-American boy

Mike Johnson is quoted in this article as saying in 2019 that 22 years prior he and his wife were "newly weds" who took custody of a 14 year old boy. The problem is that he was only married for 20 years in 2019. So 22 years prior would be prior to his marriage. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is a contradiction - I don't think it's our place to try to resolve it. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not resolve but potentially mention, e.g. in a hatnote. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes this seems to be a contradiction - could be as simple as misspeaking that he took him in 22 rather than 20 years ago. This is veering into WP:OR but one could track down the original congressional testimony to see if he really said 22 or if it's a reporter's error. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that the 1999 marriage is in error? StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible, I haven't verified that fact and it's sourcing yet. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, on Facebook he announced his 22th wedding anniversary on 1 May 2021, so the 1999 date is correct. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is an error then at least reliable source ABC made it in 2005: https://abcnews.go.com/US/Valentine/story?id=489389&page=1 AncientWalrus (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Found the hearing where he should have said the "22 years" thing: [6] AncientWalrus (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He says 22 years ago in his prepared remarks at timestamp 16:23-17:00. He also states Michaels was 36 (on June 19 2019). This all makes it unlikely that he misspoke. So we have a real contradiction here. Johnson in his own words says he adopted him 22 years before 2019. Given that we can exclude reporter error I consider a hatnote pointing out contradictory sources appropriate now. AncientWalrus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

On PBS, in 2020, he stated "M. JOHNSON: Yes, sure. We took Michael in almost 20 years ago. He was 14.". So Johnson contradicts himself. We can't include this as WP:OR but it's important context that explains why sources will say different things. NYT doesn't seem to have picked up on the contradiction between the congressional testimony in 2019 and PBS interview in 2020. According to the former, Michael was age 14, 22 years before June 2019, so born 1981-1984. According to the latter, Michael was age 14, "almost 20 years" before mid 2020, putting his DOB between 1985-1986. There's no overlap. Importantly, the contradiction is independent of the wedding date.AncientWalrus (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that in the congressional testimony Johnson says "and he turns 36 next week" on June 19 2019. So we know he was born in 1983. That matches up with him saying he was adopted 22 years prior. But it contradicts the statement "when we were newlyweds" he makes in the same opening statement as the marriage was in 1999. Really weird. I'll stop the OR here, this will likely be picked up by RS soon anyways. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It could be that they lived together before marriage and took him in then, but we don't want to imply that in any way. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}} @Walt Yoder opened a not very specific discussion on the BLP noticeboard but didn't place the template here as documented there. So doing this for them.

Being discussed at the BLP noticeboard b AncientWalrus (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Should custody of 14yo black teenager go into Infobox?

Should the fact that Johnson took custody of a 14yo black teenager be included somehow in the infobox? It currently says 4 children. But NYT describes an additional son (not biological, not formally but informally adopted). My suggestion would be to count the fifth child and add a hatnote that 4 are biological and one was taken custody of at age 14. Most RS for background: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/27/us/politics/mike-johnson-house-speaker-son.html AncientWalrus (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the son is legally adopted then it should be in the infobox with a note. JM2023 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Per NYT a Jackson spokesperson said he was not legally adopted. However, Jackson calls Michael (the person in question ) "a son" here, and Amanpour mentions "adopted". Is formality all that counts? It doesn't seem to count for Johnson nor for Amanpour/PBS. See [7]

[8] AncientWalrus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say 4 children and then have a hatnote saying there's a black guy they consider a son but he's not legally adopted? I don't know. JM2023 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

i'm not sure why a footnote is necessary. children isn’t synonymous with biological children, and we don’t do this for other politicos with adopted children, like Kevin Brady. isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It could depend on coverage of the subject. For example, the Kevin Brady article does not even mention an adopted child a single time. But he's not house speaker. An additional confounding factor is the fact that this person is not legally adopted, so it's apparently informal; that may change the result. JM2023 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

But then a child is a child even if someone else is officially given as the father. There's two dimensions: de jure and de facto. It seems de jure the answer is 4, de facto it's 5. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

given the idea that there are two answers then I think the 5th informal child should noted regardless of whether the infobox says 4 or 5. JM2023 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IIUC, you suggest simply stating 5 children? There are two questions here: what should the number be: 4 or 5 or 4 (something less simple) and secondly whether there should be an accompanying hatnote. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Since he was not legally adopted or spoken up I would not put in the info box. But I do believe it merits mention elsewhere. The other issue is the dates he has given do not match up for him taking care of him. I have read a few stories that are starting to look into it. So that may be nothing, but I have seen more than one on it. So may be picking up speed along with a lot since no one really paid attention till now. See the "Contradictions about the 14-year-old African-American boy" below this. ContentEditman (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is Johnson's black "son" mentioned in the current version of this article? I wasn't able to find any mention. That's not very encyclopedic, is it? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, it was right in the middle of the short two-paragraph personal life section: He has said that early in his married life, he and his wife took in a 14-year-old African-American boy and consider him part of their family. Apparently subject to an edit war JM2023 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation

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)

I agree the foundation is irrelevant to Johnson unless RS say he was involved himself.

From the RS I believe these two items are relevant:

1. “All I ever aspired to be was a fireman,” Johnson once said.

2.

His father was a firefighter in Shreveport and suffered burns over 80 percent of his body in 1984 in an explosion that killed a fire captain. Johnson was 12. His parents, he has recalled, “wouldn’t let us be firemen after that.”

I'll go ahead and modify the section. YordleSquire (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Modified YordleSquire (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Percy R. Johnson Burn Foundation is mentioned in Pat Johnson's obituary. I think this deserves a mention in Mike Johnson's Wikipedia entry. It's certainly more significant than the unverifiable (though cited) claim that the younger Johnson wanted to be a firefighter but didn't because his parents forbade him to do so. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Johnson do anything notable for Freedom Guard?

Hi, @MonMothma:. I saw that you reintroduced Mike Johnson's founding of Freedom Guard into the lead. I can't find much in reliable sources about it — and it doesn't seem to be particularly notable. (He left to serve in the LA statehouse shortly after its founding.)

I'm curious what your reasoning is. As his life history surrounding:

• Covenant marriages
• Membership in the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. (2004-2012)

Seems more notable. The only thing that drew attention from reliable sources is 1.) Representing Answers in Genesis for the Ark Encounter theme park 2.) Prayer at the Louisiana State University sports chaplaincy.

This seems like a case of WP: Trivia (in the lead). But I openly admit I could be wrong here. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I am simply following the body of the article here. There is a full paragraph on Freedom Guard in the article. On that basis, I believe it should be mentioned in the lead. By contrast, there is only one sentence in the article body about Johnson's ERLC membership, and I have seen nothing in this article or anywhere else about anything he actually did as an ERLC member. If you or others come across more information about his activities on the ERLC, I'll be open to including it in the lead. But as of now, I don't think it belongs there. And a commission membership seems much less notable than an actual job.

I could go either way on Johnson's covenant marriage activities appearing in the lead. MonMothma (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@MonMothma:. I'd support covenant marriages over Freedom Guard. That is an important policy effort of Johnson's that got implemented into American law.

WP: LEADFOLLOWSBODY doesn't necessarily mean that anything "over X length" belongs into the article. Or that anything "under Y length" merits exclusion. It's simply a good, general principle to follow.

That being said, I believe that both parts definitely need significant expansion. KlayCax (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV

I am seeing a lot of edits that are poorly sourced, biased, or where issues are being made to appear much more major than they really are. It's hard not to conclude that folks' political perspectives may be shaping the editing process.

Look, Johnson has taken positions and stated views that are super-controversial. Those things have their place on his Wikipedia page. But they shouldn't become the entire Wikipedia page. I surely don't agree with some of the things the man says, but this page isn't supposed to be a political screed--whether positive or negative. MonMothma (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

He has explicitly stated in the past that he is in support of and has advocated for the criminalization of consensual, sexual relationships between same-sex individuals. This has been overwhelmingly mentioned in reliable sources about him in both the American domestic and international press. Stating this fact isn't a violation of WP: NPOV. Just because his actions then are unpopular in 2023 does not mean it merits deletion from the lead.

Reliable sources repeatedly mention as a central part of his political career and beliefs. Therefore, it's WP: Due and an instance of WP: Weight. KlayCax (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian The Globe and Mail (often considered its Newspaper of Record), introduces him to readers by stating, writes: Ideologically, Mr. Johnson is a hard-core social conservative. He backs a federal abortion ban and has called for doctors who perform the procedure to be sentenced to hard labour. His pre-political career included litigating in favour of anti-sodomy laws and other culture-war issues for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “The state is right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual conduct,” he wrote in an op-ed from the time. In others, he described same-sex relationships as “inherently unnatural,” “harmful and costly,” as well as a “dangerous lifestyle.”.

Many other mentions of his support for sodomy laws can also be found in 20+ introduction news articles by foreign news media. (Indeed, most do mention this as a central part of his career.) KlayCax (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "this fact isn't a violation of WP: NPOV?" You framed argument against in the RFC with the same language when no one brought up NPOV as an objection. No one is objecting to this information being included in the article, but on the basis that it's not central part of the biography. This person is notable for being a politician and for being speaker of the house. Just because something received coverage doesn't automatically justify inclusion into an article or the lead Nemov (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Nemov and MonMothma: we're seeing a preponderance of recent news stories parroting exactly the same content without expanding the base of knowledge on this individual. If sustained coverage emphasizes something, it merits inclusion. Also, it's worth adding that attributing bylined reporting and editorials to the publication that runs them is inappropriate. This appears to be an effort to emphasize the reliability of the content referenced to a given source but is rarely necessary—just add the content with a relevant citation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is objecting to this information being included in the article, but on the basis that it's not central part of the biography Canada's The Globe and Mail — its newspaper of record — disagrees with that claim. It considers his attempts to criminalize consensual sexual relationships between members of the same-sex a key aspect of his political career and a notable part of his biography. So does ABC News and many other domestic news agencies within the United States.

Considering he spent years attempting to uphold sodomy laws, I don't see how this can be simply waved away as a "one amicus brief". Reliable sources overwhelmingly mention it while summarizing him. That's beyond mere received coverage.

His lead is already far shorter than that of other House Speakers, including Kevin McCarthy's, Newt Gingrich's, Paul Ryan's, Nancy Pelosi's, so a single sentence mentioning it is completely WP: DUE. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Europeans are horrified at the current state of American politics. I never expected the so-called "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" to elect a Speaker who spent years of his life attempting to throw happy LGBT couples in jail. Editors are attempting to downplay and normalize what we'd universally consider far-right politics. The state of Yank politics right now is horrifying. StardustToStardust (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia editors are horrified about Johnson, too, which is what gives rise to the NPOV and balance problem I have attempted to address. MonMothma (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

News sources say it is a notable part of his political career. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

StardustToStardust, if we're still talking about Johnson's advocacy for laws criminalizing homosexual activity, what you just said appears mistaken. Johnson's legal advocacy on this issue related to the Lawrence v. Texas case, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 2003. The op-eds he wrote on this topic--at least those that are mentioned in the article--date back to 2003 and 2004. Johnson did not run for political office until 2015. His work on this issue probably isn't part of his political career at all, let alone a "notable" part of it. It is, however, part of his legal career. MonMothma (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

a lot of congresspeople in the last fifteen years have centered their careers around staking out divisive stances on hot button issues (red meat for base voters) at the expense of establishing any noteworthy or distinctive record on kitchen-table-issues and other matters.

additionally, a lot more congresspeople in that time seem to have taken to almost always towing the party line on votes.

not sure if this is the case with Johnson (I know too little about his record to make that assessment). However, this pattern means that for a good number of politicians in the House now there are few (if any) non-polarizing congressional work or political positions that merit mention.

if his record is of the sort I described, that might mean that hardline positions are simply what he might have centered his political identity upon. SecretName101 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• KlayCax there's nothing about this discussion that supports your edit.[9] Some of your edits on this article are borderline disruptive and you could be sanctioned if you continue to jam in contentious material without consensus. Nemov (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, @StardustToStardust:, and a large majority of other editors — not tagging them per WP: CANVASS — support the sentence being in the lead, a fact that mirrors what reliable sources have written about Mike Johnson.

It is a total misapplication of WP: NPOV to state that articles need to appear "neutral" to X group of people in 2023. Criminalization of homosexuality was mainstream in the early 2000s, it is something that he spent a substantive amount of time advocating for, and reliable sources judge it an extraordinarily notable part of his biography. Other editors have already pointed out that foreign media sources overwhelmingly mention it in biographies of him.

There's not much else to state. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 6 editors in this discussion. There's no consensus. Your behavior here is troubling. Nemov (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A large majority want the statement reinstated, however. Almost any edit on a "hot button" page will have at least one or two objectors. RFC's are a measure of last resort.

I wouldn't be necessarily against it. It's just a hassle for other editors. KlayCax (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to start a RFC? @Nemov:. KlayCax (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @KlayCax: that the legal advocacy before the Supreme Court of the United States merits mention in lede. SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I share Nemov's concern. Where is this "large majority" of editors you speak of? As far as I can tell in this discussion, it's four editors on one side and three on the other. It's misleading for you to claim that a large majority of editors support you on this when they haven't said so themselves and you haven't asked their opinion. Please speak for yourself, not for others.

If you are really concerned about creating a "hassle", please stop trying to shoehorn this sentence into the lead again and again when you don't have consensus for it. I find that to be a hassle.

I don't agree that Johnson's advocacy for laws criminalizing homosexual behavior is an "extraordinarily notable" part of his biography. In fact, as of one short week ago, this part of Johnson's biography--centered on his work nearly 20 years ago--was so "extraordinarily notable" that it wasn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page at all (see here). MonMothma (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted it as 8-9 in favor (JM2023, Anselm, StardustToStarDust, Twillisjr, SocDoneLeft, SecretName101, me, and one other editor who also reverted the statement yesterday who I forget the name of.)

While 2 editors against (MonMothma, Nemov)

1 I was unsure about. (Pbritti)

I'm aware it's not unanimous.

However, a 3x-4x majority is a strong one in the context of a page such as this. The edit I made was reinstating the edit of someone who added it back in. (2-3 others had done similar.)

As for Wikipedia articles: they shouldn't be used as normative guidelines for what's notable for inclusion or not. Johnson was predominately a figure who was "under the radar" so to speak. International sources (as stated elsewhere) overwhelmingly mention his support for sodomy laws during the 2000s. It's mentioned predominately in every non-American news biography of him. See this for just one example. KlayCax (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was counting the editors who have actually taken part in this discussion. It's four to three, by my count. Not a large majority. I stand by my position. The sentence needs to stay out. Open an RFC if you want it included. MonMothma (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

SocDoneLeft, JM2023, Anselm, Starlight, and Twillisjr have explicitly stated they favor inclusion, so it's at the very least 3x+. (Me + 5 = 6 / 2 = 3) KlayCax (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

MonMothma, if you think that properly sourced and notable material is nevertheless problematic because it affects the article's "balance", then the solution is not to purge valid content. The solution is instead for you to add the other content (again, properly sourced and notable) that you think needs more attention. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What User:StardustToStardust called "an intentional misquote" is still a misquote and BLP violation

I don't want to get involved in this article but the edit with that edit summary still says ""discrimination" between "heterosexual and homosexual conduct" would translate into support for pedophilia". But Johnson did not say "would", he said "could".[10] Doug Weller talk 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax you were the original poster that StardustToStardust claimed intentionally misquoted. I've warned them for the personal attack, but you did misrepresent the source. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Doug Weller:. The wording was taken from a CNN article — that was without my notice removed — here: In editorials that ran in his local Shreveport, Louisiana, paper, The Times, Johnson called homosexuality a “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.” Other news organizations have also used "would" instead of "could". I believe that they're basing it off of other comments from Johnson, including to where he references Romans 1:18-26, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, alongside other verses, that he views as applying to modern day sexual conduct between members of the same-sex and its subsequent consequences on societal morality.

I'm not sure if that's strong enough for the article to say definitionally in the article. NBC News seems to be a bit more cautious. Instead, it calls the remarks a "strong suggestion", although it doesn't contradict CNN's description of it.

The wording came from CNN. Although I suppose there can be a debate on how explicit we want to state it in the article. KlayCax (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I was just quoting the source used. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, @Doug Weller:. I didn't realize the citation in the article got moved by another editor. The wording was from a CNN article that got shuffled around and detached from the sentence.

It stated:

In editorials that ran in his local Shreveport, Louisiana, paper, The Times, Johnson called homosexuality a “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.”

Now, whether we should say "could" or "would" is a different question. NBC News seems more cautious on the wording than CNN. I have no particular preference one way or another. KlayCax (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A statement from CNN (as opposed to some random blogger) is notable enough to be reported, but here there seems to be at least some basis for a different interpretation. What if our article recognizes the point and gives the reader the information we have? Something along the lines of “Johnson said X according to NBC News [citation], a comment interpreted by CNN as saying Y [citation].” JamesMLane t c 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCaxJust to say that the source at the time[11] was [12] not CNN. I can’t find your edit, are you saying the source you used was CNN? Note that the ABC source backs the text. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I added both the ABC News and CNN citations into the article. There were both ABC News and CNN citations within the paragraph. I just didn't notice the CNN citation got moved down to the next sentence. @Doug Weller:. I think that's where the confusion is coming from. You can see the ABC News, CNN, and Vanity Fair links listed there. KlayCax (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but my only point is that the wording in question when someone. I think you, was accused of intentionally misquoting, was sourced to the ABC. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Senior Staff Hires

I don't know if this has a spot to be added on the page, but it feels good to document somewhere (even on a talk page) that Johnson filled out the top spots of his office and staff. SDudley (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently non-existent late 1990s TV appearances

I decided to delete this from the lede: "Before entering politics, he [Johnson] came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages." There is zero evidence of any such television appearances in the late 1990s.

Covenant marriage was passed into law in Louisiana around 1997. The Johnsons married in the very, very late 1990s: May 1st, 1999.

Mike & Kelly Johnson did do some print interviews in 2001 while advocating covenant marriage, but 2001 would be the early 2000s. They may have been on TV as well back then, but no videos of such appearances are readily available online. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Without sources, this should be removed per BLP. Thanks for raising! AncientWalrus (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

An earlier version of this Wikipedia page included the following sentence: "Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on television to promote new laws in Louisiana allowing covenant marriages, under which divorce is much more difficult to obtain than in no-fault divorce". The sentence was sourced to a November 2022 article on NOLA.com (see https://www.nola.com/news/politics/national_politics/louisianas-mike-johnson-molds-republican-message/article_ee6a8920-6cce-11ed-b018-b3caee09b4c0.html). Given the timetable, it is possible that Johnson and his wife were on TV in the late 1990s promoting Louisiana's 1997 covenant marriage law. Timothy Horrigan, just a question: How can you be certain that no such TV appearances exist? MonMothma (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove that the TV appearances from the 1990s don't exist. I was just saying that I found no proof of their existence. If there are no videos readily available (or even any printed references to the appearances) there's no point in mentioning them in this article. The late 1990s timeline seems dubious because the Johnsons didn't marry until 1999, and Johnson didn't start becoming a public figure until a few years after he got married. I will say that since I wrote the comment, I discovered that Johnson himself posted a video on his own Facebook page, taken from a VHS, of him and his wife on Good Morning America. They and another couple were interviewed by Diane Sawyer, sometime in the fall of 2001 (according to Johnson.) I will probably leave it to someone else to add a mention to his Wikipedia page. (I am not sure if this necessarily qualifies as a secondary source). Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)