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

message: Great job, Southern Texas. Nice page, consistent with other pages, includes pictures. Great work. JasonCNJ 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Southern Texas 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great work

message: :Image:John mccormack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:John mccormack.jpg

message: :Image:Joseph martin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph martin.jpg

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

message: This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new  request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
Can someone fix the reason that Henry Clay's pictures isn't showing up. CTJF83 chat 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  (I did try to get the photo from the Henry Clay article to show up but couldn't get it to work, so used the painting instead.) Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c) If there's still a problem, try refreshing your browser. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks guys/gals CTJF83 chat 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

message: It appears as if, especially early on in the listing, that a Speaker's tenure ended with the close of a Congressional session, instead of the end of their term (or removal by the House).  Was it in fact the case that the Speakership expires when the House is not in session?  Naturally, there is no Speaker (formally) the beginning of a term and the first seating of the House, but this is different.
Could someone knowledgeable in House procedure look at this perhaps?  Uberhill 05:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenures 

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

message: I’ve made some format changes to the SotH table so that it is consistent with the formatting of similar pages, such as the List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate. Please note that in the speakers’ "party color" column I intentionally used the current Democratic Party meta color () rather than the color currently used in the "party color" column for presidents on the presidents list page (). I did so because  is the status quo meta color. There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 on which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party. Please join that discussion if you wish to express your view on this topic. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy Drdpw. Why did you delete the numbering of the House Speakers? GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the column looked jumbled at first glance; it counted the number of individuals who have served as speaker rather than the number of speakerships, which is how the table is formatted. As a result, the column’s number sequencing was interrupted multiple times (numbers “1”, “7”, “9”, “32”, “43”, and “44” were repeated) in order to count to 54 in a table with 62 rows. That said, I would note that until January 11, 2016, when an editor, stating that "Speakers are numbered only once", changed it, the column did count (uninterrupted) from 1 to 62. So, if there is a groundswell of support for restoring the column, I’d suggest a return to that numbering pattern. What do others think? Drdpw (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct numbering pattern is House Speakers are numbered only once, this includes those who've served non-consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main table format  

message: The removal of the order of service from this table is inexplicable. The officers who serve as Speaker are numbered; Paul Ryan is the 54th.  No reason was given for their removal. This is plain dumb.   Spartan7W §   16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be insulting Spartan7W. My reasoning for excluding the numbering column was sound, and is explained up page. As you are the 2nd person to bring this up, I add the number column back. Drdpw (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not being insulting. Your reasoning wasn't sound, it made no logical sense.  You removed the numbers column because you didn't understand that it numbered them properly and later suggested its reinstatement with a numbering system that doesn't exist. Thats all.   Spartan7W §   16:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

text: With Nancy Pelosi set to become the first former Speaker to regain the job in over half a century, I suggest we remember ol' Grover Cleveland and give her separate number as the First AND Second female Speaker. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nancy Pelosi will still be the 1st woman to serve as speaker when she retakes the gavel tomorrow. The next (individual) female after her to serve as speaker will be the 2nd. Also, as this is an old conversation, please let it sleep and post only in the active Speakerships conversation below; thanks. Drdpw (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of service 

message: Various people are changing Nancy Pelosi's images for her non-consecutive speakerships. Some believe that the images should be the same (as is every other non-consecutive speakership in this article), while others believe the images should be the official portrait from each term. Which is more appropriate? Nicholemacgregor (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly think it should be the latter. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Pelosi official portrait 

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

message: In the main table shouldn’t Nancy Pelosi’s entry in the “Terms Elected” or “TE” column be incremented to 4 rather than 3 to reflect the new 2021 term?
Normally I’d just make the edit myself but give the nature of this page; I thought it best to just suggest this change first. Macb103 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Pelosi Tbl entry- TE: 4 not 3 

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

message: Speaker has not been elected, I reverted changes that assumed it passed to Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Until an election by the full membership of the House produces a speaker, the speakership is currently vacant. MLHuntley (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; frustratingly, we have a persistent vandal who has not been blocked yet. Drdpw (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy was elected at 12:30AM on January 7, 2023 on the 15th ballot. But I'm not going to change this article. Too complex.Michael Martinez (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction to this election states that "the remaining six anti-McCarthy holdouts voted "present" on the 15th ballot". Why is this not shown in the table, since Present votes are shown in earlier elections? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is nowhere in this article, might you have intended this comment for some other talk page? Drdpw (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is found at 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, saying "On the fifteenth and final ballot, the six remaining Republican holdouts abstained, allowing McCarthy to be elected with 216 votes, or 50.5% of the votes cast for a named candidate."Yes, I recognize that's a different article. I haven't checked to see whether all of the preceding "Present" votes listed here in this "List" article are specifically referenced here for this page. Nor have I looked to see why the wording is changed from my original post. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  118th Congress Speakership 

message: In the table of Speakers, there is already a column saying which party the Speaker belongs to.  I'd like to suggest adding a column to say what party was in the Majority during the person's Speakership.  I don't have an example, but I believe a few Speakers were not members of the Majority party.  As an indirect nod to "compromise and cooperation", adding a Majority Party column would be of historical interest. 2600:8802:E0D:3E00:24E9:EEA3:575B:C2A5 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While such a column may be of historical interest, it is outside the scope of this article. Further, such a circumstance has been quite rare in American politics. If it belongs anywhere, such information might be pertinent in the Speaker of the House article, of the , or perhaps the History of the United States House of Representatives article. Drdpw (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaker and Majority party 

message: The list says Patrick McHenry is Speaker. What I understand Speakership is vacante. Patrick is just handling the election of next Speaker as clerk did in January and that person is not listed. Andreasfroby (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the speakership is technically vacant, and its unclear whether Patrick actually counts as a full speaker in any regard, might be worth changing this article to reflect that (i.e. maybe not list him as incumbent but as something else). Amshpee (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

text: This is the first time the Speaker pro temp has acted while there wasn't an official speaker. As the only person in the position of Speaker, he should be listed, though labeled as acting or interim. Compare if the President and VP were both removed from office and the Speaker became Acting President, they would definitely be listed on List of Presidents of the United States, even though there have been Acting Presidents before. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He has not been elected as speaker and should not be listed. Note that we do not include temporary acting presidents in the list of U.S. presidents. Now, that might change down the road someday, if the scenario you posit ever comes to pass, as the APOTUS would serve out the remainder of the unexpired term. This speaker pro-tempore will only serve until a new speaker is elected, be that days or weeks (or months) from now. There have been long periods in the past when the speaker's chair was vacant. Someone filled in, as speaker pro-tempore during those vacancies, but those people are not listed, neither are those vacancies noted in the table (as this one should not be when it is over, unless we wish to go back and note every time the speaker's chair was vacant). Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those vacancies were not the same as these. They did not have the same powers as the current pro temp per RS. KD0710 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Speaker pro tempore on how this is different. KD0710 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Opposed. The pro temp should be listed. House rules dictate a how this is handled and this Pro Temp has all powers of the Speaker as opposed to in between sessions. Reputable sources indicate that this is the first temporary speaker. Therefore, since they are in the line of succession and have all the power of the office, they should be listed. This is a new scenario the House has never seen, thus listed differently. KD0710 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Line of succession aside (as McHenry is, without question, not Speaker of the House, he is not in the line of succession), your point is well-taken. Drdpw (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on the line of succession. I misunderstood that aspect. They are able to conduct business in the Chamber but don’t have the Constitutional privileges. KD0710 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speakership vacant 

message: John Bell is listed ahead of Kevin McCarthy in the "Rank" column (52nd place vs. 53rd) even though McCarthy is listed as serving longer (276 days for McCarthy vs. 275 for Bell). Seems like there's a problem here but I wanted to check in on the talk page before changing anything, in case there's some odd dispute over the number of days or some such. Jfruh (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that. No one had added McCarthy's end date to timespan template. Drdpw (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quirk in "Speakers by time in office" table 

message: There's discussion on "empowering" McHenry so he can perform the regular duties of Speaker. If that happens he should be included in the list as an acting Speaker. eduardog3000 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the scope of his powers and how the House delineates his status. The authoritative answer to the "should we include McHenry" question will ultimately be discerned by looking to official federal government sources, such as the United States House of Representatives. Drdpw (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Official government sources probably wouldn't list him as he is acting. They're more interested in listing sitting Speakers. But listing acting officials is in the encyclopedic interest of Wikipedia. While short term or limited power acting officials could be omitted, an official explicitly given the full powers of the office should be listed. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McHenry empowerment 

message: If we include the most recent Speakership gap, then I would argue we need to include the other gaps as well. There are several once you go back more than 100 years. Perhaps there is something different about this particular gap, but then I think we need to include that. 
And if the idea is that you want to mention the acting Speaker, that makes sense, too. But I would suggest that needs to be mentioned in every gap--or specified that Congress was not in session. — trlkly 22:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A gap in speakership during when Congress is in session is noteworthy; a gap when it's not in session is standard operating procedure and not noteworthy or worth cluttering up the table for. --Jfruh (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including gaps