Jump to content

Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

56 Hours to go

I decided to clean up some of the article in preperation of her taking the speakership on thursday. If by some diabolical miracle she loses, I would be glad to put everything back the way it was, but I doubt it very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericl (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

And yet, she is STILL not Speaker. I don't understand why people can't bring themselves to wait on editing this. She will be speaker, I assume, when they VOTE ON HER sometime after 12:00. JCO312 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
After countless premature edits (since November 7th, 2006), Pelosi (after being sworn in, following election by the Full House on January 4th, 2007), is now the Speaker of the US House of Represenatives. GoodDay 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone who can edit it needs to change "fromer" to "former" Freepatriot 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Freepatriot
Done DSRH 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased Reference to the Patriot Act

Section 3.13 states:

Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.

This explanation of the Patriot Act is not necessary and is certainly not neutral. It should be removed or edited. The words "tool," "ferreting out" and "lurking" are innapropriate in this context. (61.91.191.6 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Rise to power as a Fundraiser must be mentioned

Read David Brook's Jan. 4, 2007 column in the New York Times.

It is clear that Nancy Pelosi rose to power largely due to her fundraising prowess. Before being elected, she arranged fundraising events for the Democratic party. In office, she raised money and donated it to her colleagues. Her husband is an "investor".

This fundraising side of Pelosi must be included, or else the article is grossly incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.14.5 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6107062.stm

Her fundraising prowess is unquestioned: the mother-of-five has raised more for the Democrats in this mid-term election than almost anyone else.


Cannot edit - Why is this page non-editable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.18.16 (talk • contribs)

The article is currently sprotected. The policy can be seen here. The reasons for the current protected status can be seen on the talk page (back in the archived discussion I think). It mostly relates to frequent vandalism from what I remember. If you want something edited post it here and an established user can do it. Hopefully we can unprotect this page soon but that remains to be seen. --Rtrev 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the {{sprotect}} tag appear in the article itself, then? -- Heath 24.53.130.213 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind -- E. Litella 24.53.130.213 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)  :)

Pelosi did not rise to power “largely because of her fundraising ability” no more than any other political leader did. It’s a job requirement for a political leader to be an excellent fundraiser. Many politicians who hold office raise money and donate it to their colleagues. It’s how the party system works. All the heavyweights do this.

Huckabee, Lieberman, Guiliani, Delay, Boehner, and Bush are all “known for their fundraising” yet none of their Wikipedia articles attribute their success as political leaders to their ability to raise money. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House because she is an excellent politician, just like all those who held this position before her. She is not Speaker of the House because she “bought it” and this POV is biased, chauvinistic and offensive.

David Brooks OPINION about Ms. Pelosi is scathingly sexist and cites no references. This Wikipedia article will be grossly negligent if it includes this biased POV. If you want to list and cite her incredible fundraising accomplishments, go for it. If you want to say that she raised more money than any other Democrat in a certain time period, find the citation and include it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Computerhag 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Brooks column is an editorial -- an editorial is not fact. I am always confused by people that don't understand what an editorial is. Mr Brooks opinion is stated in his editorial columns. The wikipedia page on editorials does a marginally fair job at trying to define an editorial -- please note it is merely an opinion in mock-thesis form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisforgary (talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whip

Nancy Pelosi was minority whip in the 107th Congress, not minority leader.

Biased section on Tax and Budgets

"She has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged while increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes."

While it's true that Pelosi did advocate for tax increases, the targets of these increases are mostly the wealthy. For example, in a recent speech Pelosi stated "Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level", then refering that "certain level" to mean people whose annual incomes are over 250k-300k.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=8906141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign your comments, anon. This isn't a blog. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Signed. I enjoy your attitude towards fellow Wikipedians Haizum. 141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in Civil Liberties Section?

I question whether the opinions of the Traditional Values Coalition qualify as a Neutral Point of View in this context! --Mpwrmnt 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I've reduced the comment to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs formatting and sourcing

Africa Pelosi sponsored the to Harvest bill, which urges the President to:

  • set forth five-year and ten-year strategies to achieve a reversal of current levels of hunger and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, including a commitment to contribute an appropriate U.S. share of increased bilateral and multilateral poverty-focused resources for sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on health (including HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment), education, agriculture, private sector and free market development, democratic institutions and the rule of law, micro-finance development, and debt relief; and
  • work with the heads of other donor countries and sub-Saharan African countries and with private and voluntary organizations and other civic organizations to implement such strategies; and calls for
  • Congress to undertake a multi-year commitment to provide the resources to implement those strategies; and
  • the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to report on such implementation. Jasper23 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

-

The statement "Pelosi has voted for federal funding of abortion facilities and for financial aid to such organizations." needs a citation. I don't know how to do it, but at

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2409&can_id=H0222103

It says that she voted in favor of said things.

Optimism.rll 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Optimism.rll 1/8/07 9:05 PM

Actually, she voted to withhold funding for family planning organizations overseas unless they do not promote abortion. Xiner (talk, email) 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pov issues in gun control section

First sentence is a pov problem because the text does not truly match the source (semantics) as it is a link to her voting record. Further along, Pelosi should not be refered to as "she". Last sentence needs sourcing.

=== Gun control ===. Pelosi voted against the 24 Hour Background Check Amendment bill.[1] Pelosi also voted for an amendment to this bill that would extend the waiting period to 72 hours.[2] Pelosi also voted against the Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995.[3] Pelosi has also voted against the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006" (HR 5013), which now mades it illegal for federal, state, and local authorities who are funded by federal monies to confiscate legally owned weapons in national emergencies.[4]

Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable about this subject that can fix this up and put it back in, as it is an important issue. Thanks. Jasper23 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jasper23. I have made the suggested corrections. Please review them and let me know if they are appropriate and in good taste. 71.115.7.71 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Thank you JoShua

platform and election Sections

This whole Political Platform section seems trumped-up and looks more like a laundry list of one-sentence headings. I looked at other articles for political leaders and many don't even have a section on platforms and votes (Hastert, Gingrich, Foley, Daschle, Lott, Dole). Those that do have a couple of paragraphs which highlight a significant platform, not track all activity. With this in mind, I re-read the entire section and honestly nothing stands out as significant. She appears to vote in a predictable pattern for a Democrat or with the majority. This whole section should either be removed or significantly streamlined.

The elections section is a list of useless information that doesn't add any significant information to this article.

Computerhag 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article on Pelosi, compared to others, has more information as it pertains to voting history is because Pelosi is a current political leader. I don't think the structure of the information presented for any one person has to follow the same pattern. It would be nice and I can understand how that would benefit the Wikipedia site in general. I think the more information that can be found, the better off the site will be. The information presented might not be significant to you or you might find it useless, but somebody took the time to create this section, so it must have been important to them. I don't want us to forget that the first amendment guarantees free speech. As long as the information presented is factual and has reliable cites, I don't see a problem. Voting history is a very important aspect to creating educated voters. Knowledge is power. Thank you, JoShua 03:26, 13 January 2007

WP is not a catchall for every fact about a person. It is an encyclopedia. Look up a US senator in another encyclopedia you will not see a list of every bill they have sponsored, voted on, etc. You will see short sections on important legislation. If you want a complete list of platform issues and legislation there are entire internet sites devoted to it. That is not what the WP is for. This article is becoming simply a legislation list and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy I think we can probably pare this back to "important legislation." --Rtrev 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The messed-up references section

This edit messed it up. Can someone please clean it up. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bravo, Settler. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I try my best to catch formatting errors and restore these articles. Sometimes easier said than done... Settler 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pelosi a communist?

I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a communist, is she? Someone's trying to be funny.81.159.240.240 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

She's not a communist; however the Communist Party of the United States, isn't out-lawed. GoodDay 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As it shouldn't be. It has every right to exist. --dool325 03:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle name?

The top of the article says her middle name is Patricia and her maiden name is D'Alesandro. However, the "Early life" section says she was born as Nancy D'Alesandro, with no mention of her middle name. If her middle name was added through religious ceremony, i.e. baptism, that should be mentioned. Rhythmnation2004 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone write her office an email or letter? Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Request article restriction.

I've seen alot of vandalism these last few days and I think it's time to lock this article for the non-account users. Obviously some people can't
act civilized even though they are against the content of this article. 62.16.202.221 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this page needs semi-protection. Jasper23 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Format

I think this article needs to be restructured. Right now it is just a list of random positions and votes. There is no narrative and the list format invites random people to insert random things. Anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Jasper23 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Key votes on substantive issues are part of a politician's record and should be included in the article. However, too many of them are not useful for the average reader. Obviously, everything must be verifiable. Xiner (talk, email) 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think lists are very encyclopedic and this article reads very poorly. No well written article about a politician uses this format. A good guide is the Barak Obama page. That page looks nothing like this one. Jasper23 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What about Barak_Obama#Senate_career, especially considering his short political career? Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Good Point. However, have you looked at the references on the the Pelosi page. A good amount of them are just vote records. Maybe we could pick out a few important sections and dump the rest. Take a look at the agricultural vote section on the Pelosi page. Quite a difference. Jasper23 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for succinctness, but I'm also afraid of being too much so. Please see this discussion above. Xiner (talk, email) 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Highest ranking female in the history of the American Federal government?

Certainly in the history of Congress. But when you speak of the American Federal government, you must also include the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor is arguably the most powerful female in the history of the American Federal government. It's close, anyway. MoodyGroove 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Day O'Connor was, one might argue, although you could rank the presidential succession line and not Supreme Court justices. Xiner (talk, email) 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How about Pelosi, the highest ranking female in the presidential line of succession, in US history? GoodDay 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the highest ranking female in the history of the US Congress? Although, if you ask me, first female Speaker of the House pretty much says it all. MoodyGroove 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
My point exactly, first female House Speaker covers highest ranking female in Congressional History. (There hasn't been yet, a female president pro tempore: which would be a Congressional equal/but behind Speaker in presidential succession). GoodDay 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:::That's in the intro already. Xiner (talk, email) 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A female pres. pro temp. would be behind the Speaker, as would all Supreme Court Justices - even the Chief Justice. The only way there will be anyone higher than her is when we elect a female president and/or vice president.

Maiden Name correction

Should be D'Alessandro, not D'Alesandro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForzaFabio (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, actually, the latter pulls up a lot more pertinent results on Google, so I think the former is a typo. I know Spanish, not Italian, but in Spanish there wouldn't be two s's. Xiner (talk, email) 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted minimum wage edits

A user has reverted the revision:

As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories but does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning American Samoa—its minimum wage is set by a committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Labor.[1] One Republican congressman who voted against the bill accused Pelosi of unethically benefiting a hometown company by the exclusion of the territory; Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing.[2]

back to

As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories except for American Samoa. The exclusion of American Samoa has attracted ethics criticism from one Republican congressman, since Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. [3]

It's worth noting that the text of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act) in its current form is completely silent on the issue of American Samoa. There is no special exemption that was not there before Rep. George Miller introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Settler 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems the editor is in the process of addressing this. I'll wait a while for further comment. Settler 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Face

There should be a section discussing what's wrong with her face. Any confirmed plastic surgery or botox overdoses? See, for example, Tina Fey's article and the section regarding her scar for precedent. Thats why I read this article, and I was disappointed to find that the answer isn't here. Maybe her aides removed it?

66.56.34.50 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is preemptive seeing as I am sitting here watching the State of the Union now, but perhaps President Bush's statement about it being his "honor and privilege" to be the first President to start his address with "Madam Speaker" should be recorded?

I've noticed that she seems to be blinking a lot during the State of the Union speech.

Do either of you have anything semi relevant or constructive to add? (Wikifan999 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Pelosi Blames Bush Administration for Media Reports on Use of Military Plane

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of publicly mischaracterizing her need for a larger military aircraft to travel back and forth from the West coast. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250781,00.html Crocoite 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not official policy but I think that everyone should read the WP:DUST essay as it points to many pertinent policies. It is generally good practice to keep it in mind especially when editing WP:BLP. --Rtrev 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good one! I'd not seen that before; thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've included information about the larger plane in the article, since it contradicts her recent positions about global warming and energy independence. I believe that it's notable when the third-highest ranking leader of the United States says, "Do as I say, not as I do." Don't you agree? I've also included information on Speaker Pelosi's voting record on abortion related issues, since there was absolutely no previous mention of that. Somehow, the Speaker's out-of-the-mainstream views on abortion have been completely ignored by Wikipedia until now. Isn't that peculiar? Dino 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it's notable when the third-highest ranking leader of the United States says, "Do as I say, not as I do." Don't you agree? It really doesn't matter what I believe, or what you believe. See WP:NPOV. We don't include things simply to express our point of view -- in this case, your point of view that she's being hypocritical. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is not notable. The opinions of the Republican leadership and the editors of the New York Post, one of the largest circulation newspapers in the United States, are notable. I'm not the one who put this controversy back into the article, so it isn't just me who disagrees with you. I just moved it back up to where it belongs. Dino 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some possible holes in that (anonymous?) editorial. The Associated Press [4] reports that "Neither the Speakers's office nor administration sources has ever specifically said that Pelosi has requested the modified 757." Also it effectively misquotes her on global warming--in the full quote she gave a timeline of 10 years. She never took a vow to never use fossil fuels in her transport ever again AFAIK ... Settler 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, she said that she would "do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming." It is within her power to use the C-20, which uses far less fuel for a cross-country trip than a C-32. In terms of fuel consumption per mile, the difference between these two aircraft is like the difference between a Honda Accord and a stretch limousine. If she had "vowed to never use fossil fuels in her transport ever again," she'd need to use a sailboat or a Conestoga wagon. I don't believe anyone had a problem with her using a C-20. The problem that people have is with the requested upgrade. By insisting on a plane that can travel from coast to coast without refueling, Pelosi would get the "unexpected" fringe benefit of luxurious accommodations. Pretexts are sometimes accurately diagnosed as pretexts. Reasonable people understand that the real reason for requesting a plane that can fly coast-to-coast might not be the fact that it can fly coast-to-coast. Dino 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Another related article " Military: Pelosi Plane Based on Availability"
WASHINGTON — Republicans on Wednesday assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request for access to an Air Force transport plane as an extravagance, though former Speaker Dennis Hastert flew in a military jet as well. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250848,00.html Crocoite 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Another related article "White House Defends Pelosi Over Plane Request"
WASHINGTON — The White House on Thursday came to the defense of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describing as "silly" reports about her use of a large Air Force transport plane to travel back and forth from her West Coast district. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250848,00.html Crocoite 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, you have dismissed an editorial comment from one of the largest circulation newspapers in the United States, highlighting "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy from the third-highest ranking official in the most powerful government in the world, as "Freeper spin and vandalism." Would you care to discuss it? Dino 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm fairly new here, but I don't think Wikipedia is required to include an "editorial comment" just because the New York Post said it. The Post editorial contained a textbook example of what Wikipedia considers "weasel words" ("Pelosi is said to want a top-of-the-line, Air Force passenger jet"), and moreover, as the Pelosi entry currently states, Pelosi never specifically requested a Boeing C-32 at all, rendering the Post comment irrelevant to begin with. While "reasonable people" may well "understand that the real reason for requesting a plane that can fly coast-to-coast might not be the fact that it can fly coast-to-coast," your belief that Pelosi has ulterior motives is unproven, and unprovable. It certainly can't be called a hard fact. Captain Annoying 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You might be new here, but I think you understand matters perfectly. --BenBurch 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It surprised me that Dino needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; his pronouncements about Pelosi's alleged hypocrisy show clearly his reasons for including the material: not that it improves the article, but that it furthers his own agenda. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
All politicians attract criticism, particularly when their actions and their words don't match. The higher-ranking the politician, the more criticism he or she will attract. This article has had far less criticism in its editing history than that of Peter Roskam, a congressman with barely one month of service, whose most notable achievement was that he defeated one of the darlings of the anti-war left, Tammy Duckworth.
We're probably going to disagree about how much criticism is too much; but I've reviewed over 100 Congressmen's articles in the past two weeks and universally, there is far more criticism in the Republicans' articles than in the Democrats'. And Jpgordon, please take note that BenBurch has Wikistalked me here and at the Bill Nelson article, in addition to the Peter Roskam article. Thank you.
I'm just trying to make the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another. That's my agenda. Is that so terrible? The New York Post editorial is representative of a great deal more criticism of Pelosi that has never found its way into this article. If you're so dead-set against it, let's find some other criticism to take its place. There's plenty to choose from. Dino 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My impression of Wikipedia is that if you have an agenda at all, you're doing something wrong. In this instance you are trying to impose your own opinion on an article that is supposed to contain facts, and just because you've found a sympathetic mouthpiece (the New York Post) to abet that doesn't make it any more valid. At no time did Nancy Pelosi ever specifically request a Boeing C-32 as her air transportation, yet you persist in pushing a non-factual opinion piece that tries to advance the baseless accusation that she did. Your all but blatant admission that you're doing this to try to exact tit-for-tat for what you consider to be unfairly slanted articles on Republicans only demonstrate that you are trying to use this site for purposes for which it was not intended. Captain Annoying 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm here now as well, Dino - (to protect Wikipedia) By the way... "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." My entire purpose here - FAAFA 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm just trying to make the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another. That's my agenda. Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse. Otherwise, WP:POINT, really. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia balancing act

Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse.

Jpgordon, how does including notable, well-sourced criticism "make ... Democrat articles worse"?

Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel ..."

FAAFA, I observe that you've joined your friend in Wikistalking me over here. You're claiming it's "to clear repeated errors," but the fact of the matter is that it's a content dispute, I've tried to disengage, and the two of you won't let me.

Now that the immediate danger of Wikipedia being sued has passed, I've turned my attention to making Wikipedia articles better. I am as serious as a heart attack about WP:NPOV. In general, articles about Republicans contain a great deal more criticism than articles about Democrats. Here we have an article about the Speaker of the House with 20 years of House service, and her article is shorter and contains less criticism than an article about a freshman GOP by the name of Peter Roskam, who has one month of service.

If you think that's a fluke, and that Roskam's article is not representative, compare the Pelosi article with Dennis Hastert's. Again, the Republican's article is loaded with criticism compared to this one.

The goal of making the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another more closely can be achieved by (1) making Republicans' articles less critical, or (2) making Democrats' articles more critical, or (3) both. I've chosen the third option. I hope that they will meet somewhere in the middle, and that we can all achieve consensus on the question of "how much criticism is too much," applying it equally to both Republicans and Democrats.

I will take whichever of the three options we can all reach a consensus about, if there's a substantial body of opinion claiming that the third option is unacceptable; but rest assured that one of the three options is needed and will be pursued. We can compare apples with apples (the Pelosi article with the Hastert article) or oranges with oranges (the Roskam article with the Melissa Bean article, for example). But in the end my point will be proven, and I suspect that all of you already realize that.

The New York Post editorial is notable criticism. Yet you choose to remove not just the excerpt from that editorial, but the entire section. Why? I've answered your question. Now it's your turn. This leaves the entire article almost devoid of criticism. Dino 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DUST is why I removed it. My personal opinion (which is NOT relevent) is that I agree with those who contend this was a calculated, manufactured, bogus issue fueled by rightwing spinmeisters like Murdoch to get the focus off the $12 BILLION DOLLARS in cash (363 TONS) that went missing in Iraq - a slightly more important and GOP-damaging issue that was dominating the news cycle at the time. - FAAFA 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that moment of candor. You've admitted that the reason for removing it was ... no reason at all. Dino 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:DUST is a valid reason. Look at the egg on the faces of those who created the Jamil Hussein article, claiming he didn't exist. Now their claims are reduced to arguments over his last name. OUCH! (and yet another blow to the 'journalistic reputation' of Michelle Malkin) WP:DUST should be followed more, not less.Iaqi Source Is Real: Now What Do Conservative Bloggers Say? - FAAFA 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...Excuse me. There was a reason. You just disagree with the reason. At the very start of this discussion a week ago. Someone mentioned the story, and I responded "not encyclopedic" because of its ephemeral importance, someone else referred to WP:DUST. You have tried, and failed, to gain consensus for the inclusion of this particular editorial opinion. Dust. Time to move on, perhaps; this one's dropped from the news already and never was worthy in the first place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:DUST is a valid reason.
Then find some reliable, non-partisan sources supporting that reason. At Democratic Underground, everything bad about Democrats is an evil plot by Teh Rove, exquisitely timed to misdirect the gullible public's attention away from some genuine Republican crime. Let's see a reliable, non-partisan source.
Excuse me. There was a reason. You just disagree with the reason.
Jpgordon, I could name any number of scandals and controversies that were no longer in the news a week later, but somehow they linger on in Wikipedia articles about the Republican politicians that they were used to smear. The Peter Roskam article, before I started working on it, was a perfect example of a Rolodex full of one-week scandals that had been fluffed by the Duckworth campaign and its sycophants. These articles have to meet somewhere in the middle. We have to reach an agreement about the level of criticism that is acceptable, and apply it to both the articles about Republicans and the articles about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. Wikipedia must avoid not only favoritism, but the appearance of favoritism. Dino 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Dean, how about option (4) -- less bullshit in all articles? If you're looking at it as an equivalence of criticism, then really, let's make sure that Moby and Hitler have the same amount of criticism, then it's fair. Your position is ludicrous. The criterion should never be an equal amount of critism; the criterion should be verifiable fact and encyclopedic relevance. Until a scandal affects a vote, an election, or maybe a significant poll, it's not relevant, and it has no place in Wikipedia -- in articles about Republicans or Democrats. -- Joshua BishopRoby 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking at it as an equivalence of criticism, then really, let's make sure that Moby and Hitler have the same amount of criticism, then it's fair.
I believe what you're saying (minus the sarcasm) is that an article about a convicted felon such as Dan Rostenkowski should contain more criticism than an article about someone with no criminal record, such as Peter Roskam. I couldn't agree more. But two similarly situated persons should have biographies that have the same amount of criticism. When one of them is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, we need to be especially careful to be sure that they have the same amount of criticism, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
Until a scandal affects a vote, an election, or maybe a significant poll, it's not relevant, and it has no place in Wikipedia ...
You may be right, but how can anyone be the judge of that? Also, there's no indication that the Monica Lewinsky scandal affected an election or even a poll; are you saying that it shouldn't be mentioned in an article about Bill Clinton? Dino 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that Rostekowski's controversy happened years before the internet was completely viable and before the onset of investigative journalism as it now stands. I'm sure that if his problem had happened to anyone in the present, the controversy section would be huge. But as it is right now, you can't make a comparison between a present senator who has problems now with a senator 10 years ago. Gdo01 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gdo01, I have a very, very clear memory of the Rostenkowski scandal. At the time, we had other media that are anachronistic by Internet standards, but they still served their purpose. They were called "newspapers" and "magazines." Microfilm copies of these relics are still on file at the public library, not too far away from the public access computers, if only someone were inclined to look.
But if an unfamiliarity with microfilm is the problem, then perhaps I should have said, "An article about a convicted felon such as Frank Ballance should contain more criticism than an article about someone with no criminal record, such as Peter Roskam." Dino 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If I've read the facts right, Ballance had no criminal record while in Congress since he wasn't indicted until months after he left Congress. He probably committed the crimes while in Congress but he was basically out of the public light when he was indicted. Unfortunately, there's a difference between being accused after you leave office and before you are even in office. I'm sure anyone would agree with that. Gdo01 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! - You win a prize Dean - 1) start naming those Republican scandals. 2) you've been on Wiki 3 weeks and you're telling an admin with a 3 year history how to run Wiki 3) you're spouting tin foil hattery nonsense about DU. 4) don't copy Crockspots with his 'Teh Rove'. Have some originality! Think up your own childish wordplays (you can't use my Chimpy-Bush-Laden ™ either!} - Fairness and Accuracy for Delay, Abramoff, Ney, and especially Randy 'Duke' Cunningham 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Relentless mockery. Not a good idea under the circumstances. Dino 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What is Dino attempting to do here? Show us any credible proof (and by credible, we mean NOT the editorial section of the New York Post!) of Pelosi ever requesting a C-32 plane, and then we'll add it in. That's all we're asking for. 12.149.141.19 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He has none because there is none. I am supposed to assume good faith, but this appears to be an attempt to edit the article to make some sort of brittle partisan point. --BenBurch 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch the ongoing Dino/BenBurch/FAAFA shitstorm with a ten-foot pole covered in holy water, but I would like to point out that the prevailing mode of attack in modern politics is to throw everything you've got at the proverbial wall and see what sticks. I can't see how it's a good idea to record every non-criminal accusation that gets thrown before we know which accuastions actually have the potential to impact policy or elections. If this were an ethics/lawbreaking charge instead of "hypocrisy," I'd be more open to the idea - anything that carries the possibility of official censure, viz. Monica, is more noteworthy than something that has weight only in the court of public opinion. Every piece of partisan mud that gets slung cannot be encyclopedic, or the articles on the US Congress alone will explode the servers. ShaleZero 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your analysis across the board but that is a damn good answer in this context. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Partisanship and POV problems

You know what Dean? You and I actually agree that partisanship and POV issues are MAJOR problems for Wiki. One of the chief problems is that every contentious article has a group of partisans trying to sway it one way or another, and depending on the numbers, and how well they know WP, these partisans can be successful in turning ANY article into a hatchet job, or a glowing tribute, and not much can be done if you're in the minority. These partisans will spend hundreds of hours arguing about minor details - and the only way that the issue will be settled is through formal arbitration taking hundreds of more hours. Look at the arguments and RfA over Juan Cole for instance. This dispute has been going on since before I even got here. IMHO, I have the perfect solution. There are 100's of contentious articles that should be 'locked' and checked, then edited for POV by a team of experienced editors who have NO interest or feelings about the subject. The American political articles could be checked for POV and edited by Japanese Koi aficionados who don't even vote, for instance! Suggested changes would be debated on the talk pages, and no more than once a month the ones that are approved would be added to the article. The tens of thousand of hours wasted now by editors trying to affect POV could be spent actually improving Wiki because these fruitless battles would no longer exist. (are you listening Jimbo ;-) - FAAFA 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia only giving the extreme-right/Rush Limbaugh version of Pelosi?

Is this article being written by Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh? I have added a couple of edits, here and there recently (which included good, fair, balanced information on Pelosi). The Wiki article editor, inexplicably, removed these edits (apparently to make room for the Rush/talk radio hatchet job on Pelosi, with non-stories like the "Pelosi plane affair.")

In the "The War on Terrorism" section, the article states simply that Pelosi voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution that authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I added this info below (which includes fair, balanced information in which Pelosi explained her 2002 vote at the time the vote was being conducted):

In explaining her opposition to the resolution, Pelosi noted that Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet had told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq's Saddam Hussein launching an attack on the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction was low. "This is about the Constitution," Pelosi said. "It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware what the challenges are to us. It is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops."

But, of course, the extreme-right-wing Rush-loving Wiki editors removed this edit of mine. It's quite amusing how Wiki claims to be "neutral." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.57 (talk • contribs) 15:12, February 15, 2007

  • Well, actually, people on the right tend to say Wikipedia is a nest of flaming leftists, while people on the left tend to say it's a nest of flaming rightists. So it's probably fairly well balanced. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the edits that you did are still in the article, what are you complaining about? The only thing that was reverted is the fact that your web browser completely destroyed the language links. They had to be repaired. Read through the article, your edit is still there. Gdo01 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a "CONTROVERSIES" Section like all repulicans on Wiki have

we need a section devoted to CONTROVERSIES that cover allegations against Pelosi. You will find a controversy section on *EVERY SINGLE* major conservative on Wiki (show me one that doesn't). So to be fair, and NPOV, we need to make sure that readers of Wiki are informed of Pelosi's controversies. I want to know about her failed promises and be informed of any allegations against her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Pelosi's failed promises

What about the failed promises of Pelosi? I'd like to see those in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[[5]] and [[6]] off the top of my head. Both possible presidential candidates and Brownback is very conservative. I just gave you two but you only asked for one. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential front runner. Gdo01 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is in bad need of some detail on the failed promises. Congress under Pelosi's leadership is experiencing some of the lowest approval ratings ever (lower than President Bush's!), yet this article contains almost no information about why this may be so. During the campaign she promised to pursue oversight of Bush, but she has blocked this oversight in many ways other than simply blocking impeachment proceedings. For example, it has now been more than 3 months since the house judiciary committee passed its recommendation that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten should be held in contempt of congress. This is the only oversight-related recommendation that the house judiciary committee has made in the 110th congress, and it has been blocked by Pelosi. Surely this is in some way relevant to the article? When I attempted to add it, User:Loonymonkey reverted it without consideration. Does anyone have any advice for how best to make these statements without compromising neutrality? 74.129.232.248 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial failure of the 100-Hour Plan

First, JPgordon, if you object to a few words of the paragraph I added, I respectfully suggest that you should have deleted those few words rather than the entire paragraph. Second, the sourcing in the Washington Post is as solid as depleted uranium. Third, the reference to Pelosi's explicit rejection of the term limits proposal is on the second page of the Washington Post story, about halfway down the page. Let's work together to make this a better article rather than engaging in an edit war, or accusing each other of harboring bias. I encourage you to replace the paragraph you just deleted. Dino 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly belongs in at least one of the two places. When a plan is presented, then used as a marketing strategy to win a majority in the House of Representatives, one may be interested in how well the marketers followed through on their plan after the election. I didn't see any of that in either article. That's the only part of the plan that I'm familiar with, since I pay careful attention to national security issues. How did the rest of it turn out, sir? Did this politician keep her campaign promise? In at least two ways, part of this campaign promise was broken even before the end of the month of November. But you don't feel it belongs in this article? Dino 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not nobility, I'm not royalty, I'm not your boss, I'm not your commanding officer, and I'm not your father, so you can dispense with the "sir". I'm sure you're sufficiently familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to understand why your personal analysis is utterly irrelevant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The word "sir" shows respect. If it annoys you, I won't use it. I want to be clear about this, my intention is to show respect, not to annoy you. And I'm sufficiently familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to know that when there is notable criticism about the subject of a Wikipedia article, it should be represented in the article. This is not original research. In this case, the reporter from the Washington Post did the research for me. It's notable, it's well-sourced, and including it is well within bounds, in terms of such BLP and NPOV concerns as undue weight, fairness of tone and not siding with the critics.
When a political leader campaigns on the basis of a promise, achieves her goal in the November election, and then starts breaking that promise even before the month of November is over, I think it's notable. What do you think? Dino 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

Really? Then who decides issues such as notability, or compliance with such policy provisions as undue weight, fairness of tone and not siding with the critics? What is consensus, except what you and I (and others participating on this page) think? Dino 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, not you, clearly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection needed

Could an administrator please semi-protect this article to cut down on some of the rampant vandalism here? Thanks. Dce7 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix the Infobox

Infobox says she has been in the same district since '87 and Sala Burton preccedded her. Shes been in district 8 since 1993. From 87-93 she was in district 5 precceded by Sala Burtton. Now her predessecor in 8 is Ronald V. Dellums.

Well, anonymous contributor, judging by 100th United States Congress, 102nd United States Congress, and 103rd United States Congress, it looks like you are right on the money. So I've made the changes you recommended. I determined the start date (june 9, 2007) fyrom this reference [[7]] . I also removed "minority house leader" from the infobox because it is totally redundant to "democrat house leader". 74.129.232.248 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


No, that's not correct. She did not change districts. Like all California reps, her district was renamed (this is mentioned in the article). Ronald Dellums is not her predecessor as he has never represented the district she represents. He represented Oakland, not San Francisco. (This is wiki standard. See Ron Dellums' page, for instance....he is succeeded by Barbara Lee, not Nancy Pelosi) --Loonymonkey 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Logan Act

I'm moving the Logan Act stuff to the section about the Middle East trip--it doesn't need its own heading. Also, I removed link to the blog per WP:RS. It's citing the WSJ piece anyway. I also removed the comment that Pelosi "has not been indicted"--there is no expectation that the Speaker of the House would be indicted and little evidence that she should be. To include that sentence is implying that she has done something wrong, which is POV for sure. It's enough (or maybe even too much) to say that some people think she violated the Logan Act. Dce7 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a few bloggers or opinion writers say so? The sources gathered for this supposed violation of a law are unreliable. Not only that, but it makes no sense that Pelosi is being targeted for this when there are plenty of Senators who tour places like Iraq and speak with their leaders without being accused of violating such a obscure law. Until there are some reliable sources on this subject, it should be left out of the article as non-notable ramblings of a few bored partisan people. dposse 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Easy, easy... I had already toned the Logan Act section down from the way a previous editor had written it. Anyway, it turns out that the Logan Act doesn't apply to Pelosi anyway because she's an elected official--and that's according to the NY Post who would love to nail Pelosi on that if they could.[8]
One point, though, as an aside. There's a difference between the frequent congressional trips to Iraq and Pelosi's trip (and the trip of the 3 GOP congressmen) to Syria: the U.S. has diplomatic relations with Iraq but not with Syria. And the White House — which, like it or not, is in charge of foreign policy — had specifically asked congressmen not to meet with Syrian leaders. So that is the reason for the criticism, even if she didn't violate the Logan Act. Dce7 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Understandable. However, i disagree with the sources being provided for this criticism. Editorals, opinion pages and bloggers all fall under the heading of being unreliable. Also, we may have to protect the article on the Logan Act since it's being bombarded with this infomation. dposse 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, editorials and opinion pages may be acceptable in situations where they are being used as statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. Even some blogs are sometimes acceptable under WP:RS depending on who is writing them. I would agree with you that all are inappropriate as references if they are being used to over-emphasize the prevalence of a given viewpoint.
I'll keep my eye on the Logan Act article. Dce7 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pelosi has not violated the Logan Act; the WSJ editorial is off the mark. Check the NY Post editorial linked to above, and also have a look at this CRS report about the Logan Act. If a CRS report is not a reliable source I don't know what is. Page 9 says that the Logan Act is not directed at members of Congress. [9] Dce7 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Logan Act applies for any US citizen acting without Presidential authority. Are you saying Pelosi is no longer a US citizen? Yaf 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not. Did you read the CRS report or the editorial in the NY Post (a conservative paper, I would remind you)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dce7 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I would like to avoid getting into an edit war so let's hash things out here before we do anything else to the bit about the Logan Act. My argument for removing the mention of the WSJ editorial is that Pelosi clearly has not violated the Logan Act according to the two reliable sources I mentioned. What she did do was go over to Syria even though Bush didn't want her to — but that's not a violation of the Logan Act. And it's already mentioned in the article that the administration opposed her trip. Thus I think it's non-NPOV to mention a clearly false claim that Pelosi has broken the law. Thoughts? Dce7 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should not enter into an edit war. The easiest way to keep balance is to add words to the effect, "Other commentators claim no violation of the Logan Act occured. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]" with appropriately cited reference(s). Simply ignoring a major US newspaper's opinion, while claiming the Wall Street Journal is unreliable, is extremely POV. Providing balance with appropriately cited sources for opinions is a better way to address this content than simply deleting what the WSJ claims may be an issue and calling the WSJ a source that doesn't meet [WP:ATT]. Yaf 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You say you don't want to get into an edit war, but you just put the statement back into the article after someone else had taken it out earlier.
Now, I'm not saying that the WSJ editorial is an unreliable source per Wikipedia policy, assuming that it is used purely as a statement of opinion. What I am saying is that the WSJ editorial is wrong. Again, I ask you if you have looked at the sources I have cited, especially the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Those sources make it clear that elected officials are not bound by the Logan Act. From your responses it doesn't sound like you've looked at this material and you need to.
The point is that if the WSJ editorial is demonstrably false, then there is no need to have it in an encyclopedia article. To include it makes the article slanted. Dce7 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Dce7 on this. Since the law has never actually been enforced, the best anyone can do is speculate on what a court might interpret "authority of the United States" to mean; the State Department has stated in past cases that the restriction does not apply to elected officials. Essentially, the claim is a political attack. At most, we should wait a few days to see if the claims have any traction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What an editor believes is irrelevant. The key is to find opinions backed by reliable sources, cite those, and take our opinions as editors out of the mix while presenting all major viewpoints. At this point, there are conflicting opinions in major US newspapers whether or not any violation of the Logan Act has been committed by Speaker Pelosi. You say the WSJ is wrong. This is not a valid line of thought. Where is the cited opinion or opinions that supports/support this opposing viewpoint from a reliable source, and why isn't this inserted in the article, too, to counter a claim by a commentator in the WSJ whom you believe is wrong. You are not a reliable source. Neither am I. Some reliable sources state that any individual who is a US Citizen acting without Presidential authority is in violation of the Logan Act when negotiating with foreign countries with whom the present President has chosen not to negotiate with. The Pelosi article already claims that Presidential authority was not given. Removing cited facts of opinion by reputable sources, while claiming that the "WSJ is wrong", while not inserting any balancing information into the article, is extremely POV. The article as written is extremely biased in favor of Pelosi, whitewashing any hint of wrongdoing, in an attempt at spin control. Wikipedia should present facts supported by WP:ATT, instead of removing information that is perhaps embarassing to elected officials. (And I have looked at the sources you cited, several times, over the last several days, and they do not state that elected officials are automatically exempt from the Logan Act when acting outside Presidential authority.) The article as written is extremely biased by not mentioning the current event that is unfolding. Yaf 07:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you can read this (written by the State Department, quoted in the CRS report referenced above) and not think that the WSJ is, in fact, wrong for insinuating that Pelosi has violated the Logan Act:
Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
This is basically an exact description of Pelosi's visit. Why are we adding in the commentary of the WSJ saying that Pelosi violated the Logan Act? Just because they wrote it does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. You should ask yourself why the WSJ targeted ONLY Pelosi and not the GOP delegation that went around the same time (and Bush didn't want them to go, either). It's a political attack, pure and simple. If Bush himself were charging that Pelosi had violated the Logan Act, that might be one thing. As it stands now there has been one editorial in one major paper and that simply doesn't warrant being included here. Even to mention that editorial (whether or not you also mention that other people disagree with it) is to give credence to its views, which are nothing more than a partisan attack.
When an editorial like this just doesn't square with the facts, it's important as editors to realize this so that it can be appropriately weighted in the context of an encyclopedia article. In this case, to mention the editorial at all is to vastly overstate the extent of this would-be "controversy." Dce7 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, I think Wikipedia articles like this one should be more than a collection of "he said/she said". Without some critical evaluation of things this is not much of an encyclopedia. This should be about facts, not just opposing opinions, and the fact is that Pelosi and the others — whether or not they violated the Logan Act — have not been accused by any current government official of doing so, will not be, and will not be indicted or prosecuted. This should be plain to everyone regardless of whether you think she actually violated Logan. This supposed controversy just isn't notable enough for it to be included without making it sound like Pelosi has broken the law. And she hasn't, and I maintain that it is a mistake to lose sight of that. Dce7 08:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, when i do search for "Pelosi Logan" on Google News, all i seem to get are blogs and "Commentary" opinion pages. Not one of these passes WP:SPS. By the way, if we are to add sources that Pelosi broke the law, then i see no reason why we cannot add About.com's link which states "these accusations will hold no legal status." dposse 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been stated several places that the Logan Act does not apply to to members of congress, but that is only true for a fact-finding mission. Members of Congress are not allowed, just like every other citizen, to create policy. One of Pelosi's stated objectives was to create a divergent policy from the President's. BTW, Speaker Jim Wright was also accused of being in violation when he visited the Sandinista Government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.58.60 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Please indicate where Pelosi stated that her objective was "to create a divergent policy from the President's." (Good luck finding such a quote.) Dce7 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the fact that President Reagan accused Speaker Wright makes that event more notable and worthy of inclusion on the appropriate WP articles. Pelosi has not been accused by anyone other than the Wall Street Journal. Dce7 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on Pelosi's trip to Syria appears to be non-controversial, but for one line: "Some people say...Logan Act...," and a reference to opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is not WSJ. The controversial line should be deleted until a neutral, objective source can be identified.ctj 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been trying to find a normal news article and not just a biased editorial. However, as i've shown above, i cannot find such an article. Unless we can find an article like that, the infomation should stay out of the article. dposse 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. She 'violated' a provision of an 'act' which has NEVER been enforced, in over 200 years since it was originally adopted (check out "Logan Act", don't believe me!). This 'act' has a 200 year history of being a complete non-starter...if someone has an opinion that's contrary to the party in power, it's treasonous to voice it. What an abomination to the first amendment of our Constitution! I can't believe any but the true "Bushies" lend any credence to this claim. This is desperate 'reaching' beyond anything I've seen so far.

Loonymonkey has removed the information regarding the logan act. His given reason was "Agreed with previous. This never broke from blogs to real news. Not worthy of inclusion." This is absolutely worthy of inclusion. It was covered on several news channels including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, plus pretty much every local affiliate news program where I live (Phoenix, AZ). Also, it was discussed all over the place on several prominent and widely used news and editorial pages all over the internet. Also, this information is well covered over in the Logan Act article, so if it's worth mentioning there I think it's definitely worth mentioning here. Here are just a select few I found in less then 2 seconds of searching:

I'm putting the information back in the article as it was newsworthy and widely covered. Elhector 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you can't find a single newspaper article about it kind of proves my point. There are a two editorials that discuss the blog "controversy" but it never crossed over into actual news. If it was so widely reported on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc, as you claim, why can't you find any actual news articles on those sites about it? No, it was not "widely covered." It was not covered at all.
This was a non-issue and the dust has long since settled on this. It was a Drudge headline for a few hours six months ago, but that's it.
Wikipedia is not meant to be a Drudge archive. —Loonymonkey 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure why the 2 links you say do not work are not working. If i click on one of those links i get the 404 page not found, but if i copy and paste the links from the source code from my comment then the links work fine. It's taking the "?" out of the URL's for some reason. Here's the 2 sites again, just copy and paste them into your browser and they should work. Elhector 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlODU3MDc3ZjEzZjEzYzVkNGRmNzhiYmZiNjkwNTI= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Party Leadership Section- BIASED

Look at the "Democratic Party Leadership" section.

Over one third of the section is one Rep.'s opinion (cited from "The Nation" of all places) of Ms. Pelosi being "too liberal." There are plently of people in political power who had the opposite opinion (quotes upon request)...why is Ford the only one allowed to comment on the Speaker?

Besides, both sides are well shown in the "Political platform and voting record" section. Is this biased quote even necessary?

69.136.84.130 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Aislin


2007 trip to Israel and Syria - Misleading/Incomplete information

"Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — met with with Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier, although the Bush administration asked Pelosi, as the leader of the Democratic Party, not to visit a state sponsor of terror."

This section is carefully worded in order to make it appear that Bush approved of the visit by three Republicans and was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit. However, the White House publically rebuked all U.S. officials visiting Syria unilaterally.

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534

There's good reason for thinking Bush was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit, even according to the article that you just cited:
"The White House and at least one Republican presidential candidate have sharply criticized visits to Syria by members of Congress but have mentioned only Pelosi by name." Dce7 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This may be the case, but the worse part is that the partisan nature of Bush's request isn't really brought back in anywhere in the rest of the paragraph or section. As such it is an extraneous detail. If more should be said about the domestic political ramifications of her visit, then it ought to be made its own paragraph, and both sides played out. As such, I'm going to take out the reference to Bush. Slarson 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Critical Sections -- why are they there?

Not that I am looking to cleanse Pelosi's record, but the two sections that point out run-ins with regulatory bodies, the ones titled "Political action committee fined" and "Failure to disclose role in family charity" just seem completely disjoint from the rest of the article. Neither of these events were significant to her career.. there were no further ramifications of them, they were not turning points.. they are barely notable. She had regulatory issues, they got taken care of, and no other consequences came of them. I propose to remove them both and tighten this article up to only those parts that are absolutely necessary.

She's a political figure so a critical section is bound to pop up no matter what. People look for a place to grind their ax. --TrustTruth 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think it should be avoided. Still tempted to remove it soon. Slarson 08:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Criticism and controversy" sections are ubiquitous in wiki articles about political figures. Why should this article be different? (re-edited because I forgot to sign in before replying) DWRoelands 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thursday 4/19/07

Hi!

This cannot be true! Was Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi really born on born March 26, 1900? That would make her over 100! I don't know what the correct date is or how to correct it myself. Can someone look into this for me.

Thanks 69.116.8.163 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Melissa

Better picture

I don't think the current picture is adequate. Thoughts on using a different one? Maybe one that isn't lit to look like there's a hole in her temple? 134.84.100.80 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Source Missing For Del Monte Campaign Contribution Records

The link is down or something for the source claiming Del Monte didn't contribute for democratic campaigns under the Minimum Wage Section of the article. If the website where this source is hosted continues to have this problem of being unreliable and not displaying requested sources, the section of the article should be amended or another source found. 72.45.14.84 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Failure To Disclose Role in Family Charity"?

This subsection doesn't seem to meet the quality standards to be included in a main article on Nancy Pelosi. It authoritatively says that a member of Congress failing to disclose their role in such a charity is illegal, when that's very much disputed. The public law that regulates financial disclosures of members of Congress explicitly offers specific exceptions to the rule that says members have to disclose their roles in certain organizations, and charities are one of those exceptions. 76.97.107.61 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An extensive search on lexis-nexis has revealed exactly two articles on this subject (same paper, same author, same day). Is this even really a controversy? Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel, says it's illegal but that prosecutions are rare. So rare, apparently, that not a single example is given. And this is so controversial that not a single follow-up story could be found.R. Baley 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it got almost no attention even from right-wingers, and it really isn't a controversy. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section heading, and probably does not belong in the article at all unless it can be better integrated and its significance explained. Dce7 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I can prove Stanley Brand, former House general counsel, and by extension Wikipedia and USA Today (which is used as a footnote in the Wikipedia article on Nancy Pelosi), wrong when they state as fact that a member of Congress who fails to report a role in a family charity has broken the law. I can do this by quoting the law. The United States Code, to be exact. Title 5--Appendix, Section 102, Subsection (a) states: "The identity of all positions held on or before the date of filing during the current calendar year (and, for the first report filed by an individual, during the two-year period preceding such calendar year) as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or any educational or other institution other than the United States. This subparagraph shall not require the reporting of positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity and positions solely of an honorary nature." There is a reason why a spokesman for Rep. Rahm Emanuel is reported in the USA Today article as saying she doesn't believe Emanuel has to report his role in his family charity. It's because it's not clear whether family charities are exempt or not.76.97.107.61 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's funny how Pelosi complied with the law even though you claim [whoever you are] that her actions were not illegal. Jinxmchue 03:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, your proof here is considered original research and cannot be used to justify the removal of material from the article. Jinxmchue 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs whether you like it or not. You can go to just about any Democrat's or Republican's Wiki pages and find whole sections devoted to "controversies" no matter how significant or trivial. Heck, some people have entire pages devoted to their controversies. I don't see any of you bitching about those. The fact of the matter is that this was a real event, it was notable, and it was reported in a reliable source. Whatever criticism of its inclusion in the article you have is simply made up of whole cloth and I suspect it is wholly based on your personal prejudices. Jinxmchue 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the article under discussion not some other unnamed article. If other articles have problems, those should be fixed as well, but this is not the place to discuss other unnamed articles. Derex 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, the fundamental problem. The "community" never sees something as sourced as either trivial or problematic. Therefore there is never anything to fix but some may rearrange the deck chairs. To wit, this controversy, like Bill Frists, may not have a headline but it will be in the article. That's why political bios and political articles suck on Wikipedia. I call it the "Jesus or Judas" syndrome. There are no editors willing to battle for the "Nancy Pelosi" article. But there are plenty who want the Nancy "Jesus" Pelosi or Nancy "Judas" Pelosi. And it extends to every article on a living political person. Wikipedia needs to simply adopt a sympathetic tone for biographies and be done with it (although I can imagine the battle when some retarded warrior says George "Judas" Bush is a sympathetic tone). --Tbeatty 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't belong, whether you like it or not, since it doesn't even fit into the same realm as the controversies of other politicians. It's not even a controversy on its own. It wasn't really notable and the reliable source got it wrong. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the main article.76.97.107.61 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Provide a correction by USAToday regarding the story and you can remove the section. YOU and ONLY YOU claiming they got it wrong is not a good enough reason for removing it. That's called "original research" and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Barring a correction from USAToday, find some other reliable source that states that the failure to report was not illegal. Jinxmchue 07:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to provide a correction from USA Today since a serious article about Pelosi shouldn't be dependent on what USA Today does or does not do. And if I were to track down statements from the House and Senate Ethics Committees saying that they clearly interpret the law differently than Stanley Brand and USA Today, you would still dismiss that as original research. I quoted the United States Code above. That isn't original research, and it is sure as hell a lot more reliable source than USA Today.76.97.107.61 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"That isn't original research, and it is sure as hell a lot more reliable source than USA Today." Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps someday it'll come true. Jinxmchue 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey guy, you're the one apparently dimissing the United States Code as mere original research not worthy enough to argue against a Wiki article with. Maybe you should be the one concerned with arbitrarily making things true.76.97.107.61 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm dismissing YOUR INTERPRETATION of U.S. Code as original research, which it is. Unless you can provide a reliable source to back up your interpretation AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE, you've got nothing more than your say-so and no reason to be arguing for the deletion of the section from the article. Jinxmchue 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Bill Frist article. Frist did almost the exact same thing Pelosi did and failed to disclose his status with a family charity. The Frist article, though, integrates this information in a much more appropriate (though not necessarily perfect) way; the charity disclosure stuff is mentioned under a section about Frist's financial status. At a minimum, this supposed controversy does not deserve its own attention-grabbing section heading in the Pelosi article, and it needs to be better integrated into the article. Perhaps the sentence in question could be moved up to the "Family" section of the article, which contains information about Pelosi's financial status. Dce7 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wealthiest Speaker?

User:69.142.1.189 keeps adding in a statement that Pelosi is the wealthiest Speaker of the House ever. I've removed this statement because the person who has added it refuses to give a citation, but he/she keeps putting it back in and I can't remove it again without violating WP:3RR. Could someone else please take it out or find a citation? Thanks, Dce7 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, the anon hasn't responded to requests for a citation or put in an edit summary when he/she reverts. R. Baley 07:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This begs a question on whether it goes by personal income or congressional pay. In the latter case, she would be tied with Hastert, as there was no increase for the Speaker or pro-tempore this session. --70.141.10.214 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Items of note.

Three questions / requests: 1) According to the Clerk's office, there were a ton of write-in votes in Pelosi's 2004 election. Now, 5,000+ write-in votes from nowhere simply does not happen unless someone's running a campaign and stirring people up. Nevertheless, the Clerk's office declined to mention the name, and some other election sites (like CNN) don't even acknowledge these votes' existence. Does anyone know what the heck happened?

Probably Green Party candidate Terry Baum. She needed 1,605 valid write-in votes in the primary to qualify for the runoff (from GP voters). California election officials at first said she had received 1,659 votes. But a few days later, the Director of Elections, John Arntz, said 229 votes for Baum weren't valid, following a re-count of the votes. I think she went on to run a write in campaign for the general election after court appeals had failed, but so far I haven't located any results. R. Baley 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, maybe Baum didn't continue to run (or didn't make a showing I found this in The Daily Review (Hayward, CA), November 5, 2004 -->"Among the Bay Area's congressional races, the widest victory margin was claimed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who clobbered Republican Jennifer DePalma 84.7 percent to 11.8 percent, with Peace and Freedom candidate Leilani Dowell pulling 3.5 percent." So. . .Baum wasn't even mentioned. R. Baley 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's Baum- thanks for the name, that and 5,446 in Google were the magic combination. See [10]. I'll edit that in. SnowFire 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2) Are there any good sources on Pelosi's special election in 1987? It's mentioned in passing several places, but I can't find the straight up numerical results, nor exactly the format (I assume that this was an "everyone jumps in with no primary" thing, hence the two dems in the race?). This is a matter of public record, yet several creative Google searches aren't turning up much.

3) Was it more a renumbering of districts from the 5th->8th in 1992, or did Pelosi actively hop into a basically new district after the redistricting (a la Newt Gingrich)? This would be good to mention in the article. SnowFire 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The 5th was also predominantly the san francisco area (it doesn't look like she had to do any hopping). The districts were redrawn after the 1990 census by a California Supreme Court-appointed panel of three retired judges (The San Francisco Chronicle, DECEMBER 3, 1991, "Redistricting a Blow to Some Lawmakers" BYLINE: Robert B Gunnison and Greg Lucas). R. Baley 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • for #2 (via lexis-nexis):

Copyright 1987 The New York Times Company

The New York Times April 9, 1987, Thursday, Late City Final Edition SECTION: Section A; Page 14, Column 4; National Desk
LENGTH: 709 words (185 words posted here, out of copyright concerns –feel free to delete if necessary once info is used) HEADLINE: HOUSE RACE IN WEST GOES TO RUNOFF BYLINE: By ROBERT LINDSEY, Special to the New York Times
BODY: 'Nancy Pelosi, a former state Democratic chairman, outpolled five fellow Democrats and eight other candidates in a special election Tuesday to fill the unexpired Congressional term of Sala Burton, who died Feb. 1. Because more than 64 percent of the voters in the Fifth Congressional District are Democrats, she is widely expected to win the House seat in a runoff election June 2 against Harriet Ross, a deputy public defender who led three other Republicans. The candidates of four minor parties will also be in the runoff. Mrs. Pelosi received 38,021 votes, 36 percent of the votes casts for all 14 candidates, followed by Supervisor Harry Britt, a Democrat who is a leader among local homosexuals, with 34,031, or 32.2 percent.'
snip
Credit for Senate Takeover

Mrs. Pelosi, who is 47 years old, has never held elective office before. She was chairman of the host committee of the 1984 Democratic National Convention and, as chairman of the 1986 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been praised by party members with playing a key role in the successful Democratic effort to regain control of the United States Senate.

R. Baley 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the washington post(June 3, 1987; no author; p A5 title: 'Nancy Pelosi Wins House Seat') Pelosi went on to win the runoff against Republican Harriet Ross. "With all but one of the 543 precincts reported, Pelosi had 45,719 votes for a better than 2 to 1 majority over Ross, who had 22,162 votes. Four independent party candidates got 4,308 votes. Turnout yesterday was about 24 percent of the 300,000 registered voters in the congressional district." R. Baley 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information; that clears that up. SnowFire 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? No Criticisms Section?

Pelosi has been the subject of heaps of notable criticism, especially as of late. Why is there not a controversy section, which is prevalent in most other politicians' profiles? --70.141.10.214 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In some articles, criticisms are written into the existing sections. I haven't examined this article to see if that's the case, but if you have specific criticisms you'd like to weave into the article, that would probably be the best approach at the current time.--Gloriamarie 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

my addition to pelosi's attidue to Turkey and the so-called Armenian Genocide has been cur out by the editors, whose identity I don't know. Some of them might work for the PR office of the Pelosi, who probably regularly check the wikipedia secton on Pelosi. I do strongly think that there shall be criticism sections, as Pelosi has a lot of controversial stance issues. Her unconditional favorism of Armenians is one of such issues. If you are okay I would go and add these type of criticism on Pelosi's page. Raman, Amherst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.72.6 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hi there. Citations 19, 20, and 21 are all cited to a "Project Vote Smart" website, but the pages are no longer available, therefore the claims are not properly cited and should be. Happyme22 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate page for political views?

I think the section is long and sprawling and ready for its own article. That would make this page much more readable.Agreement? Disagreement? Turtlescrubber 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is not excessively long at this time, her political positions are important, and they add to the article rather than detract. I don't think she warrants a separate page for her political positions at this time.--Gloriamarie 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Colombia section to foreign policy

Pretty much speaks for itself. I'm aware that the final sentence might not be up to wiki standards, but I do think it's important to let the reader know that Pelosi's position on Colombia has been criticized from both the left and right.

No, it's not up to standards. And it's curious that you consider that editorial in the WaPo to be "the Left." On what basis do you claim such a thing?—Loonymonkey 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

repeat of the same idea

Gay rights section and the Civil liberties section both mention the same vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Seems redundant. It may be useful to mention it in both, but with each section following after another, its not needed. I suppose we should only put that mention once in the gay rights section.

field

Hi, please write a bout her field and how come she passed levels up to became Nancy now? I wish one day i become like her. I think women like her are strong and every woman proud of her.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). What do you mean by her field?--Gloriamarie 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Logan Act "controversy"

This doesn't seem like it should be there at all. It was a non-issue at the time and was mentioned for a day or two in various conservative blogs, but never jumped over into real news. What is the controversy? Plus, the citation for it is from the laughable Worldnetdaily, not exactly a credible news source.

The dust settled on this one ages ago. It simply isn't worthy of inclusion. I've tried removing it, but it keeps getting reverted.

Comments? --Loonymonkey 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this so I suggest we put out a request for comments and get some outside opinions on this. I think that would be a fair way to settle this. I'll abide by whatever the result of the RfC is. I think that's the best way to handle this civilly, let me know what you think. Elhector 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason for it to be there -- as Loonymonkey says, it was a non-issue at the time and the only people who cared about it were a few bloggers, and even that lacked traction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I watched hours of coverage, debate, and talk about this on several news channels. Unfortunately I can't include video links to youtube per Wikipedia policy so I can't prove this point. It was even discussed on again last night on a news program. You guys made mention of it being on Drudgereport for a few hours and that's it. I never saw it on Drudge, the only reason I know about it is from seeing and hearing about it on national news programs. I'll put an RfC up and we'll see if the greater community can offer any more incite as to whether this was a "big story". I didn't realize that something had to be a "big story to be included in someones biographical article though. If after the RfC we find that most people consider this a non story and not important then I'll personally remove the info. Elhector 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet you can't find a single news article about it? What does that tell you? Your claim to have seen it "all over the news" {as proof that it was in the news) is nothing more than Original Research.

Request for Comments on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act

Several users believe the information on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act stemming from her trip to Syria should be removed from the article. The given reasons are that it was a non-issue and may not have recieved enough news coverage to be important. Please read the discussions conerning this above and leave your opinion below. Thanks!Elhector 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I disagree with Eiler7. As a partisan politician, she has gotten lot's of press coverage during her career. But Wikipedia is not news. This appears to hinge on WP:WEIGHT. Is it really notable over the course of her life? Not really. It appears to be not much more than another blip on the two parties bickering. Nothing substantial has come of it. Pairadox 01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a reliable source that describes the controversy, then a sentence or two's worth of mention is warranted. Likewise, her positions on any and all non-headline topics and the fallout or lack thereof should be treated the same way, IMHO. Ngchen 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Outside comment: Wikipedia is not a news service, but notable occurrences in her political career obviously should be part of the political section. The trip to Syria receieved a lot of attention, and should be included. The amendment is probably not relevant. The Evil Spartan 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfC template now. The info had already been removed from the article long before there was any feed back here so I guess it was really pointless starting it and trying to go that route. In any event the RfC has been open for a few weeks and this looks like all the feedback we're going to get. Most of the feedback recieved at this point is pro removing the info so what's done is done. Thanks for everyone's participation that commented above! Elhector 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)



Nancy's family&husband

Is Pelosi married? If yes, who is her husband? There is nothing on her husband in the article. Quite surprising for the lady who came so close to the presidency and who has a lot of children?

Her husband is Paul Pelosi and is mentioned several times in the article. --Loonymonkey 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This page could use a semi-protection. IP vandalism is very high. --VartanM 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


"Enhanced interrogation" section title

"Enhanced interrogation" should not be accepted as a NPOV term even when used is a section title as "Enhanced interrogation/Torture". Can that section title be changed to something more neutral such as "The controversy over what constitutes torture" ? --Pleasantville (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the addition is specific to waterboarding, is there any reason not to use that specific term as the section head? --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No discussion or objections in a day and a half, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Political positions and voting record: idle and void

Jee what a great record. She should be in a Congres somewhere to make it come true. If not: it is a cheap bullshit record. Let's wipe it out. PR only -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are 435 members of congress (give or take) and they vote on things. The senate and the president also have their say, so her political positions and voting record do not become law. This section is useful for informing people about Pelosi's stands and votes on the issues. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That is what I am talking about: her opinions are irrelevant. If her voice is 1 out of 435 then it doesn't matter, don't you think. What did she do or reach? Why write down 435 opinions on say 12 subjects? Not relevant. US Congress is not about "vote on things", or having a say. It is about laying down a law. Being some first in Hiroshima does nothing. I repeat: she should be in legislation, making laws. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course, this article should represent that. Not her traveling scheme. What is hetr record? Any blood or fighting visibele? -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with the editing of this article. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for an explanation of why it's inappropriate to engage in general discussion about the subject of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculative POV

Found this in the article and removed it. One of the more shameless examples of POV I've seen. My emphasis added: Sources at the Israeli Prime Minister's Office at the time said that, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her".[29] She has continued this practice without reservation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC) KVND 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Husband

It says she was born in 1940 AND married in 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.186.184.126 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies?

How about starting a controversies section? It seems to be a popular trend on Wikipedia for a variety of public figures. Surely the House Speaker (whomever he or she is at any given time) has been involved in controversial issues, whether self-started or having become embroiled. 96.234.182.35 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact the standard is to specifically not have a controversy or criticism section, but rather weave any controversies into the body of the article (as has been done here). While I'm sure there are a number of less-traveled articles that do not adhere to this, great effort has been made across the project to dismantle controversy sections (as they always become nothing more than coatracks for people with strong opinions against the politician. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This should be in the article somewhere. The Marine Corps veteran in the video says: "The Nazis were were the national socialist party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in their country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi's biography and that guy could clearly benefit from a freshman level Poly-Sci course. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


This isnt pelosi's bio, its an encyclopedic entry about her. Its important to mention that she feels that around half of americans are nazi's, and considering she is the 3rd most important person in the country, people should know. you guys always try to weasle your way out of saying anything negative about prominent democrats, and its annoying and obvious. and fyi, the nazi party stood for national socialist german workers party, so loonymonkey should take a history class for apparently not knowing that obvious fact. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you all stop acting like controversy pages are so against wiki policy, when rush limbaugh has a page thats longer than pelosi's normal one? you arent fooling anyone, and it make you guys seem a lot more credible if the same rules applied to people you like and dislike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009

Protected edit request

{{Editprotected}} I'm a staff member at On Point (NPR) - Hoping to add external links of times when she was featured on our show. Pdrosso (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Pdrosso. Please give a complete and specific description of the change you want made to the article. Administrators are not mind-readers :) If you want the page unprotected so that you can edit it yourself, consult WP:RFPP. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, without having seen the proposed additions, it sounds like they might not be appropriate for the biography article, per WP:EL. But please post them here, and we can discuss it. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Under the heading of "Waterboarding and CIA controversy" there is a link on "Office of Legislative Counsel" that redirects to "Office of Legal Counsel". I thought they were different in that Office of LEGISLATIVE Counsel was part of the Office of the Clerk and not part of the Department of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.198.151 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Health Care?

It seems like there should be a lot more information regarding her fight for a public health care option. This deserves its own section if you ask me. Deepfryer99 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with the caveat that we have to be careful about 22:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A messed up statement

Someone should fix the following text from the article:

she expressed concern "that the new (Hamas-Fatah) Palestinian government, some of the people in the government, continue to remain committed to the existence of Israel".

As you see, it does not make any sense Wlod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Update needed

This is terribly in the past, it looks like it hasn't gotten a good update since 2007. All it says about health care is that she supports Medicaid? Really? It's a terrible information source for one of the most powerful people in the world. US2010 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See also

It says "List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards". Is this really appropriate? She's the Speaker of the House, not a celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.225.130 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Is her name actually "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi"? Congressional Biographical Directory doesn't mention "Patricia" at all and just notes "D'Alesandro" as her maiden name. Nor does her website mention either her middle name or say her maiden name is part of her name currently. If "D'Alesandro" isn't in her name currently, then we should say "Nancy [Patricia] Pelosi, née D'Alesandro", not "Nancy [Patricia] D'Alesandro Pelosi". We should also find decent evidence for "Patricia", which seems to be lacking. john k (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Pelosi is up for re-election in 2010 facing a challenge from Libertarian Republican John Dennis. Dennis is the founder of the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus. John Dennis supports peace, and opposes the War in Afghanistan."

This is a ridiculous thing to include in the opening paragraphs of an article about Nancy Pelosi. It's transparent, topical political advertising in the introduction to a reference article and should be deleted. Loccol (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done w/r/t all but the first sentence. This article is about Pelosi, not Dennis. Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Pelosi, an admitted lesbian..." This statement is factually inaccurate. Please correct immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.6.91 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Info Box

I find it completely inappropriate to list a politician's religion in the info box. It looks to me like religious affiliation is given equal prominence with political party or job history for these public figures. Is it American POV to say that there should be no religious test for public office? Is there another discussion thread on this? 173.8.220.209 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 Loccol (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)(UTC)

Strongest Speaker in History

Rep. Charles Rangel on 03312010 stated on NY1 News that "was the strongest Speaker in recent history..." and perhaps "...of all time" I am not getting involved in the politics, but that may be notable.

He is just a rep. I won't disagree on it too much but be sure to include his poltical party. 98.127.155.132 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alv21, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I think D'Alessandro (with double s) is the correct spelling. I'm from Italy and I never see the word Alesandro, while Alessandro is a widely used name. An english source that confirm this: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Pelosi,+Nancy+Patricia+D%27Alessandro

Alv21 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Her "official" bio uses only one "s" in her father's and brother's last names--see this. —fetch·comms 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, I already edited it. Spitfire19 T/C 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This book does not use the extra "s", as do all these. —fetch·comms 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nopaniers, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Someone inserted the words "is a bitch" into this page. It's probably a good idea to get rid of that.

Nopaniers (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome to Wikipedia, it is now removed, thanks for pointing it out. Sorry for the inconvenience with the semi-protection, jonkerz♠ 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you edit this so it reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like a 7th grade book report? Nobody cares whether or not she "publicly scolded" somebody as it's ultimately immaterial. And the section starting with "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader..." is innane and premature given that she's still in office and perceptions of her are changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.241.114 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

What a ridiculous picture. What is it - 30 years old? Here is another: http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.JPG That's what she really looks like, not her high school picture above! Geeze: Wikipedia The Democratic Advocacy Site and Web Encyclopedia !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.194.111 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, no criticism?

What is it with wiki nowadays? You guys are afraid to make a criticism/controversy page for obama and pelosi, and i cant understand why. there are certainly more than enough incidents... you guys have no problem going after republicans, how bout being a little fair? 136.160.191.18 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM. WP:NOCRIT. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not supposed to criticize in Wikipedia, however I personally don't see any problem documenting criticism, as long as the criticism is noteworthy. Also why isn't there anything about the controversy over her wanting a new jet? Did she get it?--Glas(talk)Nice User skin 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner has a "Political Controversies" section... while I'm sure it is valid, I dare say most polls would show that Pelosi is more controversial than he is. I might add that her colleague in the Senate, Harry Reid, also has a "Criticism" section. It's a fair request, IMO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Those pages have no relevance to this one. Soxwon (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They do. They are all about politicians. You have to apply the same standard, to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. But then, this is Wikipedia after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to see the editions of Britannica where all of the politicians had identical formating. As stated previously, criticism sections should NOT be used and avoided when necessary. Rather than adding more, how about getting rid of the ones that exist?

That would seem to be every edition, at least as it relates to the issue at hand.. I can't see Britannica including criticism sections in some entries and not others unless no criticism existed (I think even the know-it-alls here would have a hard enough time finding such a person, esp. in politics). As for getting rid of the ones that exist, that would seem to make sense IF it would ever happen. If it has been stated previously so many times, perhaps someone can explain why it has not happened to date? Case in point: the so-called irrelevant entries... I know it's easier to avoid the basic and reasonable premise of uniformity as well the principle of accurate, complete information about the U.S. Speaker of the House's career, but come on.

I'm done discussing this with you, you have been told repeatedly to add the appropriate criticisms to the appropriate sections of the article rather than creating a criticism section. It's the proper course of action, end of discussion. Soxwon (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're done discussing it, because you're clearly applying a double standard. God forbid you get called out on it. How typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

<--Happened to read the article and check the talk page. I see criticism sections in many articles of WP and I find nothing wrong with them. The two pages linked are both essays holding no weight. Anything better? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency. What is so hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.242.50 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a criticism section as long as it's fair and balanced, and contains credible references. I agree that the criticism shouldn't come from the editors of Wikipedia, but well documented criticisms from reliable sources should be included to make a more elaborate article. Avoiding citations of criticism for one person and not another does not make a fair and balanced encyclopedia. Parcanman (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit requested

I think I can edit semi-protected now...but I just wanted to see what other people think about removing the sentence "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader; like the others (Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) she maintains negative approval ratings." I have sources that dispute this sentence, it's unsourced and not backed up, and Approval ratings are always changing. I just don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia like article, and I would say the same thing no matter what political figure was in question.JahnTeller07 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

O also, I should probably include one of the sources I was using...http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx From this source you can see he has a less % of people that disapprove, making him less unpopular than Pelosi.JahnTeller07 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-in-disarray.html This one shows 25% disapproval, and 15% approval for Boehner, while http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pelosi-approval-rating-at-11-reid-at-8.html shows Pelosi has an 11% approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That sentence is worded strangely ... "least unpopular"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence about Pelosi being the "least unpopular" congressional leader is not strange or awkward; it correctly accounts for reality that most congressional leaders have net negative approval ratings. Despite her net negative approval ratings, however, Pelosi typically remains less unpopular than her counterparts. Thus Pelosi is the "least unpopular" congressional leader.--Edwinysun (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Already done

The edit-request template has been removed since JahnTeller07 has already edited the requested material. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Legislative Record

Pelosi's legislative record and leadership of the House should be spun-off from the "political positions" section. Here the article should detail the history of her role in the passage of legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses. --Edwinysun (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx

This is just one poll which disputes the sentence I deleted. WrightisRight05 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Net Worth?

12.5 million is not what you will find when you search elsewhere on sites that document the official congressional disclosures of net worth. It might have been last year, but it has been updated.

Realistically, she has a net worth of about 90 million, but the oft quoted statistic is in the range of 25 million to 35 million. Since representatives can list everything have a range of values, and since Pelosi lists many items as having a negative net worth, her overall range is from -33 million to 90 million, with an average of 33 million. This is a quote from one source:

According to an analysis of financial disclosure documents by The Hill newspaper, Speaker Pelosi's net worth rose last year by $9 million to a (very conservative) estimate of $21.7 million.

Should the statement of her net worth include the range and how congress members net worths are reported?

Whatever the case, according to The Hill, her net worth is $21.7 and is probably more realistically much more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.9.53 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was logged in. That is my comment about net worth above. Aaron hoffmeyer (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Addyp9340, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Change title to Former House Speaker

Addyp9340 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Declined. She is still house speaker until January --Fbifriday (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Saying "Former Speaker of the House" would be a false statement until January, however, it would be appropriate to write "Succeded by John Boehner." 24.98.218.168 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Although likely, it is not a done deal until he is elected Speaker, so - no, not until it happens. Tvoz/talk 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Former House Speaker

Pelosi has lost her position as House Speaker as of November 3, 2010. DragonFire1024 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

She'll continue until January 2011. That said, there should be something in the article which says she will lose her position in 2011 as her party will no longer have a majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
As said above, she's not "former" until January. She's still Speaker until then. Lyly _ Neuc (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Irregardless, pending the final numbers being in confirming that her party will lose majority, something should be added about this. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How about,

"Nancy Pelosi has served as Speaker since January 4, 2007. Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."

I agree that we need some thing along these lines. The only problem with the statement above is that I believe the house will resume sitting for a lame duck session this winter (Pelosi will still be speaker). So we could say, "Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, 2010, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the 112th Congress is sworn-in in January 2011. She is likely to be replaced by current House Minority Leader John Bohener.". There are more than enough mainstream sources for this, and Boehener's article on Wikipedia already lists him as the likely next speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy1 (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Should probably go ahead and wedge in a placeholder for "Succeeded by: X" in the table. 173.59.225.169 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The placeholder is already there in the infobox edit screen - when she is out of office as Speaker (in January), we'll add the name and it will pop into view. Nothing to do now. As for the above speculation about Boehner, it is indeed likely to be the case, but there has to be a vote on that, and anyway this is a biography of Pelosi, not an article about the Speaker's office, so all that is really relevant here is what she is doing, not who is speculated as being her successor. Especially so in the intro to her bio. Tvoz/talk 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"She is expected to be removed as speaker?"

What exactly does that mean? Barring some bizarre and, frankly, impossible series of circumstances, she WILL be removed as Speaker. Why is that phrase so wimpy on this fact? 71.49.83.246 (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zentalon, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The sentence "Pelosi is also reported to seek the office of Minority Leader rather than resign from Congress, as most former speakers have done." should be edited to "Pelosi is reported to seek the office of Minority Leader in the upcoming 112th Congress." The second half of the current sentence is highly inaccurate. In the last 150 years (and maybe in the entire history of the United States) the only ex-Speaker to resign following their party's relegation to minority status was Dennis Hastert.

Zentalon (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done The existing phrasing is also a bit editorialized. I'm agreeing with you on this one. elektrikSHOOS 16:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


I changed the text further, adding reference and removing speculation. Also note that resigning from Congress is not her only choice - she could certainly stay in Congress and not run for Minority Leader - so the text was more editorializing. Let's stick to the facts as reported. Tvoz/talk 16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Section "Popularity as Speaker" Should Read "Unpopularity as Speaker"

Of course, were anybody to make that change for clarity and accuracy, it would promptly be reversed on Liberalpedia, oops, meant to say Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The word "popularity" is neutral and can describe either popularity or unpopularity. The word "unpopularity" is not a WP:NPOV word. Let the article tell the story, while remaining neutral. (And I'm a conservative). --Manway (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"As Speaker, Pelosi is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden, which makes her the highest-ranking female politician in American history.[2]"

Based on information in the reference, this is misquoted. The referred article quotes Diane Sawyer as calling Pelosi the "most powerful woman in American history." Later on the article refers to Pelosi as "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." Given that two other women have held the post of Speaker of the House, the line as it currently stands in Wikipedia is inaccurate. Suggest using "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." and dropping the mention of history.

"Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."

I would recommend adding the current year and regularize the expression of date by dropping the ordinal: "...November 2, 2010," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivemile13 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Which "two other women" do you think held the post of Speaker of the House, may I ask? Tvoz/talk 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. However, the article is still misquoted. Perhaps the history should be mentioned separately, perhaps by quoting Sawyer's comment. Fivemile13 (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess since the article is not specifically quoted, but only cited, it can stand. Thanks for correcting the expression of date on the election. Fivemile13 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gun Control?

I'm not entirely certain, but isn't Gun Control more of an important subject than a rambling, incoherant, and ultimately ambiguous statement about her feelings on Birth Control? Really, there should be a section on her record on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. I would venture to guess that Handgun Control Incorporated and the NRA both have a position on this lady. I seriously doubt that Trojan Condoms and Planned Parenthood really care, though. --132.22.254.237 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner

People, please refrain from putting Boehner down as Speaker-elect. The FULL House chooses the Speaker & it won't be doing so until January 2011. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto that. It's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Anything can happen between now and then. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What about referring him as Speaker-designate? That's what reliable sources have been referring to him as, and it's the standard we used during the 111th Congress when governors annouced their future appointees to the Senate prior to the official appointments. The GOP has nominated him to stand for election as speaker. I still agree it may violate WP:CRYSTAL, since official nominations won't occur until January just prior to the vote. I'm OK leaving it as TBD, but I'm just throwing out a suggestion for possible compromise, based on what reliable sources have been referring to Boehner as.DCmacnut<> 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not even Speaker-designate. The Democrats get to vote on the Speakership too, in January 2011. Their candidate will likely be Pelosi. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in office boxes

Please do not remove the number of the order they held the office in. For example, do not remove 60th Speaker of the House and just put she was Speaker of the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing now for 'bout a month. Please learn to sign your posts & start responding to posts at your talkpage (you must've noticed the golden bar by now). GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct terminology and succession.

I've corrected the language in the opening concerning the change of leadership. Technically, in the House there is no actual position called Majority Leader or Minority Leader, that is just how they are commonly referred to. The positions are Democratic Leader and Republican Leader. I've noted this and the common usage. Also, Pelosi did not get "re-elected" to this post because it is currently held by Steny Hoyer (the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are two different positions). I know, it's arcane parliamentary stuff, but need to be accurate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox squabble

There seems to be a edit conflict. Perhaps it's best to straighten out differances 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning behind keeping Boehner hidden here is because it precludes people who don't read notes from putting him in as Speaker anyway but placates them because it can very easily be put in if and when he is elected early January. The other edits I've made not concerning Boehner in the infobox are for standardization and clarification purposes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edits are incorrect for other reasons. The district changed numbers, she did not change districts. It's an important distinction because Dellums is not her predecessor, Burton is. Pelosi and Dellums never served in the same district (he always represented Oakland and Berkeley, she has always represented San Francisco). Please, stop changing it. This has been covered repeatedly, see the talk archives. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

December, 2010 changes

I cannot believe there was a quote in the article that said "she will be replaced as speaker". How do you know? DO you have a crystal ball (see WP:CRYSTAL She may be replaced or probably will be replaced, but let's wait for the confirmation. Things could change. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner is not the Speaker Elect until he is elected by the House of Representatives on the first day of the new congress. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Popularity of Speaker

DevorahLeah (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I really think the section on Popularity of Speaker is a bit biased, and somewhat misleading. It cites a Rasmussen Poll (leans Conservative) and offers figures that are in some measure the result of relentless political attacks by Republicans and Republican-leaning media, on the speaker. Like her or not, should this section not also mention that among Democrats, she is very popular and considered effective? If we can't do that, can we at least mention that her "unpopularity" is somewhat partisan in nature, or can we mention the political attacks from conservative media outlets? Note: I am NOT asking for a defense of Speaker Pelosi, nor am I asking for an attack on Fox News. I am simply asking for a more balanced view about her popularity, or an explanation of why she is perceived so negatively by some.

I agree that the section on her popularity needs to be balanced. However, if she really does have an 8% approval rating, it's going to be tough to say that it's only a reflection of her lack of popularity among Republicans. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)But Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was 8% in one poll, conducted by a Republican-leaning pollster. That was my only quibble. The section needs context. If I can find other polls with different figures, or quotes favorable to her, may I add them without setting off World War III?

Predictions

Please stop adding statements like "Pelosi will no longer be speaker" or "Pelosi will be Minority Leader". None of this is official until votes are cast on January 3. Please see Wp:Crystal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.247.159 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pursuant to Public Law Number 111-289, the 112th Congress will be convened at noon on January 5th, 2011, which accordingly is when the election of the new Speaker and other organization business will take place. Safiel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN & Pelosi

I've been pushing all along that Pelosi's Speakership ended on January 3, 2011 & yet today, CNN coverage had her as still House Speaker. We need clarification folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The 20th amendment is your clarification. At 12:00PM EST on January 3rd, the 111th Congress ended. All members of the House are technically now considered representatives-elect (and when the House opens tomorrow you will see members addressed as such). Further the office of Speaker is currently vacant until the House elects a Speaker tomorrow. That is why on the opening day of each Congress, the House is called into session by the Clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.230.177 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please inform CNN of this fact. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure of this. I believe Pelosi is still speaker until a new Speaker is electd. All the new Reps. in the 112th Congress have been Representatives Elect since the election. If we followed the logic of the above poster, there is currently no Speaker and no Congress? If that was the case, what would happen if there was some sort of national emergency today. We have no Congress at all? 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Checked up on the US Constitution's 20th amendment. Though not in session, the 112th Congress already exists, as of Noon EST, 3 January 2011. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.244.224.47, 14 November 2010

Moved from WT:Protection policy

{{edit semi-protected}}

In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft - a Boeing 757 - for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[49][50][51]

The requested aircraft in citations 49-51 was a G-5 Gulfstream. Citations 49-51 do not mention a Boeing 757 aircraft. Please correct this.

82.244.224.47 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the page to request that edits be made to other pages. If you would like those pages edited you may make your {{editsemiprotected}} request on that articles talk page. Inka888 02:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit late, and the article isn't semi-protected anymore it seems, but the passage still seems to be the same as what was quoted by the IP above so I've moved this to the correct venue; I would check it myself but I don't have time, someone who's familiar with the article could see if this request has any merit, since the IP seems to be long gone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS

Has Rasmussen been declared unreliable and/or biased by wikipedia? I believe they are still considered reliable polls. Soxwon (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The real question should be whether that section should exist at all. --kurykh (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It was a standard poll, it's an indicator of public opinion of a high profile politician. I personally think that's relevant. Soxwon (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't a poll from her district (you know, the people who actually elect her) be more relevant? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)My understanding as a free-lance writer and a media historian is they are considered Republican-leaning, and I've always been told to balance what they say with another poll that is considered more neutral.

I think It's a matter of notability, not reliability. Putting an entire section about national approval ratings for a politician that doesn't run nationally is very non-standard. It doesn't really matter what Republicans in the South think of her (and why does it matter whether they're registered voters or not) because they don't get to vote for or against her anyway. I tend to think it's undue weight, particularly if it's in its own section, but if we are going to mention it, we should at least use something current. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But she's technically in a national position (she's in direct line for the presidency) and leader of a national body (House of Representatives). Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, not anymore, obviously. It probably is worth mentioning but the language was less than neutral, I softened it a bit. Also, it's out of place in it's own section, it should go under the description of her tenure as speaker. I'll move it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"I softened it a bit," you mean you took out the unfavorable opinions, the exact opposite of WP:NPOV. I agree with the move, however. Soxwon (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The language you had was not neutral. Just present the facts, no need to say "only" this number or "just" that number. (see WP:WTA) aAlso, it's disingenuous to cite favorability ratings (saying "just 11%") without mentioning that the majority polled had no opinion. Compare apples to apples, particularly when it's two different polls. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The language should probably be removed entirely in the near-future. Pelosi is no longer Speaker, and Wikipedia shouldn't have to provide information on every politician's approval rating unless it is in a separate article. Also, the section only covers two polls given at one point during her Speakership. There's no need is providing information on how Pelosi's overall approval during her Speakership if it only provides two examples. And frankly, Rasmussen Reports is a biased source. We should only be quoting reliable pollsters that aren't surrounded by any controversy or questioning of credibility. WikiGavel (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that an overall look at approval ratings would be better, but her tenure as speaker is important to her political career and therefore should be covered. As for Rasmussen, take it up at WP:RS/N, but it is considered a reliable source whether you like it or not. Soxwon (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)I have no problem with her tenure as speaker being covered. And I have nothing against Rasmussen, although I would not rely on it. I simply felt the way the section was framed demonstrated conservative bias, and provided no context for the "facts" presented. To only provide one poll and say this "proves" something is misleading. I thought the section should be more neutral and should have provided both favorable and unfavorable information... or nothing at all. Thanks for the conversation about it.

Wow... there is a bias problem but it isn't the poll, just put another poll as well if you don't agree that it is being fair but from the sounds of it, You just want her to paint her in a better light. G. W. Bush has like polls on his page. Are you going to say they all should be removed? There is no such comments on the much worse polling used on that page.
  1. ^ "24 Hour Background Check Amendment". Key Vote. Project Vote Smart. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-12.
  2. ^ "72 Hour Background Check Amendment". Key Vote. Project Vote Smart. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-12.
  3. ^ "Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995". Key Vote. Project Vote Smart. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-12.
  4. ^ "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006". Key Vote. clerk.house.gov. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nancy_Pelosi/Archive_2&oldid=1153657457"