Jump to content

Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 3

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

Pelosi's Son Paul

Please put a link around Pelosi's son Paul's name on the box on the right side of the page. He has his own page but no link there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.179.4 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 DoneTMCk (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

VISA scandal

Are there any real proofs of her buying VISA and benefiting from inside info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.21.134 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Air Force aircraft

The text refers to the specific aircraft requested for the non stop flights from Washington to San Francisco as a Boeing 757. A check of the news story finds no such plane requested. They do mention a GV, which is of course normally a Gulfstream V. Could this be corrected as the Boeing 757 is used for the Vice President who has a larger staff or for for other politicians onvery long range flights outside the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.167.154 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture about campaign funds

"She has the distinction of contributing the most among members of Congress to other congressional campaigns because she is in a safe district and does not need the campaign funds.[17]"

Should be:

"She has the distinction of contributing the most among members of Congress to other congressional campaigns."

Any additional information is conjecture on the part of the author in ref. 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.212.125 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage

She was the only sitting Speaker of the House to support same-sex marriage rights, and, at the time, was the highest ranking American politician to ever openly support such a position. Should mention be made of this in the LGBT section? It seems relevant, as well as consistent. President Obama's page mentions his support for same-sex marriage. As the page is locked, I cannot do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.165.212 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{Edit requested}} In the Nancy_pelosi#The_.22Hundred_Hours.22 section, would you mind removing the hyphen from "newly-empowered"? Thanks much! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add - "Since we make the laws, we should be above those same laws" - Nanci Pelosi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.83.70 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus or source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove - "She was the first woman to hold the office..." (the entire sentence). The citation for this statement is now outdated. 24.236.182.20 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate source?

I strongly object to the use of the book "Celebutards," by Andrea Peyser, as the source material for footnote #1--Ms. Pelosi's birth name. Clicking on this footnote brings the reader to the vile references in the text to Ms. Pelosi and others. There must be other, unbiased (or at least more respectful) sources for this information. Rontrigger (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. There's no need to cite a full name that isn't in contention. Looks like the ref was added for spam reasons. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone should fix the link or use this source [[1]] or [[2]] to supplant the broken link in the lead following "She was the first woman to hold the office and to date, has been the highest-ranking female politician in American history." When I go to the current source it says page not found.--Ziggypowe (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

I just read your hateful description of John Sununu and then your stunning reflection of Crook Pelosi........I will never again read your biased unmittigatted crap again......you are nothing but Liberal Talking Heads trying to rewrite and truth....Sununu has nothing but negatives and Pelosi is made out to be a stateswoman...sham on you idiots!

76.120.113.235 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. There's no edit request here. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012

Fix broken link in External links, CongLinks template, should be washpo = gIQAF3PM9O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Minor request to fix broken EL already on article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

suggested revision of lead

The article says, "She was the first woman to hold the office and to date, has been the highest-ranking female politician in American history."

I think this is strangely worded. I think I see what the article is trying to say (she's not the speaker of the house anymore?). But really, she still is the highest-ranking female politician in American history, right, even if she's still serving in Congress in a lesser position?

Can we just say, "She was the first woman to hold the office and to date is the highest-ranking female politician in American history."  ? AgnosticAphid talk 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There being no apparent objection, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. AgnosticAphid talk 19:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Campaign finance

I'm working on a WikiProject to add publicly accessible campaign finance data to the pages of US elected officials. Rep. Pelosi is one of the officials I'd like to include at the start, but wanted to gather community feedback first. This data is factual and applies to members of all parties, so I think it is appropriate to include. As an example, the top 10 donors and top 10 donor industries would be included. Thoughts? Will Hopkins (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The OpenSecrets link in External links shows the top 5 donors and the top 5 industries (and more) and is kept up to date by their staff so it's always the most current data. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Speakership > Tenure (Small Change)

I would change "reckoned as the" to the American version "considered to be" in the Speakership > Tenure section. 71.223.32.126 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

minor error in dates

I just noticed Ms. Pelosi was born in 1940, yet the article states she met her husband in 1940 as well. Klsassy (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

  • this article has comments, which may more properly belong on the talk page.

I believe that under "healthcare" you should put the now infamous Pelosi quotation: " We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it." Also since you gave her credit for the passage of "Obamacare" It would also be fair to state that she was partly responsible for the Democrats losing the house in 2010 as a result. ea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.113.191 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Succeeded by John Boehner

Not "Preceded by John Boehner" 212.184.114.107 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Roman Catholic - Religious Views Should be Removed from the Page

Her religious beliefs should be removed from the page, as she in no way follows, adheres to, or agrees with Roman Catholic teachings fundamental to the Catholic Faith.

  1. Pope rebukes Nancy Pelosi on abortion stance.
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church (law / standards of the Church) on Abortion

Smhanes (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Nancy Pelosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

The term "House Democratic Leader" refers to the Majority or Minority Leader. The succession box should be changed to reflect that Pelosi held this role from 2003-2007 and from 2011-present. 2601:246:C504:5BC0:223:6CFF:FE93:8528 (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07 (T) 15:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. I see the mistake I made, thanks for correcting me Kharkiv07 (T) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Nancy Pelosi Video produced by MAKERS: Women Who Make America WomenMAKERS (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And what do you want done about that? A link to that video was added to the "external links" section with this 31 December 2012 edit. Noting that an advert played before the actual video began, I'll leave it to others to determine whether the link is allowed by our WP:external links guidelines. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

My last edit request was for the succession box at the bottom of the page. She was Democratic leader from 2003-2007 and from 2011-present. The infobox at the top should be changed as well, since she was not preceded or succeeded by Boehner as Democratic leader, but as Minority Leader. 2601:246:C504:5BC0:223:6CFF:FE93:8528 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Wbm1058 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Nancy Pelosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Could the bottom succession boxes be updated to reflect the fact that she served two nonconsecutive terms as House Democratic Leader (2003-2007, 2011-present)?


2601:246:C502:4080:223:6CFF:FE93:8528 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done AgnosticAphid talk 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

In the gun laws section, Gabrielle Giffords' name is misspelled.

204.75.169.66 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Could the succession boxes please be changed to reflect her two nonconsecutive terms as House Democratic Leader (floor leader) from 2003-2007 and from 2011-present?

2601:246:C502:4080:223:6CFF:FE93:8528 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The infobox already shows both terms. RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Could the House Democratic Leader succession boxes be changed from this:

Preceded by House Democratic Leader
2003-present 		Incumbent

to this:

Preceded by House Democratic Leader
2003-2007 		Succeeded by
Preceded by House Democratic Leader
2011-present 		Incumbent


2601:246:C502:4080:223:6CFF:FE93:8528 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Incompetent?

She couldn't even get the current president right, Obama was in power for 8 years, yet she refers to president Bush as the current president. https://video-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-2/16661233_1853536581553792_8864385617849483264_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&oh=8e913a1553a103f76e9505d2031aebc4&oe=589B9272 Either she's on some seriously powerful drugs or is totally incompetent as a leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.110.211 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease even Reagan suffered from it. 95.222.165.228 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While I detest her as a politician, you'll need RS's for such conclusions. BLP applies. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nancy Pelosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

At the bottom of the first paragraph, it says "She is also, to date, the highest-ranking female politician in American history," and links to the POTUS line of succession. Obviously, she's no where to be found on that list anymore.

Change to "As Speaker, which is second in the presidential order of succession, Pelosi achieved the highest rank of any female politician in American history." This shows the weight of her achievement, but also makes it past-tense as she is no longer Speaker. A little clearer. 72.11.223.72 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I changed your proposed wording slightly and made it more concise. Feel free to reopen your request if you'd like further changes. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Nancy Pelosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this article still protected when others, like Chuck Schumer's, is not? I'm not seeing much evidence of malicious edits in any "recent" history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.144.134 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nancy Pelosi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

      • Hi, I suggest changing the text below:

and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007, holding the post during the 108th and 109th Congresses alongside President George W. Bush. Pelosi is the first woman, the first Californian, and first Italian-American to lead a major party in Congress. After the Democrats took control of the House in 2007 and increased their majority in 2009, Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House for the 110th and 111th Congresses alongside Presidents Bush and Barack Obama.

      • To the following:

and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007, holding the post during the 108th and 109th Congresses. Pelosi is the first woman, the first Californian, and first Italian-American to lead a major party in Congress. After the Democrats took control of the House in 2007 and increased their majority in 2009, Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House for the 110th and 111th Congresses.

      • I suggest to delete the text referencing the U.S. Presidents who served while subject served as Speaker of the House. The relevance is not obvious and the reference is misleading in muddying the Separation of Powers. Upon review of Wiki pages of all Speakers before or since, these references are not made.
 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Paging Uncle Sam and the ICC, please come over to the Philippines, the Filipino people need your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.74.151 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Jim McDermott is from Washington State, not DC

Hi, I can't edit this because it's protected, but it says: 

   Her longtime friend Jim McDermott, of Washington, D.C.,

Hmm, not sure if some non-US person put that in there, or just somebody who doesn't know politics. They've picked the wrong Washington. 2601:645:4201:1447:6067:3453:C0D0:56D9 (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Nowhere in the article is it explicitly stated that Pelosi was born and remains a Roman Catholic. It is only alluded to indirectly in relation to other issues, i.e., her school or her LGBT stance. It belongs in the Early Life section, surely. It should also be inserted in the bio box in accordance with Wiki’s standard practice. Orthotox (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the bio box, in June 2017, the |religion= parameter was removed from Template:Infobox officeholder as a result of this discussion. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Make a typo correction at Section: Political Positions; Sub-section: Health Care; 2nd to last paragraph; 2nd to last sentence. Replace "... pressure on Republicans the health care discussion." with "... pressure on Republicans in the health care discussion." Add the word 'in' after 'Republicans'. 2600:1700:B7A0:3A90:7807:EA8D:3C08:ECB (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I added it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

"During and after her tenure as Speaker, Pelosi was perceived as a contentious political figure, with Republican candidates frequently trying to tie their Democratic opponents to Pelosi and with moderate Democrats seeking to show their moderate bona fides by expressing opposition to Pelosi. Pelosi is expected to run for Speaker of the House of Representatives[1] on the opening of the 116th U.S. Congress on January 3, 2019. If elected Speaker, Pelosi would become the seventh individual to return to the Speakership on non-consecutive terms of office and the first since Sam Rayburn in 1955."

Pelosi has been nominated to once again serve as House Speaker

"During and after her tenure as Speaker, Pelosi was perceived as a contentious political figure, with Republican candidates frequently trying to tie their Democratic opponents to Pelosi and with moderate Democrats seeking to show their moderate bona fides by expressing opposition to Pelosi. Pelosi is expected to run for Speaker of the House of Representatives[2] on the opening of the 116th U.S. Congress on January 3, 2019. If elected Speaker, Pelosi would become the seventh individual to return to the Speakership on non-consecutive terms of office and the first since Sam Rayburn in 1955." On November 28, 2018, House Democrats nominated Pelosi to once again serve as Speaker of the House.[3] 68.47.64.121 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done (partially) - I've added your text, but in the "Post-speakership career" section as opposed to the lead. We should try to avoid blow-by-blow news reports in the lead, and I don't think the simple nomination is very important - it's here election to the speakership that (probably) will be. A2soup (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Post Speakership career" was changed to "House Minority Leader (2011-2018)" because it's a totally different phase of her career and she's going to be Speaker again. If she isn't, then there would be chaos. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John Bresnahan; Rachel Bade (November 6, 2018). "House Dems ready to clash with Trump". Politico. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
  2. ^ John Bresnahan; Rachel Bade (November 6, 2018). "House Dems ready to clash with Trump". Politico. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
  3. ^ Johnson, Ted (November 28, 2018). "Democrats Nominate Nancy Pelosi as Next Speaker, but 32 Members Vote No". Variety. Retrieved November 28, 2018.

Listing of congressional constituency districts

I don't see the benefit of using separate office holder lists for every district number that Pelosi has served during her 30 years in Congress. Because of constant population shifts and population growth, California members of the House generally face redistricting every 10 years. If they are continually representing the same general area of California, with the only change being the district number they serve in, it makes no sense to make it look like they've run for separate districts. For reference, I am referring to the differences between this revision and this revision. As I mentioned in my edit summary, several other members of the House have their infoboxes formatted similarly, including outgoing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (whose area of the OC he served changed district numbers four times during his 30 year tenure) and Doris Matsui, who has represented the congressional district covering the city of Sacramento and immediate surroundings since 2005 (which experienced a renumbering after the 2010 census). Thoughts? Davejohnsan (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaker-designate

why does mccarthy get the minority leader-designate title but pelosi doesn't? she has the 218 votes needed to become speaker...so where's the designation of her future position? please check your anti-democrat and misogynist bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.165.123 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the House hasn't voted on the speakership, yet. House majority & minority leaders need only respective party votes, which doesn't require a full House vote. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a speaker-designate. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?

The House hasn't chosen her as Speaker, yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Sometimes, resistance is futile. The vote is ongoing at the moment. Although, if she fails to reach the majority, we can "I told you so" up and down the place. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry. The corporatist-establishment Democrats will get her over the 218 count. Some of the progressives have already caved in. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm only worried about the quality of these articles. I'm just not getting into a revert war when her election as Speaker will be concluded in a matter of minutes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
She is not Speaker until the vote is finalized and sworn in. So we should not have this article say she is the Speaker of the House, as of right now. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Waiting another twenty minutes for a fait accompli is so so ridiculous. This isn't "jumping the gun". Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere, we're not a WP:BREAKING news site. We shouldn't jump the gun by putting it on here when it's not a done deal yet. I just don't have it in me to fight the fight today. The new Reps haven't been sworn in yet, right? I don't want to go through the 100+ pages to undo it back to "member-elect". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia, we report on truth and verifiable facts. Right now, we are reporting that Pelosi is Speaker of the House, when in fact she isn't. That is a disservice to our readers and is in fact jumping the gun. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
And just to nitpick she is still not the Speaker, she has not yet been sworn in. I'm tagging disputed just because we need to be careful not to jump any guns here, we can wait an hour to get it right.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Now we got a numbering problem. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rtm113: keeps adding 55th. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Political positions

I've made a number of changes to the Political positions section, separating the positions into relevant categories, so that it would be easier for readers to get to the right set of topics.

I've also moved images up and down across the article according to what the text in the relevant section is like. One duplicate image was removed. -Mardus /talk 02:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Pelosi is listed as both the 52nd and 55th Speaker at the time I am reading this.

However, on the page of a former Speaker who served nonconsecutive terms, Sam Rayburn, he is only listed as the 43rd.

Can this be corrected for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.203.248 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rtm133: keeps adding in 55th. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

He seems to have done so again, as @Chuggs99:. Quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay:. That aint even me you cuck

Oh, what a sweat heart. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sentence about 116th Congress

@JLo-Watson: It's nice to be more concise, but at the same time we need to be accurate. Saying that regaining control of the House resulted in the 40-seat gain is absurd. This is a clear example of putting the cart before the horse; it's the opposite that's true. Also, the majority of sources (such as [3], the first Google result) say 40 seats, not 41. We should be reporting 40 while the status of North Carolina's 9th congressional district is unresolved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have edited that sentence (while refining the lead section) to state that in "the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats won control of the House, gaining 40 seats nationwide, ...". Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Numbering of the Speakers of the US House of Representatives

In relation to the Rfc at Paul Ryan, Pelosi is likely going to be the next Speaker of the House. Question is, will she still be the 52nd speaker or is it the 60th and 63rd speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The last speaker to serve nonconsecutive terms was Sam Rayburn, who (at least the way Wikipedia has it now) is only counted as the 43rd speaker despite having three different stints. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder, an Rfc is taking place at Paul Ryan's page, concerning the numbering matter. What happens there, effects what happens here. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

“the memo”

In the paragraph on Pelosi's involvement in the Nunes memo affair, the phrase “the memo” is used but is not defined. One succinct way to fix this would be to let “a memo” link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

Context: In February 2018, Pelosi sent a letter to Speaker Ryan accusing Republicans with having waged a "cover-up campaign" to protect Trump and cited last minute changes to the memo...

Also, in the context material, it seems to me that “accusing Republicans of” would be more idiomatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.159.1 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Objectivity"

You cannot claim "Objectivity" by undercutting the significance of an event. Removing detailed mention of a good thing because the person did something you didn't like in the past, actually shows bias, not neutrality. Like repeating fallacious statements and broadcasting them without fact checking--Fradio71 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am showing objectivity. Mentioning the 41 seat gain without mentioning the 63 seat loss comes off as we're the Pelosi PR team. Likewise if someone inserted a note about the loss without mentioning the win, we would look like we're an anti-Pelosi site. Either mention them both or not at all, but don't emphasize one over the other. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
But you weren't putting both. You were removing one. It's like saying someone accomplished a lot of good, so in the name of objectivity you have to mention the one time they forgot to throw out their lunch, or else the wealth of accomplishments gets erased--Fradio71 (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Vjmlhds, until it was revised on January 4, 2019 from "In the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats under Leader Pelosi won control of the House, which resulted in a net gain of 41 seats and their largest gain of seats ..." to "In the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats regained control of the House, with a net gain of 40 seats, their largest gain of seats ..." (an edit you made Vjmlhds), I would have agreed that having one sentence highlighting a Pelosi-led 2018 electoral triumph without having another highlighting a Pelosi-led 2011 debacle would not be objective; and the sentence as it was was certainly not objective (it did sound a bit like pro-Pelosi PR). Your January 4th edit shifted the sentence's focus however, from Pelosi to the election itself and its significance for the balane of power in the House. The sentence had become a simple and statement of fact; and as modified it didn't even mention Pelosi by name. The modified sentence did not have an "objectivity" problem. (That said, if the refined sentence is somewhere in the section about Pelosi's return to the speaker's chair, perhaps it's okay that it's not in the lead). Drdpw (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Neither should be in the lead, as the lead by design should just be a quick summary. If the 63 seat loss and the 41 seat win were both mentioned in the body of the article, that would be fine. But highlighting either in the lead would be like tooting Pelosi's horn or kicking sand in her face. Not a Wiki thing to do wither way. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Why is it her horn you’re so ardent about not tooting?--Fradio71 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not a Pelosi thing, it's a trying to keep an even keel thing. I'd say the same thing for anybody else, doesn't matter if it's Pelosi, Trump, or someone in between. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Early Career"

"After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic politics" what year did she move to San Francisco?

Mmmuuulll (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

She married Paul Pelosi, a San Franciscan, in Baltimore in 1963. In the "Personal life" section, the article says they lived in New York after their marriage, and that they moved to San Francisco in 1969, but that date is unreferenced. The article about her oldest daughter Christine Pelosi says that she was born in San Francisco in 1966. However, that does not prove that her parents were permanent San Francisco residents at that time. So, she has been closely associated with San Francisco since at least 1963 and a resident since 1969 or possibly earlier. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede

In the lede, I feel it's important to point out that Pelosi is both a two-time House Minority Leader and a two-time House Speaker.

It is not a common circumstance for a representative to hold both posts twice, but since she has been the top House Democrat since 2003, she has alternated between the posts (depending on which party held the majority):

  • '03-'07: Minority Leader
  • '07-'11: Speaker
  • '11-'19: Minority Leader
  • '19-now: Speaker

Thus it's important too mention being a two-time holder of both posts - just doesn't happen too often in our history.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, it shouldn't say "two-time" the way it currently does. It reads awkwardly to me. – Muboshgu (talk) – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tweaked it so hopefully we have a happy medium here. The "two-time" phrasing I feel is appropriate because it's a rare occurrence for someone to return to the post after leaving, and also because it's common phraseology for when someone accomplishes something multiple times (Tom Brady is a five-time Super Bowl Champion, Beyonce is a 22-time Grammy winner, Nancy Pelosi is a two-time Speaker). Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You might like it, but it's grammatacally incorrect; at best it reads awkwardly and shouldn't be used as you insist on using it. Drdpw (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Vjmlhds, why did you once again add "two-time" to the lede? The adjective (meaning "on two occasions; twice over") is used solely to describe completed events. For example, Tom Brady only became a six-time Super Bowl champion after his team won Super Bowl LIII. Similarly, and more pertinent to this article, Jerry Brown was never referred to as two-time governor of California while in office for his 3rd and 4th terms, but could be now that he is out of office. The bottom line here is that "two-time" isn't used the way you wish to use it in a sentence. Drdpw (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's let consensus decide, otherwise, it's just gonna be a back-and-forth between us, and that does no one any good. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The comparison to Brady and Beyoncé doesn't correlate to an elected officials interrupted term of speakership. Well intentioned but it does now read "clunky". Plus, you should have shown your example here before implementing it into the article. Consensus is discussed and decided on the talk page not in and out of the article.―Buster7 ☎ 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

All the missing bios

I noticed this article is nominated for GA. I also noticed that there is exactly one citation of a book (one of hers) - and yet in a quick search of Google Books I found nine biographies! (Which I have now added to Further reading.) One looks like a hatchet job and one is a comic book, but still - if I were reviewing this, I would be wondering about original research and breadth of coverage. Note also that her publications (including at least three books and some academic articles) are not discussed or even listed. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nancy Pelosi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose read generally well. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Acceptable. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article seems to contain an appropriately prepared list of references. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All problems have been resolved. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) All statements seem to be appropriately cited. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Reviewing all high likelihood copyvio results, no issues were found. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article covers most major aspects, but could add coverage from her biographies or about her writing as discussed on the talk page. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article seems reasonably well-focused. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The article is reasonably neutral and other problems were resolved. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Article clearly has no edit warring and is generally stable. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All media are under free licenses. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images seem relevant for their section and where necessary have descriptive captions. Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass As the major problems raised have been resolved, I am promoting this article to good article status.

Discussion

Comment I have some concerns about the first few sections of this article. For the sake of transparency, I have worked on this article although I am not a top contributor. The sections contain several short paragraphs and leave unexplained gaps in her early career. For example, there is nothing covering the time between her being a Congressional intern in the 1960's to her being elected to the DNC from California in 1976. The article also says she resigned as DSCC chair in 1986 without saying when she became DSCC chair or explaining the DSCC. The 'Committee assignments' and 'Pre-speakership career' subsections are also too brief when compared to sections covering more recent periods of time. It seems implausible to me that, other than the Democratic caucus, the House Baltic Caucus would be her only notable caucus membership. Based on some research I did for this article when revising the Early life section, I think there is a lot more relevant and important information that is not currently covered in this article. Knope7 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Addressing the concerns
  1. Lifesitenews -  removed
  2. New York Post -  kept, since its only used once and is relevant and needed in context
  3. "In 2012, she was given 0% ratings by both..."  made more specific (actually was 0 and 7, not both 0)
  4. "Pelosi has voted to increase Medicare and Medicaid benefits."  removed
  5. "She has also voted to remove an amendment..."  removed
  6. "Pelosi has supported the development..."  removed
  7. "Pelosi voted for the No Child Left Behind Act..."  2 sources added for the statement
  8. "in 2004 and 2006..."  3rd source added
  9. NewsMax  removed
  10. about.com  replaced with the new york times

--DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: I've addressed the concerns you raised about sources --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Does Pelosi drink Alcohol

Recently an edit was made stating "Pelosi does not drink alcohol" diff. While it was well-intentioned and, considering all the hub-bub and history over a slanderous altered video of Pelosi's comments about the "meeting-that-wasn't", I understood the reason User:Ahrtoodeetoo was adding it to the article – for clarity and biographical truth. But I thought it needed a bit more explanation as to why such a stray comment was sitting out in the middle of the article, so I added "Although a misleading video depicted otherwise,". User:Drdpw then reverted both with the comment that neither was "notable". Not a problem. I disagreed and undid DR's edits. Granted, it was a hasty move and I should have come here first. The altered "Pelosi is drunk" tweet (or video) was re-tweeted millions of times. People will come to this article looking for substantiated information about the speaker. I think letting them know that she does not drink is not only notable, it is relevant and within the context of her bio. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are several previous false claims. [4] [5] But Pelosi does drink green tea though [6]. wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I would hope that we could keep the whole current catfight - including the faked videos and the controversy about FaceBook et al not removing them - out of this biography. Wikipedia is not the news. As for her not drinking alcohol, we do make that point about Donald Trump - in the section about his health. But I don't see any real justification for including it here unless we are going to go into the whole video story. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems noteworthy to me that Pelosi doesn’t drink, regardless of the latest controversy. I agree with MelanieN that the latest controversy doesn’t belong per WP:NOTNEWS. R2 (bleep) 23:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll let it go for now but I won't be surprised when the WH/Administration continue the "she is drunk" aspersions. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Cover-up"

An editor has added text about Pelosi accusing Trump of a "cover-up". This same editor is edit-warring to exclude the reason for why Pelosi accused the President of a cover-up. That is bonkers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:You are creating an issue that doesn't exist. Please show me the edit where I edit-warred to exclude the reason why Pelosi accused the President of a cover-up. Making accusations without even looking at my edits is what is "bonkers".--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: I'm still awaiting your response or alternately you could just strike your false allegations.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This was a mix-up on my end. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Zionism

@StudiesWorld:@Snooganssnoogans:@MelanieN:Pelosi is quoted as saying some glowing things about Israel in this article; with that in mind, can we add her to the category "American Zionists?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

An American politician saying glowing things about Israel does not automatically make or categorize her (or him) as a Zionist. Does Pelosi identify herself as an American Zionist? Drdpw (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drdpw: I think anyone who says "There is no greater political accomplishment in the 20th Century than the establishment of the State of Israel" is, by definition, a Zionist, the same way that me saying "Horror is the best genre ever!" would make me a horror fan.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
@Drdpw: Based on your positive response to my comment, I will add Pelosi to the category.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Please consider giving those whose input you’ve asked for a day or two to respond before you do that. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I disagree. All American politicians say glowing things about Israel. Republicans especially, and Trump more than anybody. During Trump's first year in office he realized a decades-old Zionist dream by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Does his page have a "Zionist" category? No, it doesn't, and he's done a lot more for Zionism than saying something glowing about Israel. Pelosi's page shouldn't have it either. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't have any issue categorizing Trump as a Zionist. I think Pelosi and Trump are both Zionists.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But Reliable Sources don't share it. In a search for "Trump" and "Zionist" I found only one hit, an opinion piece in the Foreign Policy Journal.[7] I found none calling Pelosi a Zionist - only reports that she sometimes associates with Zionists.[8] And of course neither Trump nor Pelosi has ever claimed the label for themselves. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: If I say that "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God" that automatically makes me a Christian, I don't need to specifically say "I am a Christian" for Wikipedia to rightly classify me as one. Pelosi's statements make it clear that she is a Zionist even if she has not used the label.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Like I said: find a significant number of Reliable Sources calling her that, and we can add it. The approach "she said such-and-such, therefore she is a Zionist" is WP:Original research, which (I don't need to remind a long-established editor like you) is not allowed in this encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: If some piece of human scum says "I absolutely despise women," they are a misogynist, even if they don't call themselves a "misogynist." Richard B. Spencer has never identified himself as a neo-Nazi, but his actions have shown him to be one which is why Wikipedia rightly classifies him as a neo-Nazi and there's no pushback against this classification by the Wiki community. Pelosi's comments on Israel make it clear that she's a Zionist, even if she has not adopted the label.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
OK, well, I will wait for your opinion to achieve consensus here. (By the way, we don't need for a person to self-identify. We rely on Reliable Sources. Richard Spencer is called a neo-Nazi here because Reliable Sources call him a neo-Nazi. Not because we think he sounds like one so we label him as one.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Thanks for the clarification and your cordial attitude. So far Drdpw agrees with me but I will wait a little while to get consensus.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Where do you get that Drdpw agrees with you?? Looks to me like they are disagreeing with you. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Zionist or not; I don't see WP:RS support for the category, and think it's more important to not risk mislabeling, than it is to add a less than verified category to any person's profile. Lindenfall (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
While Nancy Pelosi may look like a Zionist to some, even walk and talk like one, unless a variety of reliable sources call her a Zionist, she should not be categorized as one here. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede edit

I have edited the lede[9], including the first sentence, because it is different than when the page was listed with good article status and the fact that the first sentence did not reflect what was the most notable aspect about Pelosi, that she is the Speaker of the US House. At first I was going to simply revert it to how it was when the good article icon was added, but ran into issues. This is how it was back then:

Nancy Patricia Pelosi (/pəˈloʊsi/; née D'Alesandro; born March 26, 1940) is an American politician serving as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives since January 2019. First elected to Congress in 1987, she is the only woman to have served as Speaker and is the highest-ranking elected woman in United States history. Pelosi is second in the presidential line of succession, immediately after the vice president.
A member of the Democratic Party, Pelosi is in her 17th term as a congresswoman

The fact that she is a member of the Democratic Party is much more notable than when she was elected to Congress, so I moved that information to the first sentence. To avoid too much repetition of the word "Speaker" and summarize the text, I integrated in the first sentence the info that she is the only woman to have served as Speaker of the US House. It was wrong the way it was in the above text, because she is not the only woman to have served as Speaker, but we get a repetition of the House title if we include the correct info in the previous part of the text.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Breast Augmentation Rumors

Rumors of her breast augmentation need to be addressed in the wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No they do not, and I point you to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel for the reasons why not. Drdpw (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Siblings

>conflict between nancy pelosi page and pages for her father and brother. Her page says she is youngest of seven, d'allesadro pages say parents had six and brother's page says one of six as well. Omniage (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Pelosi has served non-consecutive terms as Speaker of the House. Hence, since 2019, she has begun a new speakership.

Therefore, change "52nd Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" to "52nd and 55th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" in Pelosi's infobox. A precedent for this styling is President Grover Cleveland, who served non-consecutive terms as "22nd and 24th President of the United States." 138.51.114.200 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Since American politics seems to have a bizarre continuity issue concerning non-presidential terms, it might be better to start an RFC on the matter beforehand. ToThAc (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

91]

Impeachment of President Trump

Change Having successfully impeached President Trump on December 18, 2020, and on the ... to December 18, 201947.17.106.208 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 47.17.106.208 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. Thanks. El_C 18:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, we were remiss not to put it in effect sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I moved the text down from the lead at the same time that you made your edit. I was not aware that you had or were in the midst of reverting the text. Should I revert myself or is everyone content with keeping my version of the text in the body of the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, indeed, I am not familiar with the article, so it surprised me. Snooganssnoogans, I've just took issue with the words tantrum and blasted, and with that material being added to the lead (in violation of WP:NOTNEWS / WP:UNDUE). I don't really have an opinion about that edit otherwise. El_C 19:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

PRISM section backwards?

The PRISM section says "Pelosi supports the Bush/Obama NSA surveillance program PRISM.", but the source linked seems to say the opposite. Am I misreading it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.46.40.253 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it not worth mentioning

Nancy Pelosi's reactions and unattentiveness during yesterdays State of The Union? Just a thought. Here's a source:

172.77.18.216 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing Relatives... 5 brothers...

Why is there no reference to all 5 of her brothers? Her only mentioned brother is Thomas. Is it an attempt to keep her name/roots untarnished?

Nicholas D'Alesandro Hector D'Alesandro Franklin D. Roosevelt D'Alesandro Thomas L. J. D'Alesandro III Joseph D'Alesandro Jasminebauer (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Jasminebauer, the article mentions she is the youngest of seven children. The reason only Thomas is mentioned is that only Thomas is notable by Wikipedia standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing information

On the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi) in the summary section under “personal details” you list only her father under “parents” (plural) and only her brother under “relatives”. There is no mention of her mother though she is mentioned in the body of the article as Annunciata M. "Nancy" D'Alesandro (née Lombardi). This looks like an instance of women being overlooked or dismissed—her father was only one of two parents. I suggest you add the mother’s name under “Parents” in this section. I am registered editor of Wikipedia, but this article is blocked from editing to prevent vandalism.

Lois Lyons Lulu3601 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Lulu3601, her father is notable. Her mother is not. That's the reason. It has nothing to do with their gender. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Mother’s name misspelled

Her name should be Annunziata, not Annunciata. She was born in Italy. Annunciata is not correct in Italian (or any other language).Lauretano (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Find sources to support your corrected spelling - the source given spells it with a C. Names were frequently anglicized or just plain changed on arrival for immigrants, so what is linguistically correct doesn't necessarily translate to real life. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.isnews.it/cultura/48147-speciale-storia-di-emigrazione-la-scoperta-nancy-pelosi-e-originaria-di-fornelli.html Lauretano (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.primonumero.it/2019/01/nancy-pelosi-presidente-della-camera-usa-e-la-molisana-che-dara-filo-da-torcere-a-trump/1530540900/ Lauretano (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And so forth. There are many other sources. Italian wiki got it right. Lauretano (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Find us some English sources - Italian sources may have inadvertently corrected what they might have perceived as a misspelling. Ideally, we would cite writing by Pelosi herself, who would be in a position to know if the spelling is correct, or whether an immigration officer changed the spelling when she arrived. Other sources might be contemporary Baltimore papers.Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the author of this article; it doesn't reflect on me whether it is accurate or not. Italian wiki got it right.Lauretano (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Not that I expect this to sway you, but here is the record of her arrival at Ellis Island. I trust you consider EllisIsland.org an "English source"? https://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/passenger-details/czoxMjoiMTAwOTM1MDMwMDk3Ijs=/czo4OiJtYW5pZmVzdCI7Lauretano (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And here is her obituary and tombstone, with a C [10] Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mother's birthplace incorrect

According to this source, in English, she was born in 1909 in Fornelli, not Campobasso: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/50263873/annunciata-m_-d_alesandro Fornelli is also given in the Ellis Island entry from 1912, also in English. https://www.libertyellisfoundation.org/passenger-details/czoxMjoiMTAwOTM1MDMwMDk3Ijs=/czo4OiJtYW5pZmVzdCI7Lauretano (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

N.B. Note that these are both American sources, highly reliable, and in the English language. Elsewhere in Wikipedia Fornelli is given correctly.Lauretano (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
And per what I posted above (and what you found, the same thing), you are correct about Fornelli, which is near Campobasso, at least. I think we can find a way to incorporate that. It's clear, though, that she used Annunciata rather than Annunziata, unless the Baltimore Sun and her grave marker are both wrong. Please keep in mind that in genealogy, spellings can change wildly over time, at least outside of Italy. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi age

Please change her age from 79 to 80 in infobox where it says Personal details. She turns 80 today. Thank you.2601:581:8000:BDC0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but not needed. The system automatically updates her age. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Could you remove this 

Pelosi announced the commencement of impeachment hearings into President Donald Trump on September 24, 2019.

with this? 

Under Pelosi's leadership, the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019.

Starting impeachment hearings isn't as significant as actually impeaching. Citations shouldn't be needed (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) because the information is cited when it appears later in the article, "Impeachment of President Trump" section. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:8C4B:B544:700C:8525 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

  • "current speaker" has lowercase "speaker" because "speaker" is modified by "current".
  • "a U.S. representative from Maryland" has lowercase "representative" because "representative" is modified by "a" and "U.S."

See MOS:JOBTITLES for guidance. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the MOS says, it just looks wrong. P-K3 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Eyer, the Manual of Style is not a policy, but rather a guideline. It describes itself as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I believe that this ought to be an exception. The message you left on my talk page says that capitalizing Speaker of the House of Representatives "may cause readability or accessibility problems". That seems bizarre to me. Where's the evidence for that? Your message also says that you reverted to "maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance". Well, I looked at the biographies of several previous speakers, Carl Albert, Sam Rayburn, Newt Gingrich, Henry Clay, Jim Wright and James G. Blaine. Speaker of the House of Representatives is capitalized in all of those articles, so I fail to see how this is a matter of consistency. I also looked at your user page, and there you state that "Nixon was President of the United States" is correct usage. If that is so, how can it be incorrect to write "Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives"? Please explain that to us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It's perfectly correct to say "Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives". That's not what the article says, though. It says that she is "the two-time and current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives". Because "speaker" is modified by "the", "two-time", and "current", "speaker" should be lowercase. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 13:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree; it's better and clearer capitalized, and the overwhelming majority of Google results (about 88%) have it capitalized when modified by "the": [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the status quo ante, before Eyer's change -- the caps are entirely fine and in accordance with most common usage (in the media, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm largely impartial but the lowercase stands out as better for how WP seems to treat these kinds of titles. For example, vice president of the US and president of the US are lowercase on the pages of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Aza24 (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID criticism

Should the article be updated to include the criticism Pelosi received for visiting a SF salon in violation of the ongoing restrictions? This was given coverage at BBC, The Guardian, CNN, NBC, and WaPo, to name a few. Many RS seem to think this is notable information, making it DUE for a mention. The COVID pandemic is the defining issue of 2020 (and perhaps Pelosi's Speakership), and we should update the article to include this criticism. The edit proposed is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Pelosi&diff=976356612&oldid=976228151 here], recently reverted out of the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is trivia, amplified by clearly partisan Trump (and GOP) tweets and clickbait articles. Wikipedia does not report every time a politician fails to wear a mask, or rents out a salon chair from a stylist. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Edited to add: Also, the stylist's attorney released this statement yesterday: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is faux-troversy, a ridiculous bit of trivia that, try as he eight, R. Ernie cannot inflate into any kind of importance. It's small beer: hell, it's homeopathic beer, and since it's a BLP it needs to come out NOW.

From Mr. Ernie's edit summary: homeopathic beer is not a policy based reason for reverting sourced content

Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. Perhaps you should have read the ENTIRE summary. To make it even more explicit so you can't pretend to misunderstand, it's a question of due weight. Do you need any more help? --Calton | Talk 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems like this is a manufactured controversy, and a small one at that.[13] It seems to pale in comparison to members of Congress not wearing masks and then contracting COVID-19, or Trump refusing to wear a mask and then capitulating later. - MrX 🖋 12:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    I listed several high-quality, international sources detailing the controversy. I didn't think it was worth a new section, or even a paragraph. But the current single sentence covering Pelosi and COVID could be expanded to include this topic. It is still receiving a lot of attention, as now Pelosi is claiming she was potentially set up by the salon owner. Such an alleged deception / scam, aimed at one of the government's most powerful people, would also be worthy of a mention. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Oooo a huge controversy, indeed! —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that it's covered in several high-quality sources. The question is whether it's noteworthy in the context of Pelosi's 44 year public career. Because the situation is nuanced, it could not be effectively covered in a single sentence. Including much more than that would start to tip the WP:DUEWIEGHT scales. - MrX 🖋 13:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose — quite trivial, and WP:UNDUE especially in context 1) of other rules being flouted by various senior ranking politicians, and 2) the passage of a $2 trillion aid package discussed in the COVID-19 section. Will be surprised if it passes the imaginary 1 month test, let alone 10 years. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least, for now — the jury's still out on any significance on this one, I see, since Pelosi is claiming she was set up and the controversy is very much in progress today, making it WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. Also, I enjoy a laugh, but I would like to state here that sarcasm is generally unhelpful and counter to collaboration, and I, for one, would prefer that it be left out of remarks. Lindenfall (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for that note re: the sarcasm. I'm sure it is not productive, and the personal attacks leveled at me do not make collaboration easy. Per the BRD guidance I started this discussion only to have my reading comprehension and good faith mocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    I can vouch for Ernie's good faith.😎 SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Suport, the widespread coverage across the media spectrum validates that there is nothing trivial about this event. As well, Pelosi's response, floating the idea that that this was a conspiracy to "set her up" only magnifies the weight of the story.EdJF (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor incident. It's the responsibility of the hair salon operator (Kious) to ensure that the salon, the workers, and the customers follow the guidelines. Looks like Pelosi was set up by Kious who had been informed of the appointment via text message by the stylist. The next day Amy Tarkanian, wife of Former Nevada Republican State Senator Danny Tarkanian, set up a GoFundMe page for Kious who "is now being forced to shut down and relocate her business and family due to outrage and threats she is receiving" ($283,529 raised of $300,000 goal—Honi soit qui mal y pense). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV because of the omission of Pelosi's response. Even with the response, it's nothing more than the typical "gotcha" moment that has no WP:LASTING significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- Clearly should be included given how outspoken Pelosi has been about the importance of wearing masks. For those claiming it was minor, how come it is covered by just about every major new source.? CBS News, CNN, Washington Post, USA Today, and more. I thought we go by reliable source. What happened to that? Trump's article has a paragraph about him not wearing a mask, so why does Pelosi get different treatment? To be fair to Nancy Pelosi, I strongly support including her response to the incident.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair to Nancy Pelosi, I strongly support including her response to the incident that's what we would be doing anyway, per WP:BLP. We do go by RS, but we also go by WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The false equivalence between the dozens of times Trump has refused to wear a mask, and the one instance where Pelosi has not worn a mask (not her responsibility - but that salon's) is just that: a false equivalence. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
What about the dozens of times Nancy Pelosi had criticized Trump for not wearing a mask (including on the very day this incident happened)? And why is it not her responsibility to wear a mask? Its not like she didn't know, she's been lecturing everyone else about masks for months, the salon did not need to tell her. Rusf10 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
That's false. Per the directive, it's the responsibility of the salon — not the customer (Pelosi). If Trump didn't wear a mask once, and Pelosi grilled Trump for not wearing a mask — fair enough, we wouldn't discuss that in any article. However, Trump has constantly not worn a mask with few exceptions, and Pelosi has consistently worn a mask with few exceptions. Per DUE, we discuss the recurring theme here (Trump not wearing masks), not the single event (Pelosi not wearing a mask once, which also just so happens to not be Pelosi's responsibility). —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me, who are you Pelosi's lawyer? Regardless of legal liability (which we are not trying to determine here), Pelosi has said that Trump has responsibility to wear a mask, yet you think she does not have the same responsibility? On the same day Pelosi said, "What further evidence does anyone need that this president didn’t care less about the spread of this virus than to see what he did. Bringing all those people there, no masks, no distancing, and the rest. He slapped science right in the face.” (emphasis mine) [14] Two months ago she called Trump "cowardly" for not wearing a mask and said she supported a nationwide mask mandate. [15]. So the recurring theme here is that Pelosi criticizes Trump for not wearing a mask and now it turns out she doesn't wear one herself.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikilawyering and pointing out that the onus is on the salon are not the same thing, MelbourneStar is not wikilawyering. You might have a point if Nancy never wears masks and always criticizes Trump for not wearing masks, but that's not the case [16][17] Trump wore a mask in a photo op once, and is still hostile to masks. The trend is clear, and the salon incident doesn't have the weight of everything else that's been going on for the past six months. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The difference is Trump is not a hypocrite on this issue. While he may rarely wear a mask himself, he does not criticize others for not wearing them. Even Pelosi's hometown newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle understands this, they wrote "Pelosi has been a vocal proponent of wearing masks and following scientific advice. She has sharply criticized President Trump and other Republicans for downplaying the need for masks and proper social distancing practices." Jessica Levinson (a professor) said the optics of salon visit "somewhere between bad and horrendous." (maybe we can add that quote as an expert opinion) [18] We know how often Trump wears masks, but Pelosi apparently doesn't wear one when only when she thinks no one else is watching.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I struck a nerve? I'm not Pelosi's lawyer (but funny you mention Wikilawyering considering you're the one misunderstanding policies, such as RS and always "going by what RS says" - and conveniently ignoring DUE). As I said before, Pelosi and Trump have both been consistent in their ways (one for masks, one against) both with few exceptions (Pelosi's Salon example, and Trump wearing a mask once or twice). Per DUE we go by mainstream themes, not the one odd example. With that said, I have nothing else to say; if you would like to continue bludgeoning the process, you're more than welcome to. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the section on corona virus should be expanded beyond this incident. More should be written about her role in the CARES Act and other ongoing negotiations over future stimulus. Also her initial reaction to the virus in February where she encouraged people to visit Chinatown should be added as well. [19]--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
If that section is expanded, this incident might be worth a passing mention. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the Democratic Party

User:Drdpw Pelosi has been described as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party by a variety of sources,[1][2][3] so why this is not in the article?(The Sr Guy (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC))

Sources

  1. ^ Thrush, Glenn (2019-10-26). "Letters to the Editor: Want to beat Trump? Nominate Nancy Pelosi for president". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-02-24. She is the de facto Democratic Party leader
  2. ^ Thrush, Glenn (2019-05-04). "Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-02-24. Sitting in her office with its panoramic view of the National Mall, Ms. Pelosi — the de facto head of the Democratic Party
  3. ^ Wolff, Michael (2019). Siege: Trump Under Fire. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 9781408711668. Nancy Pelosi, now the de facto leader of the Democratic Party

It could be argued that she is no longer the leader of the democratic party due to Biden being the democratic nominee for president and Hilary prior to him. 

JuliusPilsudski (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

To state that she was the "Leader" of the party isn't relevant. She was the highest ranking Democrat for awhile. But she didn't lead the party in any way. It wouldn't have been argued that Boehner or Ryan were leaders of the Republican party.

The sources you have cited too are biased and are motivated to add some legitimacy to Pelosi by calling her a leader of the party. JuliusPilsudski (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Under the subheading Environment, Add:

Pelosi has yet to sign the "No Fossil Fuel Money" pledge [1] and in her 2020 House Campaign, she received corporate PAC contributions from companies such as Berkshire Hathaway Energy, XCel Energy and the Edison Electric Institute [2] [3] [4] all classified as fossil fuel companies by Oil Change US. [5]

Likewise Pelosi has yet to support a Green New Deal, referring to it in 2019 as a "green dream". [6] Waterglass18 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/congressional-signers/
  2. ^ http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?202001319184155762
  3. ^ http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?202001319184155758
  4. ^ http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201910159164234865
  5. ^ http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/company-list/
  6. ^ https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215571/nancy-pelosi-green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
 Not done. At least try to word it neutrally. Saying she's "yet to" implies that she should...or that she agreed to, but hasn't followed through. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)She was named in Time 100 most influential people 2020 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Hair salon story

Do y'all really think it merits it's own paragraph in the article? User:AdamWilson.History added it and I don't know or remember if it was added and removed previously. I only mention it because it was really a blip on the map and doesn't seem encyclopedic, in comparison to the state wide scandal that occurred with Gavin Newsom eating at The French Laundry recently at a large party during the pandemic. If you do think it merits inclusion, it should be mentioned that the salon owner intentionally sent video to Fox News, that Pelosi's hair stylist was a contractor at the salon and had received approval to have Pelosi visit the salon for a private appointment two days prior to the visit and the owner of the salon said disparaging things about Pelosi. In the end, the owner sent the video to Fox News and it became a gossipy story picked up by news outlets on a slow day. The salon has since closed and the owner claimed she was moving out of state. (Source) I think it's a bit of a nothing burger and is at this point non-encyclopedic or important enough in Pelosi's career to merit inclusion. Thoughts? Missvain (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I bring this all up also because WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Missvain, I agree with you. It ran through the 24 hour news cycle and is over and done with. I also doubt Newsom at the French Laundry deserves much coverage, but that is more recent, and not a discussion for this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Cool, I'll see if anyone else wants to way in before removing. I was using the Newsom story in comparison since it gained national attention - was featured on all major news outlets including nightly news and has resulted in people stating they are running fo Governor against him, so a bit different with potential long-term impact. Pelosi getting a hair cut was simply trivial slow news day drivel. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
We will see if the French Laundry actually becomes a valid campaign issue. Nancy's hairdo clearly didn't prevent her from coasting to another term as Speaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL well User:Calton answered that question. LOLOLOL.. Missvain (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Liberals category.

Nancy Pelosi, a liberal? She's against Medicare for All. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL! Definitions....which aren't clearly defined. Ugh. In the general left vs. right spectrum she's Left-wing. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center doesn't use that verbiage, but uses liberal vs. conservative, so that makes her a Liberal. Since each side of the spectrum has many subdivisions, I'd say she's not very Progressive, but better than anyone to the right of her. -- Valjean (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Under the subheading Environment, Add:

Pelosi has not publicly taken a position on a Green New Deal, calling it the "Green Dream" in 2019. [1] Waterglass18 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Waterglass18

 Not done: @Waterglass18: The source doesn't say that she doesn't support the deal. You are engaging in WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Before I put that she has "not yet" supported the Green New Deal, but that was rejected so I changed it to she does not support it. I changed it now to "she has not publicly taken a position" on a Green New Deal. This is a major policy proposal at the moment and I think it's incredibly important to have the Speaker's position (or lack thereof) on it here.

 Not done: This article doesn't say that either. Right up front in the article, I see that she "offered up measured, careful praise", among other things. Please either provide sources that support what you want the article to say, or make a request that this source actually supports. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

"Father" should state "Parent" "Mother" should state "Parent" "She" should be replaced with proper names "He" should be replaced with proper names "Her/him" should be replaced with non-gendered pronoun and so on.

I.e. Line reading: "Pelosi had led the House Democrats since 2003-the first woman to lead a party in Congress" should read, instead: "Pelosi had led the House Democrats since 2003-the first gender-assigned-female to lead a party in Congress"

I believe that the rules for the House should be an example for all reference pages within the Wikipedia domain and all pages should be updated starting with the biggest proponent of said non-gendered specific titles. 68.187.165.45 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)\

 Not done That seems unnecessary. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Candidate for HoR reelection in November 2020?

Was Pelosi a candidate for reelection to her seat in the US House of Representatives in the November 2020 General election and was she reelected? There is no mention of her running for her House seat again. It would improve the article if it showed a continuity of her holding on to her seat beyond January 2021.--TGC55 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I did research and she was a candidate, although the only other candidate was a Democrat as well, Shahid Buttar. Results for Pelosi were 281,776 vs 81,174 for Shahid. That said, I am unsure how you'd add this to her page as it seems she ran uncontested. Scroll down to the bottom of this wiki page to see all results for this congressional district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_12th_congressional_district Jeffster1970 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The year of second impeachment on the sentence of Nancy Pelosi is wrong.

The year of second impeachment against Trump in the article of Nancy Pelosi is incorrect. Tommyhungto (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Under the subheading Environment, add:

Pelosi has not publicly taken a position on the Green New Deal bill sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, [2] stating in 2019 that she couldn't say that the "we're going to take that and pass it". [3] Waterglass18 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm really confused as to why this won't get added. The Green New Deal is a major issue at the moment and thus it's important to note the Speaker of the House's position (or lack thereof) on it. The Vanity Fair article says that Pelosi isn't rushing to endorse the bill (implying that she has not taken a position) and the other half is a direct quote affirming the same thing.

@Waterglass18:  Not done: Sorry, but you haven't presented anything materially different from your previous requests. The fact that she did not immediately endorse the bill does not support a statement that she has not publicly taken a position on the bill. To me, "not taken a position" on a topic means they haven't said anything about it. She appears to have said quite a bit. Also, you're writing in 2021 and presenting source material written in 2019, so a blanket statement as you're suggesting would be inappropriate. At best, based on that source we'd be able to say something like "As of February 2019, Pelosi had not explicitly endorsed the Green New Deal...(etc)". As to the second source, the direct quote you've given is less than a third of the sentence quoted in the source and it appears to have been taken out of context, at least to a degree. That would need to be re-written neutrally based on the information in the article as a whole. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215571/nancy-pelosi-green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
  2. ^ https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-new-green-deal
  3. ^ https://www.rollcall.com/2019/02/27/pelosi-on-green-new-deal-i-cant-say-were-going-to-take-that-and-pass-it/

Is she the first Speaker to have overseen two impeachments?

Is Pelosi not now the first Speaker to have overseen two impeachments? If we can find a source to back this up, that'd be worthy of inclusion, in my opinion. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

She is. It may be difficult to find a source that clearly states she oversaw both. But I suspect that if you have include articles from 2019 and 2021 that mention she was/is the Speaker during those impeachments, that should be enough. I'll look for some sources.Mlaurenti (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Making a draft about Nancy Pelosi

Just wanting to state that I am currently making a draft related to Nancy Pelosi. Draft:Nancy Pelosi on social media. Going to be working on it for the next few weeks before considering changing it to an article. Anyone is welcome to help work on it and add information if you want. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible, but I find it extremely hard to believe that a fairly trivial observation by partisan media sources that seems to reference exactly one tweet could ever justifiably warrant the creation of an entire article. This is maybe worth a passing mention in some post-election timeline article—I'm sure we have one of those—but everything else seems like it's inevitably going to wind up being a waste of your time. AngryHarpy‍talk 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

In accordance with the page of Former Speaker Paul Ryan; he was the 54th Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am suggesting that the part that states "52nd Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" on Nacy Pelosi's page be changed to "55th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives". ThisAmericanHero (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This is actually Pelosi's second time as Speaker. See List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

52nd and 55th Speaker

I don't know who keeps reverting my edit of 52nd and 55th Speaker title. She has served non consecutively and it would be factually incorrect to say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnaf.eram (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I do. I don't know why you said, "keeps reverting", as I see only one change here, but I do know exactly who reverted your change, and I know exactly why, too. To find out who, I simply look in the revision history for the page, and I see that is was somebody called Jpgordon, reverted your edit at 15:45, 6 March 2021. And as I can tell by clicking on that edit (or even just from looking at the history), the reason was ...and as the note in the source makes quite clear, "House doesn't re-count non-consecutive serving speakers-". Jpgordon is referring to the HTML comment right before where you made your insertion, <!--House doesn't re-count non-consecutive serving speakers-->. In other words, your change was inappropriate, and Jpgordon corrected it for you. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney He corrected nothing, he just made it erroneous. I want you or Jpgordon to tell me where on any government website it says "House doesn't re-count non-consecutive serving speakers-". If this is just a Wikipedia rule, then I'd like to invoke WP:IGNORE all rules to disregard that rule and keep this page making sense. If we do it with presidents, we should do it with speakers. Failing to do so is bizarrely inconsistent. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, if they do re-count non-consecutive serving speakers, then Pelosi isn't 52nd and 55th, she's 60th and 63rd; six others served non-consecutive terms (Sam Rayburn served 3 separate times, as did Henry Clay.) For what it's worth, Pelosi's own about page refers to her as the 52nd speaker. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Jpgordon Thanks for the link to her own page. That is sufficient for me. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Publicly doubted the integrity of the 2016 presidential elections

Nancy Pelosi posted an inflammatory tweet in 2017 stating, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts." lang=en[1] Pelosi led the charge that publicly doubted the integrity of the 2016 presidential elections and demanded Congress investigate. The Mueller investigation found no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump, as per Attorney General William Barr.

In November 2020, after Donald Trump lost the presidency to Joseph Biden, Pelosi exclaimed that "[Republicans] are engaged in an absurd circus right now, refusing to accept reality. Stop the circus..." [2]

The sun is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?lang=en
  2. ^ https://www.the-sun.com/news/1789878/nancy-pelosi-republicans-absurd-joe-biden-win/

President in infobox

Is it really appropriate for this to be included? It’s a separate branch of government, we don’t include the speaker in the presidents article

it seems common practice, and I can see why (if they have served under multiple presidents) how it might well be informative.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
It may be informative but that doesn’t make it appropriate, we don’t include the Chief Justice etc
Why is it not appropriate?Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I have already said it’s an office in a separate branch of government, the president does not appoint or choose who the speaker is, why is it appropriate?
My take: because Americans tend to think of the federal government in "administrations": the Johnson Administration, the Obama Administration, "under Clinton", "in Reagan's first term", etc. It seems natural (at least to Yanks) to associate a speaker with the administration/presidents of her time in office. We don't do that with chief justices, for example. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
We don't do that with chief justices, for example
You mean like the "Warren Court" or "Rehnquist Court"? That's why those are red links, I guess. --Calton | Talk 04:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You lost me. I don't see the SC mentioned anywhere on the page, red or otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
that’s the point he don’t include the Chief Justice in the infobox, the speaker is not part of the President Administration and there is no reason to include it in Nancys infobox 2A02:C7F:8F37:A00:E8B0:424C:AD5C:83BE (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

President in Infobox

Is there a reason why the President is listed as part of Pelosi's term as Speaker in the infobox? To me, it seems nonsensical as the President has nothing to do with how the Speaker is elected. I think we should remove it. 2604:2D80:6001:6200:D4B:6643:7D90:BF24 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Donald Trump once call her a trashy and horrible person. 107.127.0.35 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

US Presidents shown in bio infoboxes of US House speakers.

Why is the US president listed in Pelosi's infobox & the infoboxes of her predecessors? AFAIK, the US president neither nominates or appoints the House speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaker is voted upon by members of the House. POTUS has nothing to do with it. Since documentation at Template:Infobox_officeholder#U.S. Congressperson makes no mention of POTUS, I'll take it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll help with the bios of her predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, thanks. I've gotten up to Frederick H. Gillett so far, and every one of them from Gillett to Pelosi had the POTUS listed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No probs, I'm heading in that direction. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Age20035:, please don't spam add the US presidents to the House speakers infoboxes, as you did in April 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How about we add this political timeline template?

{{Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's political career}} I have made a timeline highlighting the entire political career of Nancy Pelosi. I think we can add this template in this Article as users will find this template easier to read and interpret, rather than going through a number of paragraphs. See Template:Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's Political career. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure it is easier to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who was not previously familiar with most of this, I think it is clearer than the article. I'd prefer it start at the top instead of the bottom, though. Loki (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is very impressive, and while it takes a couple of seconds to orient oneself, I think it is ultimately very useful, as someone only vaguely familiar with Pelosi's career. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)

I like it. It conveys a lot information very effectively. I would put the earliest years at the top. I would suggest having the "US Rep from California", "CA-12", "CA-08", and "CA-05" boxes all varying shades of green, since the first is a summary of the other three. Similarly, the three committee positions could all be shades of a different colour, to group them together and differentiate from the congressional positions.--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Trystan, I'll be working on the colours issue and fix it. However, it'll take some time as I intend to take a Wikibreak because I have my examinations approaching in early March, and I'm very much unprepared for it as of now. But, for years issue, I have no idea on how to make the earliest years appear at the top, as there are no such field in {{Template:Graphical timeline}}. Thanks for the suggestions. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate that it must have taken a lot of work to create and refine, I have to say that it does not appeal to me. My first response is that it's an accessibility nightmare, although I think all timelines (e.g., for band line-up changes) are themselves inaccessible, so some users will always have to rely on the text being provided in the article.

Even for me as a (mostly) sighted user, the effect is crowdedness. It looks a little broken, a bit misaligned, a little overcrowded. The green- and orange-colored links are certainly unexpected, and not at all reassuring. On the bright side, I learned by following an orange link that minority leaders (like Pelosi) still get votes for speaker even when the majority is clearly for somebody else (like Boehner).

I would prefer not to see these added to article pages. Maybe it's just too new a form (and I'm too old?), but they take time to parse, and seem not to add enough to my understanding. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose I appreciate the effort put into this, but it just isn't clear or easy to use. ~ HAL333 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it seems useful. Possibly could use to be organized more clearly in some way, but I certainly like the idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree wit HAL. It's just not that useful and takes up a lot of space. All that info is already in her infobox. Eccekevin (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The information is already covered in her infobox.Sea Ane (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose I'm sorry. Looks great, but it's redundant. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wow, taking a look at this proves definitively that I am not a visual learner. I appreciate the effort, but I think it will confuse average readers and editors alike. KidAd • SPEAK 20:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm also sorry to vote against this since it looks like a lot of work went into it, but it's extremely confusing to me and I can't make head or tails out of some aspects of it. The varying widths of the different components are confusing and makes it appear that there's some meaning to the horizontal axis, which I don't think is the case (but honestly am not sure). The riot of colors is jarring; the relation, if any, of the 6 different shades of green is unclear and the colors are very ill-chosen for accessibility. The unexplained abbreviations CA-05, CA-08 and CA-12 crammed into the right side are confusing. The barrage of dates and abbreviations below the table in a rainbow of colors has unclear relevance to the table itself. Understanding the table seems to require the reader to scroll back and forth between the table itself and the seven footnotes far below the table. The whole layout looks awkward and ill-planned. CodeTalker (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest leaving it out Invited by the bot. Good effort, but is not clear. Much is unexplained on there or takes a bunch of Sherlock Holmes work and putting info from three different places together to figure out. Took a while to figure out that on a 2D diagram, the 2nd axis has no definition, it just allows showing co-existence of different things at the same time. And the resultant shrinking of each means that the info can't fit on the chart and had to be moved to other locations. But thanks for your effort North8000 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) I'd recommend against this. I do appreciate the effort, but it's a little overwhelming visually. I do not fault the creator; I don't know that I could do better; but I don't think aids the casual reader. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. This is a kickass visual presentation of complicated information, it's all backed up by sources: looking weird is no reason to keep it out of an article. In fact, I'd be in favor of adding stuff like this to more politicians' articles. The only gripe is that it seems quite wider than it needs to be (implying, as has been said, that there's a horizontal element to this rather than a bunch of vertical elements). jp×g 05:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Support at least in spirit. Even though there are some layout issues (due to being a vertical timeline) and accessibility issues (colours), to me this is much better than trying to parse information from the infobox and such. Of course the graph should not replace the infobox, rather than supplement it.
    I would suggest using horizontal graph, something similar to Gantt chart. That would solve the layout issues and we would not have to worry about colours. I am just afraid that we do not have a good graph template for this kind of visualisation. Politrukki (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Request to not close the RfC as I'll be working to fix the colors issue of the template as pointed out by some users. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Confused, how do I preview it? I clicked on the template and couldn't see it) Would like to view before I weigh in on this RFC. EliteArcher88 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit-suggestion for a new incident

This is a protected article, so I can't edit. However, I have a suggestion to improve the article.

It's all about Pelosi's new proposal.WikiGabber (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't add fake news. Telegram is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Telegram? That's weird, I thought the source was Telegraph, at least the website looked like that.WikiGabber (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
As you know perfectly well, the source was a fake page on telegra.ph. Stop with the hoaxing. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Forename

Pelosi's name is listed as Annunciata D'Alesandro (same as her mother) in the 1940 US census and her age as one month (accurate as she was born in March 1940 and census was enumerated in April 1940). "Nancy" is a nickname but middle name Patricia is probably accurate.[1][2]

Find a secondary source. Census records are primary sources, and subject to interpretation. See WP:NOR. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui-content/view/149541069:2442?tid=&pid=&queryId=c2859e29f187d4949032453c7f3a6778&_phsrc=lUZ202&_phstart=successSource
  2. ^ Annunciata D'Alesandro in the 1940 United States Federal Census View 1940 United States Federal Census Detail Source Discover Name: Annunciata D'Alesandro [Annuciata Alesandro] [Nancy D'Alesandro] Age: 1/12 [0] Estimated Birth Year: abt 1940 [abt 1940] Gender: Female Race: White Birthplace: Maryland Marital Status: Single Relation to Head of House: Daughter Home in 1940: Baltimore, Baltimore City, Maryland Map of Home in 1940: Baltimore, Baltimore City, Maryland Street: Albermarle [sic] Street House Number: 245 Sheet Number: 5A Attended School or College: No Highest Grade Completed: None

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Donations

What a crazy logical idea from Trevor Noah. Instead of asking for money to get things done that never happen, how about you make them happen, deliver on your promises, and ask for money to reward you. Brilliant 2601:188:C681:2500:1F:9205:2DA2:3786 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Speakership Run

I came to this page as a reader rather than an editor so just after some clarification in the article, if someone with knowledge can help.

I was aware that Pelosi had agreed to not run for Speaker in 2022 (term starting 2023) and the article lead supports that: She announced in January 2022 that she would seek reelection as a U.S. representative that year, though she had pledged in 2018 to not seek the speakership again.

The last sentence of the section lead of Second speakership (2019–present) implies that she has announced her candidacy for the Speakership in 2023: In December 2021, Pelosi announced her candidacy for reelection in 2022. This is not reflected in the source, which only mentions her candidacy for re-election to congress and speculation that she might choose to run again for Speaker.

So my question is, has she announced candidacy for another Speakership term from 2023 or not and could the mentioned section be clarified on this point? I think it's likely the answer will be that the sentence is in reference to her congressional campaign and doesn't relate to being Speaker, but the way it's worded in that particular location in the article implies she has annouced a run for the Speakership in 2023.Cdfbrown (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

Mention the fact in 2022 Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone prohibited Pelosi from receiving holy communion in her home diocese of San Francisco, of which he is the pastor - this over her continued support of abortion, against the Church's teaching on the matter, and despite Cordileone's repeated attempts at communication and warnings on the matter. See the section about that on Cordileone's page. 93.240.158.50 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done see Nancy Pelosi#Denial of Holy Communion Cannolis (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Unclear when she was Speaker in InfoBox

The infobox doesn't make it easy to determine when she was Speaker of the House versus Minority Leader.

I looked at all the dates, and it's accurate, but the infobox makes it difficult to figure out when she was Speaker of the House, then Minority Leader, then Speaker of the house again.

Is there a better way to convey situations like this? JackW2 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-Consecutive terms

Pelosi has served 2 non consecutive terms, wouldn't it make more sense for her to be the 52nd and 55th speaker of the house of representatives? 52nd makes it seem like there have only been 51 other speakers of the house historically. 71.94.106.131 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Should both these article sections mention/note/reference each other?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi#Taiwan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Travel_Act

Because even though it's not so important, they are kinda related and nice to improve. Pelosi was able to go there (easier at least) because of the Act yet neither article even mentioned the other. Just something I noticed and thought off the top of my head. I didn't know if anyone else made the connection. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

HAve any RS made a connection? What connection? Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
https://theconversation.com/why-nancy-pelosis-visit-to-taiwan-puts-the-white-house-in-delicate-straits-of-diplomacy-with-china-188116
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/01/pelosi-taiwan-trip-overrides-chinese-military-threats-00049010
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china-taipei-arrival-plane/
And then there's:
https://alec.org/article/speaker-pelosis-visit-to-taipei-telegraphs-congressional-support-for-taiwans-sovereignty/
https://asiatimes.com/2022/08/us-china-need-to-strike-a-new-taiwan-balance/
https://fapa.org/fapa-lauds-pelosi-visit-as-watershed-moment-in-taiwans-democratic-development-calls-for-enactment-of-taiwan-policy-act/
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-visit-would-trump-foreign-policy-triumph-1727765 149.20.252.132 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
So what do you want to say, as none of the sources do more than say "as a result of Congress passing the bipartisan Taiwan Travel Act high ranking officials (including Polsi) were able to visit Tawain". I am unsure what this adds to our biography of her. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
So nothing would work in the China/Hong Kong/Taiwan section? Understandable. But what about the page about the Act? It mentions nothing about the visit or Pelosi. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

‎2022 home invasion

We can get away with only 3 or 4 cites, lets not wp:overcite it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM strikes again. This doesn't need a subsection either. It involves her since it appears she was the target, but she was not there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Kevin McCarthy should not be listed as Nancy Pelosi’s successor. The majority party has not yet been determined; nor is it guaranteed that McCarthy will be the one to take the spot. The information currently listed is presumptive, not factual. 2600:4040:B0D5:E200:E93A:9C92:3100:584F (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

McCarthy was Pelosi's successor as House minority leader in 2019. The article accurately reflects that. Sundayclose (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
She had served two separate times. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Presentation of House tenure in infobox

I believe that the presentation of this I changed it to in this edit is the best practice. It allows for better navigation on the project in terms of switching between bios of holders of each congressional seat in chronological order, and is the most informative. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If we wanted to, we could add a notation "redistricted" next the names of successors in her previous districts if we use the formatting I recommend. SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Her successor is not yet known, but is linked here as if it is. That’s misleading. Kevin McCarthy won a vote last week within the Republican caucus, but did not have enough votes to assure his ascension as Speaker. 2603:7080:A201:E9EB:65B3:637:E563:D091 (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I changed it to TBD. It also listed her term as speaker as ending yesterday, for some reason, which is not the case, and I removed that too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth

@Muboshgu: don't you think revdel was a little hostile and a little on-the-nose to our IP interlocutor? The National Review published a story about an NBC reporter. He made a report about Paul Pelosi, the report was retracted, and the reporter was suspended. It's a very strange circumstance. Snopes.com has a whole thing on it. I think it will soon bear mentioning in the article as a meta-news story at least. Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course there are standalone articles on Paul Pelosi and his attack, so there's no reason this stuff needs to be discussed on Nancy's article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that edit reached the level of a WP:BLP violation, which is one of the valid uses of RevDel. If they want to complain they're being "censored" because we don't let that conspiracy theory breathe, so be it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

For the infobox, is it best to use an official photo or the newly-released oil painting of Pelosi (as it is now at the posting of this comment)? Thoughts? Dr. Blazer (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Order

Pelosi’s tenure as 52nd Speaker already ended in 2011. She is now holding office as the 55th Speaker. It should be indicated on the infobox. <smSall class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani hshmt (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

The unveiling of her official portrait should be mentioned somewhere on this article: https://rollcall.com/2022/12/14/nancy-pelosi-unveils-her-portrait-at-the-capitol-marks-end-of-an-era/
Also it should be mentioned that the Cannon Caucus Room was renamed to the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caucus Room: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/jan-6-committee-drops-trump-referral-in-nancy-pelosi-room/article_06ebd2da-7fd3-11ed-a33e-cfe5aea6e929.html
100.11.62.231 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi's seat (as with all US House seats) are currently vacant until the Speaker situation is resolved.

All members are members-elect until they are sworn in for the 118th congress. That cannot occur until a Speaker is elected. As such, Nancy Pelosi is currently a member-elect and has been since January 3, 2023.Stevenjo28 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

All other returning “members-elect” are still referred to as incumbent on their pages and in their infoboxes. Why single Pelosi out of 400+ to make the distinction that members aren’t *technically* incumbent until swearing-in? 207.237.233.105 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
As all other returning members and new members-elect are referred to as incumbent on their pages and in the article's infoboxes, so should Pelosi. Drdpw (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I also changed my own congressman's, Trone. I don't have the time to change all other 433, however. Stevenjo28 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion is that, unless you can generate a consensus for changing all 435, do not change any. Drdpw (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Who/where should I comment to do this? Like is there a forum where we can get together to determine the best way to show in these articles that these seats are currently vacant?Stevenjo28 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
You might open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Drdpw (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

Steny Hoyer should be inserted as Nancy Pelosi's Deputy in the "Leader of the House Democratic Caucus" section of the Infobox, replacing the long list of assistant leaders that under-rank him. EDZ Madrigal 21 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)  

Already done PianoDan (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nancy_Pelosi/Archive_3&oldid=1197685832"