Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speaker Emerita

Hakeem Jefferies declared Pelosi, Speaker Emerita. Should that designation be in her infobox. Here is citation https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3757247-house-panel-votes-to-designate-pelosi-speaker-emerita/ (Aricmfergie (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because the US House of Representatives hasn't voted to create that honorary position. The US Senate voted to create the honorary position of President pro-tempore emeritus, several years ago. GoodDay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about what to do about this. I'll (in length) address a few points that arise out of this

1) Does Pelosi hold such a role, and if so, how official is it and how do we label it?

If we want to get technical, Pelosi technically holds such a title officially, but it is conferred by the House Democratic Caucus]: not by the House itself. So we could acknowledge it with the attached wording that indicates that it is a caucus role, such as referring to it as being "House Democratic Caucus Speaker Emerita". However, I actually think we'd be good with simply saying she holds the title of "House Minority Chair Emerita". After all, minority party leadership positions (including minority leader and minority whip) and majority party leadership positions (majority leader and majority whip) are similarly conferred by party caucus/conferences alone and are not positions that have been established by a law or resolution nor appointed through formal House mechanisms/House business. We recognize those leadership positions and list them in inboxes, so one might ask, "why not a similarly caucus-designated speaker emerita position?"

However, unlike party leadership positions, Pelosi's emerita title lacks a long-established convention behind it. Also, it does not come with duties/powers, which one could argue means that it is not a weighty-enough position to merit inclusion in the infobox.

—2) Dynamics might shift if Dems win House, giving greater weight to title:
HOWEVER.....since Pelosi plans to run for another House term (which if her electoral record is any indicator, she's a safe bet to win) and since Democrats stand a very reasonable chance of regaining the House majority in 2024, it is not impossible that things will shift a bit in the 119th Congress.

If speaker, Jeffries would likely opt to continue referring to Pelosi by such a title, and one could argue that that would be enough to establish it as a House practice that Pelosi holds such a title.

It is further possible that the House might adopt a resolution to officially confer/recognize that title for Pelosi. This would certainly make it not just a role with the weight of a newly-established tradition behind it, but also a role that has been officially conferred to her eliminating holdups.

However, we'd then need to unpack whether we'd consider her to have held it only since 2025, or would we also consider her to have also held it in the 118th Congress? I don't know which we'd do.

—3) Senate pro-tempore title's existence/acknowledgement in Wikipedia inboxes

A resolution conferring the title onto Pelosi would be similar to the 2001 resolution in which the Senate conferred the position of president pro tempore emeritus of the United States Senate to Strom Thurmond.

Even though I do not believe that Senate resolutions were passed to refer to any further individuals by that title (and even though the language of the 2001 resolution solely conferred it to Thurmond, not outlining any automatic conference of the designation onto successors), Wikipedia currently considers all subsequent former pro tempores that remained in the Senate after their party lost the majority to have also held this title. Wikipedia currently lists it in all of their inboxes. I am actually wondering whether I should open up discussion on that, since while the title was perhaps used in practice, I do not believe it was conferred to subsequent individuals under any Senate resolution. Though there is an argument that the 2001 resolution established a Senate convention of this title being used, and that it does not require a Senate resolution much like House leadership positions

That's my two (hundred) cents SecretName101 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: As I said in my lengthy post above, I am uncertain about what we should do this. I'll reiterate two things I said that relate to your comment. The first is that we do acknowledge House party caucus/conference-appointed positions that lack any official creation by either House resolution or by legislation. For instance, the party leaders of the United States House of Representatives (who are appointed by their conferences) are listed in inboxes. However, those positions are not solely ceremonial longstanding convention and fulfill clear duties. The second is that, if I am not mistaken, the Senate never created the position beyond its use for Strom Thurmond. The 2001 resolution simply conferred it to Thurmond, but did not include any provision for its continued use by individuals beyond Thurmond. Unless there is one or more later resolutions I am unaware of, no resolution actually declared it to be a title for those who have conventionally held it subsequently (former pro tempores whose parties are no longer in the majority). Though one could argue that the 2001 resolution still established a clear grounds for the subsequent convention of that title's later use, which does not yet exist quite the same for a House speaker emeritus title.

Any thoughts you have in consideration of that further context? Your further thoughts might help us better assess this. SecretName101 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't or shouldn't use "President pro tempore emeritus/emerita..." in infoboxes & therefore shouldn't use "Speaker-emeritus/emerita...". Best not to have honorary titles in the infoboxes of these former speakers & presidents pro temp. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Picture is out of date

Official congressional picture should be current; something such as this: https://clerk.house.gov/Members/P000197 47.223.55.167 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

lol! good luck. 47.223.55.167 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? has she changed significantly? Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Pelosi's Role on Daniel Brewster's Staff

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Steny Hoyer were interns on the Staff of Senator Daniel Brewster but were in fact full time employees on Senator Brewster's staff, as congressional payroll records show, and as Susan Page discusses in her 2021 biography Madam Speaker on page 91: "Some accounts describe Nancy D'Alesandro and Steny Hoyer as interns in the Senate office; in fact, congressional records from the time show both as congressional staffers."

This is confirmed by the 1963 Congressional Staff Directory, in which Pelosi, then D'Alesandro, is listed on the staff as a secretary, while Hoyer is listed on the staff as an assistant. EstateGLB (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Add to lede assessments of Pelosi as a powerful and effective speaker?

In the body, there are many citations provided to back that experts consider Pelosi to have been one of the most powerful and effective speakers in U.S. history. Should this be added to the lede? SecretName101 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

not really, seems a but like puffery to me. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Not really. A well-established widespread assessment is often noted in ledes.

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "historical rankings consistently place him as one of the greatest American presidents"
• Meryl Streep: "Often described as 'the best actress of her generation', Streep is particularly known for her versatility and accent adaptability"
• I Have a Dream: "the speech was one of the most famous moments of the civil rights movement and among the most iconic speeches in American history"
• Abraham Lincoln: "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American"
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy: " His leadership during the crisis has won him widespread international praise, and he has been described as a symbol of the Ukrainian resistance. Zelenskyy was named the Time Person of the Year for 2022, and opinion polls in Ukraine have ranked him as Ukraine's greatest president."
• Thriller (album): "It set industry standards with its songs, music videos, and promotional strategies influencing artists, record labels, producers, marketers, and choreographers. The success gave Jackson an unprecedented level of cultural significance for a black American, breaking racial barriers in popular music, earning him regular airplay on MTV and leading to a meeting with US President Ronald Reagan at the White House. Thriller was among the first albums to use music videos as promotional tools; the videos for "Billie Jean", "Beat It" and "Thriller" are credited for transforming music videos into a serious art form."
• Gone with the Wind (film): "Gone with the Wind is regarded as one of the greatest films of all time"
• Christina Aguilera: "Referred to as the 'Voice of a Generation', she is noted for her four-octavevocal range and signature use of melisma. Recognized as an influential figure in popular music"
• George Bernard Shaw: "he has regularly been rated among British dramatists as second only to Shakespeare; analysts recognise his extensive influence on generations of English-language playwrights."
• Whitney Houston: "Houston influenced many singers in popular music, and was known for her powerful, soulful vocals, vocal improvisation skills"
• Eleanor Roosevelt "By the time of her death, Roosevelt was regarded as 'one of the most esteemed women in the world'; The New York Times called her 'the object of almost universal respect' in her obituary. In 1999, she was ranked ninth in the top ten of Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and was found to rank as the most admired woman in thirteen different years between 1948 and 1961 in Gallup's annual most admired woman poll. Periodic surveys conducted by the Siena College Research Institute have consistently seen historians assess Roosevelt as the greatest American first lady.
• James Buchanan: "Historians and scholars rank Buchanan as among the worst, if not the worst, of U.S. presidents in American history"

SecretName101 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Worded how? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Any way. The wording could be hammered out later: only asking if a mention in any way is justified.

perhaps something like, “Expert assessments of Pelosi’s two speakerships have often regarded her to have been one of the most effective holders of the office, as well as one of the most politically powerful.”

perhaps also paired with mention that “Pelosi proved polarizing in public opinion.” (I’m planning to add more content about public opinion that would justify the polarizing claim even more than what is already in the article) SecretName101 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ironically I had to come to the talk page after reading the lead and thought the inclusion of the final sentence in the lead was very misplaced - "Expert assessments of Pelosi's two tenures as speaker have generally considered her to have had a very strong grasp on power in the Democratic majorities and to have been highly effective at the job."I have to side with @Slatersteven, this seems like puffery. I've never heard these expert opinions and the stated examples are a poor justification, and unless a title maybe like "Voice of a generation" was used widespread, it slants articles into feeling like a puff piece. If these opinions were attributed I would say it definitely deserves to be in the body, but putting it in the lead seems very forced. It should be removed from the lead, kept in the body. Eruditess (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

TikTok ban bill

A statement Pelosi made while debating the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act went viral on social media is it worth mentioning? Talked about here: John Oliver talking about also had a bit of coverage: . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References

sounds a bit meh to me soibangla (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies. I saw the bit on John Oliver, I imagine we'll all forget about it before the next viral bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent news suggests that...

...Trump is confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi. Can anyone add this somewhere in the article?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you can supply some reliably sourced/verifiable articles that cover this then it would be considered for inclusion. Otherwise it falls under Original research Eruditess (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The recent overhaul of the Confederates statues section

@Thenightaway: In my recent overhaul of (essentially) an old contribution of yours from 2017, I completely removed the following sentence:

"In Lee's place, she had a statue of Rosa Parks erected."

where the reference was Steinhauer, Jennifer (2015-06-25). "Search for Confederate Symbols Finds Them Aplenty in Washington". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-08-17.. My reason was that I think you based your claim on an interpretation of the following paragraph from that source:

"The matter has been bubbling under the surface for years, largely among Democrats. When she was the speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California quietly had the statue of Robert E. Lee moved from National Statuary Hall to a more remote area in the Capitol known as the crypt. In his stead, more or less, is now a statue of Rosa Parks, which Ms. Pelosi pushed to secure."

(Copyright The New York Times; thus, cannot copied in whole or a part to Wikipedia articles; quoted here just for disussion of its factual content.

Thenightaway, I think that your interpretation was not unreasonable, but that it was not the only possible one, and it was factually wrong. As can be seen in the articles Rosa Parks and Statue of Rosa Parks (U.S. Capitol), and their sources, the statue was ordered by the Congress in 2005 (an order symbolicly signed by then President G. W. Bush on the fiftieth anniversary of the event); it took some years to produce; and it finally was ceremonially unveiled in 2013 by then President Obama. Thus, as you can see, Pelosi well may have "pushed to secure" the Parks statue, both in 2005 (as minority leader for the House Democrats), before her first speakership, and by having the project advancing during that speakership; but she was not the Speaker when the original decision was made, and nor when the time came to place it in the Statue Hall. I also doubt that the formulation "In his stead, more or less" would have been employed if the Parks statue were placed exactly at the former position of the Lee one.

(I try to inform about factual reversals of edits of serious editors, even when I suppose that they agree or just have no opinion about some rather old edits:-). If you incidently disagree with my edit, please restore the Rosa Parks sentence, but preferrably together with a more precise reference. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)