![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I decided to clean up some of the article in preperation of her taking the speakership on thursday. If by some diabolical miracle she loses, I would be glad to put everything back the way it was, but I doubt it very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericl ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Section 3.13 states:
Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.
This explanation of the Patriot Act is not necessary and is certainly not neutral. It should be removed or edited. The words "tool," "ferreting out" and "lurking" are innapropriate in this context. ( 61.91.191.6 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
Read David Brook's Jan. 4, 2007 column in the New York Times.
It is clear that Nancy Pelosi rose to power largely due to her fundraising prowess. Before being elected, she arranged fundraising events for the Democratic party. In office, she raised money and donated it to her colleagues. Her husband is an "investor".
This fundraising side of Pelosi must be included, or else the article is grossly incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.14.5 ( talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6107062.stm
Her fundraising prowess is unquestioned: the mother-of-five has raised more for the Democrats in this mid-term election than almost anyone else.
Cannot edit - Why is this page non-editable? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.45.18.16 (
talk •
contribs)
Pelosi did not rise to power “largely because of her fundraising ability” no more than any other political leader did. It’s a job requirement for a political leader to be an excellent fundraiser. Many politicians who hold office raise money and donate it to their colleagues. It’s how the party system works. All the heavyweights do this.
Huckabee, Lieberman, Guiliani, Delay, Boehner, and Bush are all “known for their fundraising” yet none of their Wikipedia articles attribute their success as political leaders to their ability to raise money. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House because she is an excellent politician, just like all those who held this position before her. She is not Speaker of the House because she “bought it” and this POV is biased, chauvinistic and offensive.
David Brooks OPINION about Ms. Pelosi is scathingly sexist and cites no references. This Wikipedia article will be grossly negligent if it includes this biased POV. If you want to list and cite her incredible fundraising accomplishments, go for it. If you want to say that she raised more money than any other Democrat in a certain time period, find the citation and include it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Computerhag 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr Brooks column is an editorial -- an editorial is not fact. I am always confused by people that don't understand what an editorial is. Mr Brooks opinion is stated in his editorial columns. The wikipedia page on editorials does a marginally fair job at trying to define an editorial -- please note it is merely an opinion in mock-thesis form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisforgary ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi was minority whip in the 107th Congress, not minority leader.
"She has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged while increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes."
While it's true that Pelosi did advocate for tax increases, the targets of these increases are mostly the wealthy. For example, in a recent speech Pelosi stated "Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level", then refering that "certain level" to mean people whose annual incomes are over 250k-300k.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=8906 141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I question whether the opinions of the Traditional Values Coalition qualify as a Neutral Point of View in this context! -- Mpwrmnt 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Africa Pelosi sponsored the to Harvest bill, which urges the President to:
-
The statement "Pelosi has voted for federal funding of abortion facilities and for financial aid to such organizations." needs a citation. I don't know how to do it, but at
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2409&can_id=H0222103
It says that she voted in favor of said things.
Optimism.rll 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Optimism.rll 1/8/07 9:05 PM
First sentence is a pov problem because the text does not truly match the source (semantics) as it is a link to her voting record. Further along, Pelosi should not be refered to as "she". Last sentence needs sourcing.
=== Gun control ===. Pelosi voted against the 24 Hour Background Check Amendment bill. [1] Pelosi also voted for an amendment to this bill that would extend the waiting period to 72 hours. [2] Pelosi also voted against the Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995. [3] Pelosi has also voted against the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006" (HR 5013), which now mades it illegal for federal, state, and local authorities who are funded by federal monies to confiscate legally owned weapons in national emergencies. [4]
Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable about this subject that can fix this up and put it back in, as it is an important issue. Thanks. Jasper23 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jasper23. I have made the suggested corrections. Please review them and let me know if they are appropriate and in good taste. 71.115.7.71 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Thank you JoShua
This whole Political Platform section seems trumped-up and looks more like a laundry list of one-sentence headings. I looked at other articles for political leaders and many don't even have a section on platforms and votes (Hastert, Gingrich, Foley, Daschle, Lott, Dole). Those that do have a couple of paragraphs which highlight a significant platform, not track all activity. With this in mind, I re-read the entire section and honestly nothing stands out as significant. She appears to vote in a predictable pattern for a Democrat or with the majority. This whole section should either be removed or significantly streamlined.
The elections section is a list of useless information that doesn't add any significant information to this article.
Computerhag 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article on Pelosi, compared to others, has more information as it pertains to voting history is because Pelosi is a current political leader. I don't think the structure of the information presented for any one person has to follow the same pattern. It would be nice and I can understand how that would benefit the Wikipedia site in general. I think the more information that can be found, the better off the site will be. The information presented might not be significant to you or you might find it useless, but somebody took the time to create this section, so it must have been important to them. I don't want us to forget that the first amendment guarantees free speech. As long as the information presented is factual and has reliable cites, I don't see a problem. Voting history is a very important aspect to creating educated voters. Knowledge is power. Thank you, JoShua 03:26, 13 January 2007
This edit messed it up. Can someone please clean it up. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a communist, is she? Someone's trying to be funny. 81.159.240.240 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The top of the article says her middle name is Patricia and her maiden name is D'Alesandro. However, the "Early life" section says she was born as Nancy D'Alesandro, with no mention of her middle name. If her middle name was added through religious ceremony, i.e. baptism, that should be mentioned. Rhythmnation2004 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen alot of vandalism these last few days and I think it's time to lock this article for the non-account users.
Obviously some people can't
act civilized even though they are against the content of this article.
62.16.202.221
19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be restructured. Right now it is just a list of random positions and votes. There is no narrative and the list format invites random people to insert random things. Anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Jasper23 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly in the history of Congress. But when you speak of the American Federal government, you must also include the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor is arguably the most powerful female in the history of the American Federal government. It's close, anyway. MoodyGroove 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
:::That's in the intro already.
Xiner (
talk,
email)
21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be D'Alessandro, not D'Alesandro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForzaFabio ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
A user has reverted the revision:
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories but does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning American Samoa—its minimum wage is set by a committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Labor. [1] One Republican congressman who voted against the bill accused Pelosi of unethically benefiting a hometown company by the exclusion of the territory; Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. [2]
back to
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories except for American Samoa. The exclusion of American Samoa has attracted ethics criticism from one Republican congressman, since Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. [3]
It's worth noting that the text of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act) in its current form is completely silent on the issue of American Samoa. There is no special exemption that was not there before Rep. George Miller introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Settler 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section discussing what's wrong with her face. Any confirmed plastic surgery or botox overdoses? See, for example, Tina Fey's article and the section regarding her scar for precedent. Thats why I read this article, and I was disappointed to find that the answer isn't here. Maybe her aides removed it?
66.56.34.50 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is preemptive seeing as I am sitting here watching the State of the Union now, but perhaps President Bush's statement about it being his "honor and privilege" to be the first President to start his address with "Madam Speaker" should be recorded?
I've noticed that she seems to be blinking a lot during the State of the Union speech.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of publicly mischaracterizing her need for a larger military aircraft to travel back and forth from the West coast. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250781,00.html Crocoite 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, you have dismissed an editorial comment from one of the largest circulation newspapers in the United States, highlighting "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy from the third-highest ranking official in the most powerful government in the world, as "Freeper spin and vandalism." Would you care to discuss it? Dino 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm here now as well, Dino - (to protect Wikipedia) By the way... "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." My entire purpose here - FAAFA 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse.
Jpgordon, how does including notable, well-sourced criticism "make ... Democrat articles worse"?
Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel ..."
FAAFA, I observe that you've joined your friend in Wikistalking me over here. You're claiming it's "to clear repeated errors," but the fact of the matter is that it's a content dispute, I've tried to disengage, and the two of you won't let me.
Now that the immediate danger of Wikipedia being sued has passed, I've turned my attention to making Wikipedia articles better. I am as serious as a heart attack about WP:NPOV. In general, articles about Republicans contain a great deal more criticism than articles about Democrats. Here we have an article about the Speaker of the House with 20 years of House service, and her article is shorter and contains less criticism than an article about a freshman GOP by the name of Peter Roskam, who has one month of service.
If you think that's a fluke, and that Roskam's article is not representative, compare the Pelosi article with Dennis Hastert's. Again, the Republican's article is loaded with criticism compared to this one.
The goal of making the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another more closely can be achieved by (1) making Republicans' articles less critical, or (2) making Democrats' articles more critical, or (3) both. I've chosen the third option. I hope that they will meet somewhere in the middle, and that we can all achieve consensus on the question of "how much criticism is too much," applying it equally to both Republicans and Democrats.
I will take whichever of the three options we can all reach a consensus about, if there's a substantial body of opinion claiming that the third option is unacceptable; but rest assured that one of the three options is needed and will be pursued. We can compare apples with apples (the Pelosi article with the Hastert article) or oranges with oranges (the Roskam article with the Melissa Bean article, for example). But in the end my point will be proven, and I suspect that all of you already realize that.
The New York Post editorial is notable criticism. Yet you choose to remove not just the excerpt from that editorial, but the entire section. Why? I've answered your question. Now it's your turn. This leaves the entire article almost devoid of criticism. Dino 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! - You win a prize Dean - 1) start naming those Republican scandals. 2) you've been on Wiki 3 weeks and you're telling an admin with a 3 year history how to run Wiki 3) you're spouting tin foil hattery nonsense about DU. 4) don't copy Crockspots with his 'Teh Rove'. Have some originality! Think up your own childish wordplays (you can't use my Chimpy-Bush-Laden ™ either!} - Fairness and Accuracy for Delay, Abramoff, Ney, and especially Randy 'Duke' Cunningham 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What is Dino attempting to do here? Show us any credible proof (and by credible, we mean NOT the editorial section of the New York Post!) of Pelosi ever requesting a C-32 plane, and then we'll add it in. That's all we're asking for. 12.149.141.19 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch the ongoing Dino/BenBurch/FAAFA shitstorm with a ten-foot pole covered in holy water, but I would like to point out that the prevailing mode of attack in modern politics is to throw everything you've got at the proverbial wall and see what sticks. I can't see how it's a good idea to record every non-criminal accusation that gets thrown before we know which accuastions actually have the potential to impact policy or elections. If this were an ethics/lawbreaking charge instead of "hypocrisy," I'd be more open to the idea - anything that carries the possibility of official censure, viz. Monica, is more noteworthy than something that has weight only in the court of public opinion. Every piece of partisan mud that gets slung cannot be encyclopedic, or the articles on the US Congress alone will explode the servers. ShaleZero 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You know what Dean? You and I actually agree that partisanship and POV issues are MAJOR problems for Wiki. One of the chief problems is that every contentious article has a group of partisans trying to sway it one way or another, and depending on the numbers, and how well they know WP, these partisans can be successful in turning ANY article into a hatchet job, or a glowing tribute, and not much can be done if you're in the minority. These partisans will spend hundreds of hours arguing about minor details - and the only way that the issue will be settled is through formal arbitration taking hundreds of more hours. Look at the arguments and RfA over Juan Cole for instance. This dispute has been going on since before I even got here. IMHO, I have the perfect solution. There are 100's of contentious articles that should be 'locked' and checked, then edited for POV by a team of experienced editors who have NO interest or feelings about the subject. The American political articles could be checked for POV and edited by Japanese Koi aficionados who don't even vote, for instance! Suggested changes would be debated on the talk pages, and no more than once a month the ones that are approved would be added to the article. The tens of thousand of hours wasted now by editors trying to affect POV could be spent actually improving Wiki because these fruitless battles would no longer exist. (are you listening Jimbo ;-) - FAAFA 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this article being written by Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh? I have added a couple of edits, here and there recently (which included good, fair, balanced information on Pelosi). The Wiki article editor, inexplicably, removed these edits (apparently to make room for the Rush/talk radio hatchet job on Pelosi, with non-stories like the "Pelosi plane affair.")
In the "The War on Terrorism" section, the article states simply that Pelosi voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution that authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I added this info below (which includes fair, balanced information in which Pelosi explained her 2002 vote at the time the vote was being conducted):
In explaining her opposition to the resolution, Pelosi noted that Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet had told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq's Saddam Hussein launching an attack on the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction was low. "This is about the Constitution," Pelosi said. "It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware what the challenges are to us. It is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops."
But, of course, the extreme-right-wing Rush-loving Wiki editors removed this edit of mine. It's quite amusing how Wiki claims to be "neutral." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.57 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, February 15, 2007
we need a section devoted to CONTROVERSIES that cover allegations against Pelosi. You will find a controversy section on *EVERY SINGLE* major conservative on Wiki (show me one that doesn't). So to be fair, and NPOV, we need to make sure that readers of Wiki are informed of Pelosi's controversies. I want to know about her failed promises and be informed of any allegations against her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 ( talk) 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
What about the failed promises of Pelosi? I'd like to see those in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 ( talk) 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
[ [5]] and [ [6]] off the top of my head. Both possible presidential candidates and Brownback is very conservative. I just gave you two but you only asked for one. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is in bad need of some detail on the failed promises. Congress under Pelosi's leadership is experiencing some of the lowest approval ratings ever (lower than President Bush's!), yet this article contains almost no information about why this may be so. During the campaign she promised to pursue oversight of Bush, but she has blocked this oversight in many ways other than simply blocking impeachment proceedings. For example, it has now been more than 3 months since the house judiciary committee passed its recommendation that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten should be held in contempt of congress. This is the only oversight-related recommendation that the house judiciary committee has made in the 110th congress, and it has been blocked by Pelosi. Surely this is in some way relevant to the article? When I attempted to add it, User:Loonymonkey reverted it without consideration. Does anyone have any advice for how best to make these statements without compromising neutrality? 74.129.232.248 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First, JPgordon, if you object to a few words of the paragraph I added, I respectfully suggest that you should have deleted those few words rather than the entire paragraph. Second, the sourcing in the Washington Post is as solid as depleted uranium. Third, the reference to Pelosi's explicit rejection of the term limits proposal is on the second page of the Washington Post story, about halfway down the page. Let's work together to make this a better article rather than engaging in an edit war, or accusing each other of harboring bias. I encourage you to replace the paragraph you just deleted. Dino 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I think. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
Could an administrator please semi-protect this article to cut down on some of the rampant vandalism here? Thanks. Dce7 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Infobox says she has been in the same district since '87 and Sala Burton preccedded her. Shes been in district 8 since 1993. From 87-93 she was in district 5 precceded by Sala Burtton. Now her predessecor in 8 is Ronald V. Dellums.
I'm moving the Logan Act stuff to the section about the Middle East trip--it doesn't need its own heading. Also, I removed link to the blog per WP:RS. It's citing the WSJ piece anyway. I also removed the comment that Pelosi "has not been indicted"--there is no expectation that the Speaker of the House would be indicted and little evidence that she should be. To include that sentence is implying that she has done something wrong, which is POV for sure. It's enough (or maybe even too much) to say that some people think she violated the Logan Act. Dce7 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pelosi has not violated the Logan Act; the WSJ editorial is off the mark. Check the NY Post editorial linked to above, and also have a look at this CRS report about the Logan Act. If a CRS report is not a reliable source I don't know what is. Page 9 says that the Logan Act is not directed at members of Congress. [9] Dce7 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The section on Pelosi's trip to Syria appears to be non-controversial, but for one line: "Some people say...Logan Act...," and a reference to opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is not WSJ. The controversial line should be deleted until a neutral, objective source can be identified. ctj 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. She 'violated' a provision of an 'act' which has NEVER been enforced, in over 200 years since it was originally adopted (check out " Logan Act", don't believe me!). This 'act' has a 200 year history of being a complete non-starter...if someone has an opinion that's contrary to the party in power, it's treasonous to voice it. What an abomination to the first amendment of our Constitution! I can't believe any but the true "Bushies" lend any credence to this claim. This is desperate 'reaching' beyond anything I've seen so far.
Loonymonkey has removed the information regarding the logan act. His given reason was "Agreed with previous. This never broke from blogs to real news. Not worthy of inclusion." This is absolutely worthy of inclusion. It was covered on several news channels including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, plus pretty much every local affiliate news program where I live (Phoenix, AZ). Also, it was discussed all over the place on several prominent and widely used news and editorial pages all over the internet. Also, this information is well covered over in the Logan Act article, so if it's worth mentioning there I think it's definitely worth mentioning here. Here are just a select few I found in less then 2 seconds of searching:
I'm putting the information back in the article as it was newsworthy and widely covered. Elhector 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlODU3MDc3ZjEzZjEzYzVkNGRmNzhiYmZiNjkwNTI= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the "Democratic Party Leadership" section.
Over one third of the section is one Rep.'s opinion (cited from "The Nation" of all places) of Ms. Pelosi being "too liberal." There are plently of people in political power who had the opposite opinion (quotes upon request)...why is Ford the only one allowed to comment on the Speaker?
Besides, both sides are well shown in the "Political platform and voting record" section. Is this biased quote even necessary?
69.136.84.130 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Aislin
"Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — met with with Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier, although the Bush administration asked Pelosi, as the leader of the Democratic Party, not to visit a state sponsor of terror."
This section is carefully worded in order to make it appear that Bush approved of the visit by three Republicans and was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit. However, the White House publically rebuked all U.S. officials visiting Syria unilaterally.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534
Not that I am looking to cleanse Pelosi's record, but the two sections that point out run-ins with regulatory bodies, the ones titled "Political action committee fined" and "Failure to disclose role in family charity" just seem completely disjoint from the rest of the article. Neither of these events were significant to her career.. there were no further ramifications of them, they were not turning points.. they are barely notable. She had regulatory issues, they got taken care of, and no other consequences came of them. I propose to remove them both and tighten this article up to only those parts that are absolutely necessary.
Thursday 4/19/07
Hi!
This cannot be true! Was Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi really born on born March 26, 1900? That would make her over 100! I don't know what the correct date is or how to correct it myself. Can someone look into this for me.
Thanks 69.116.8.163 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Melissa
I don't think the current picture is adequate. Thoughts on using a different one? Maybe one that isn't lit to look like there's a hole in her temple? 134.84.100.80 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The link is down or something for the source claiming Del Monte didn't contribute for democratic campaigns under the Minimum Wage Section of the article. If the website where this source is hosted continues to have this problem of being unreliable and not displaying requested sources, the section of the article should be amended or another source found. 72.45.14.84 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This subsection doesn't seem to meet the quality standards to be included in a main article on Nancy Pelosi. It authoritatively says that a member of Congress failing to disclose their role in such a charity is illegal, when that's very much disputed. The public law that regulates financial disclosures of members of Congress explicitly offers specific exceptions to the rule that says members have to disclose their roles in certain organizations, and charities are one of those exceptions. 76.97.107.61 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
An extensive search on lexis-nexis has revealed exactly two articles on this subject (same paper, same author, same day). Is this even really a controversy? Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel, says it's illegal but that prosecutions are rare. So rare, apparently, that not a single example is given. And this is so controversial that not a single follow-up story could be found. R. Baley 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It belongs whether you like it or not. You can go to just about any Democrat's or Republican's Wiki pages and find whole sections devoted to "controversies" no matter how significant or trivial. Heck, some people have entire pages devoted to their controversies. I don't see any of you bitching about those. The fact of the matter is that this was a real event, it was notable, and it was reported in a reliable source. Whatever criticism of its inclusion in the article you have is simply made up of whole cloth and I suspect it is wholly based on your personal prejudices. Jinxmchue 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the Bill Frist article. Frist did almost the exact same thing Pelosi did and failed to disclose his status with a family charity. The Frist article, though, integrates this information in a much more appropriate (though not necessarily perfect) way; the charity disclosure stuff is mentioned under a section about Frist's financial status. At a minimum, this supposed controversy does not deserve its own attention-grabbing section heading in the Pelosi article, and it needs to be better integrated into the article. Perhaps the sentence in question could be moved up to the "Family" section of the article, which contains information about Pelosi's financial status. Dce7 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
User:69.142.1.189 keeps adding in a statement that Pelosi is the wealthiest Speaker of the House ever. I've removed this statement because the person who has added it refuses to give a citation, but he/she keeps putting it back in and I can't remove it again without violating WP:3RR. Could someone else please take it out or find a citation? Thanks, Dce7 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This begs a question on whether it goes by personal income or congressional pay. In the latter case, she would be tied with Hastert, as there was no increase for the Speaker or pro-tempore this session. -- 70.141.10.214 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Three questions / requests: 1) According to the Clerk's office, there were a ton of write-in votes in Pelosi's 2004 election. Now, 5,000+ write-in votes from nowhere simply does not happen unless someone's running a campaign and stirring people up. Nevertheless, the Clerk's office declined to mention the name, and some other election sites (like CNN) don't even acknowledge these votes' existence. Does anyone know what the heck happened?
2) Are there any good sources on Pelosi's special election in 1987? It's mentioned in passing several places, but I can't find the straight up numerical results, nor exactly the format (I assume that this was an "everyone jumps in with no primary" thing, hence the two dems in the race?). This is a matter of public record, yet several creative Google searches aren't turning up much.
3) Was it more a renumbering of districts from the 5th->8th in 1992, or did Pelosi actively hop into a basically new district after the redistricting (a la Newt Gingrich)? This would be good to mention in the article. SnowFire 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright 1987 The New York Times Company
The New York Times April 9, 1987, Thursday, Late City Final Edition SECTION: Section A; Page 14, Column 4; National Desk
LENGTH: 709 words (185 words posted here, out of copyright concerns –feel free to delete if necessary once info is used) HEADLINE: HOUSE RACE IN WEST GOES TO RUNOFF BYLINE: By ROBERT LINDSEY, Special to the New York Times
BODY: 'Nancy Pelosi, a former state Democratic chairman, outpolled five fellow Democrats and eight other candidates in a special election Tuesday to fill the unexpired Congressional term of Sala Burton, who died Feb. 1. Because more than 64 percent of the voters in the Fifth Congressional District are Democrats, she is widely expected to win the House seat in a runoff election June 2 against Harriet Ross, a deputy public defender who led three other Republicans. The candidates of four minor parties will also be in the runoff. Mrs. Pelosi received 38,021 votes, 36 percent of the votes casts for all 14 candidates, followed by Supervisor Harry Britt, a Democrat who is a leader among local homosexuals, with 34,031, or 32.2 percent.'
snip
Credit for Senate Takeover
Mrs. Pelosi, who is 47 years old, has never held elective office before. She was chairman of the host committee of the 1984 Democratic National Convention and, as chairman of the 1986 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been praised by party members with playing a key role in the successful Democratic effort to regain control of the United States Senate.
According to the washington post(June 3, 1987; no author; p A5 title: 'Nancy Pelosi Wins House Seat') Pelosi went on to win the runoff against Republican Harriet Ross. "With all but one of the 543 precincts reported, Pelosi had 45,719 votes for a better than 2 to 1 majority over Ross, who had 22,162 votes. Four independent party candidates got 4,308 votes. Turnout yesterday was about 24 percent of the 300,000 registered voters in the congressional district." R. Baley 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Pelosi has been the subject of heaps of notable criticism, especially as of late. Why is there not a controversy section, which is prevalent in most other politicians' profiles? -- 70.141.10.214 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In some articles, criticisms are written into the existing sections. I haven't examined this article to see if that's the case, but if you have specific criticisms you'd like to weave into the article, that would probably be the best approach at the current time.-- Gloriamarie 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
my addition to pelosi's attidue to Turkey and the so-called Armenian Genocide has been cur out by the editors, whose identity I don't know. Some of them might work for the PR office of the Pelosi, who probably regularly check the wikipedia secton on Pelosi. I do strongly think that there shall be criticism sections, as Pelosi has a lot of controversial stance issues. Her unconditional favorism of Armenians is one of such issues. If you are okay I would go and add these type of criticism on Pelosi's page. Raman, Amherst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.72.6 ( talk) 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Citations 19, 20, and 21 are all cited to a "Project Vote Smart" website, but the pages are no longer available, therefore the claims are not properly cited and should be. Happyme22 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the section is long and sprawling and ready for its own article. That would make this page much more readable.Agreement? Disagreement? Turtlescrubber 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is not excessively long at this time, her political positions are important, and they add to the article rather than detract. I don't think she warrants a separate page for her political positions at this time.-- Gloriamarie 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much speaks for itself. I'm aware that the final sentence might not be up to wiki standards, but I do think it's important to let the reader know that Pelosi's position on Colombia has been criticized from both the left and right.
Gay rights section and the Civil liberties section both mention the same vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Seems redundant. It may be useful to mention it in both, but with each section following after another, its not needed. I suppose we should only put that mention once in the gay rights section.
Hi, please write a bout her field and how come she passed levels up to became Nancy now? I wish one day i become like her. I think women like her are strong and every woman proud of her.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). What do you mean by her field?-- Gloriamarie 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like it should be there at all. It was a non-issue at the time and was mentioned for a day or two in various conservative blogs, but never jumped over into real news. What is the controversy? Plus, the citation for it is from the laughable Worldnetdaily, not exactly a credible news source.
The dust settled on this one ages ago. It simply isn't worthy of inclusion. I've tried removing it, but it keeps getting reverted.
Comments? -- Loonymonkey 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Several users believe the information on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act stemming from her trip to Syria should be removed from the article. The given reasons are that it was a non-issue and may not have recieved enough news coverage to be important. Please read the discussions conerning this above and leave your opinion below. Thanks! Elhector 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfC template now. The info had already been removed from the article long before there was any feed back here so I guess it was really pointless starting it and trying to go that route. In any event the RfC has been open for a few weeks and this looks like all the feedback we're going to get. Most of the feedback recieved at this point is pro removing the info so what's done is done. Thanks for everyone's participation that commented above! Elhector 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Pelosi married? If yes, who is her husband? There is nothing on her husband in the article. Quite surprising for the lady who came so close to the presidency and who has a lot of children?
This page could use a semi-protection. IP vandalism is very high. -- VartanM 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Enhanced interrogation" should not be accepted as a NPOV term even when used is a section title as "Enhanced interrogation/Torture". Can that section title be changed to something more neutral such as "The controversy over what constitutes torture" ? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jee what a great record. She should be in a Congres somewhere to make it come true. If not: it is a cheap bullshit record. Let's wipe it out. PR only - DePiep ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Found this in the article and removed it. One of the more shameless examples of POV I've seen. My emphasis added: Sources at the Israeli Prime Minister's Office at the time said that, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her".[29] She has continued this practice without reservation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC) KVND 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It says she was born in 1940 AND married in 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.186.184.126 ( talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How about starting a controversies section? It seems to be a popular trend on Wikipedia for a variety of public figures. Surely the House Speaker (whomever he or she is at any given time) has been involved in controversial issues, whether self-started or having become embroiled. 96.234.182.35 ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, can you all stop acting like controversy pages are so against wiki policy, when rush limbaugh has a page thats longer than pelosi's normal one? you arent fooling anyone, and it make you guys seem a lot more credible if the same rules applied to people you like and dislike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009
{{ Editprotected}} I'm a staff member at On Point (NPR) - Hoping to add external links of times when she was featured on our show. Pdrosso ( talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading of "Waterboarding and CIA controversy" there is a link on "Office of Legislative Counsel" that redirects to "Office of Legal Counsel". I thought they were different in that Office of LEGISLATIVE Counsel was part of the Office of the Clerk and not part of the Department of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.198.151 ( talk) 02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like there should be a lot more information regarding her fight for a public health care option. This deserves its own section if you ask me. Deepfryer99 ( talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone should fix the following text from the article:
As you see, it does not make any sense Wlod ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
This is terribly in the past, it looks like it hasn't gotten a good update since 2007. All it says about health care is that she supports Medicaid? Really? It's a terrible information source for one of the most powerful people in the world. US2010 ( talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It says "List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards". Is this really appropriate? She's the Speaker of the House, not a celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.225.130 ( talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Is her name actually "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi"? Congressional Biographical Directory doesn't mention "Patricia" at all and just notes "D'Alesandro" as her maiden name. Nor does her website mention either her middle name or say her maiden name is part of her name currently. If "D'Alesandro" isn't in her name currently, then we should say "Nancy [Patricia] Pelosi, née D'Alesandro", not "Nancy [Patricia] D'Alesandro Pelosi". We should also find decent evidence for "Patricia", which seems to be lacking. john k ( talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
"Pelosi is up for re-election in 2010 facing a challenge from Libertarian Republican John Dennis. Dennis is the founder of the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus. John Dennis supports peace, and opposes the War in Afghanistan."
This is a ridiculous thing to include in the opening paragraphs of an article about Nancy Pelosi. It's transparent, topical political advertising in the introduction to a reference article and should be deleted. Loccol ( talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"Pelosi, an admitted lesbian..." This statement is factually inaccurate. Please correct immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.6.91 ( talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I find it completely inappropriate to list a politician's religion in the info box. It looks to me like religious affiliation is given equal prominence with political party or job history for these public figures. Is it American POV to say that there should be no religious test for public office? Is there another discussion thread on this? 173.8.220.209 ( talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 Loccol ( talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
Rep. Charles Rangel on 03312010 stated on NY1 News that "was the strongest Speaker in recent history..." and perhaps "...of all time" I am not getting involved in the politics, but that may be notable.
{{editsemiprotected}}
I think D'Alessandro (with double s) is the correct spelling. I'm from Italy and I never see the word Alesandro, while Alessandro is a widely used name. An english source that confirm this: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Pelosi,+Nancy+Patricia+D%27Alessandro
Alv21 ( talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Someone inserted the words "is a bitch" into this page. It's probably a good idea to get rid of that.
Nopaniers ( talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you edit this so it reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like a 7th grade book report? Nobody cares whether or not she "publicly scolded" somebody as it's ultimately immaterial. And the section starting with "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader..." is innane and premature given that she's still in office and perceptions of her are changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.241.114 ( talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What a ridiculous picture. What is it - 30 years old? Here is another: http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.JPG That's what she really looks like, not her high school picture above! Geeze: Wikipedia The Democratic Advocacy Site and Web Encyclopedia !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.194.111 ( talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What is it with wiki nowadays? You guys are afraid to make a criticism/controversy page for obama and pelosi, and i cant understand why. there are certainly more than enough incidents... you guys have no problem going after republicans, how bout being a little fair? 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
John Boehner has a "Political Controversies" section... while I'm sure it is valid, I dare say most polls would show that Pelosi is more controversial than he is. I might add that her colleague in the Senate, Harry Reid, also has a "Criticism" section. It's a fair request, IMO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 03:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
They do. They are all about politicians. You have to apply the same standard, to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. But then, this is Wikipedia after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That would seem to be every edition, at least as it relates to the issue at hand.. I can't see Britannica including criticism sections in some entries and not others unless no criticism existed (I think even the know-it-alls here would have a hard enough time finding such a person, esp. in politics). As for getting rid of the ones that exist, that would seem to make sense IF it would ever happen. If it has been stated previously so many times, perhaps someone can explain why it has not happened to date? Case in point: the so-called irrelevant entries... I know it's easier to avoid the basic and reasonable premise of uniformity as well the principle of accurate, complete information about the U.S. Speaker of the House's career, but come on.
Of course you're done discussing it, because you're clearly applying a double standard. God forbid you get called out on it. How typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 00:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
<--Happened to read the article and check the talk page. I see criticism sections in many articles of WP and I find nothing wrong with them. The two pages linked are both essays holding no weight. Anything better? Griffinofwales ( talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Consistency. What is so hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.242.50 ( talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with a criticism section as long as it's fair and balanced, and contains credible references. I agree that the criticism shouldn't come from the editors of Wikipedia, but well documented criticisms from reliable sources should be included to make a more elaborate article. Avoiding citations of criticism for one person and not another does not make a fair and balanced encyclopedia. Parcanman ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I can edit semi-protected now...but I just wanted to see what other people think about removing the sentence "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader; like the others (Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) she maintains negative approval ratings." I have sources that dispute this sentence, it's unsourced and not backed up, and Approval ratings are always changing. I just don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia like article, and I would say the same thing no matter what political figure was in question. JahnTeller07 ( talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence about Pelosi being the "least unpopular" congressional leader is not strange or awkward; it correctly accounts for reality that most congressional leaders have net negative approval ratings. Despite her net negative approval ratings, however, Pelosi typically remains less unpopular than her counterparts. Thus Pelosi is the "least unpopular" congressional leader.-- Edwinysun ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Already done
Pelosi's legislative record and leadership of the House should be spun-off from the "political positions" section. Here the article should detail the history of her role in the passage of legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses. -- Edwinysun ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx
This is just one poll which disputes the sentence I deleted. WrightisRight05 ( talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
12.5 million is not what you will find when you search elsewhere on sites that document the official congressional disclosures of net worth. It might have been last year, but it has been updated.
Realistically, she has a net worth of about 90 million, but the oft quoted statistic is in the range of 25 million to 35 million. Since representatives can list everything have a range of values, and since Pelosi lists many items as having a negative net worth, her overall range is from -33 million to 90 million, with an average of 33 million. This is a quote from one source:
According to an analysis of financial disclosure documents by The Hill newspaper, Speaker Pelosi's net worth rose last year by $9 million to a (very conservative) estimate of $21.7 million.
Should the statement of her net worth include the range and how congress members net worths are reported?
Whatever the case, according to The Hill, her net worth is $21.7 and is probably more realistically much more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.9.53 ( talk) 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was logged in. That is my comment about net worth above. Aaron hoffmeyer ( talk) 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Change title to Former House Speaker
Addyp9340 ( talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Saying "Former Speaker of the House" would be a false statement until January, however, it would be appropriate to write "Succeded by
John Boehner."
24.98.218.168 (
talk)
21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Pelosi has lost her position as House Speaker as of November 3, 2010. DragonFire1024 ( talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
How about,
"Nancy Pelosi has served as Speaker since January 4, 2007. Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 07:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Should probably go ahead and wedge in a placeholder for "Succeeded by: X" in the table. 173.59.225.169 ( talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does that mean? Barring some bizarre and, frankly, impossible series of circumstances, she WILL be removed as Speaker. Why is that phrase so wimpy on this fact? 71.49.83.246 ( talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The sentence "Pelosi is also reported to seek the office of Minority Leader rather than resign from Congress, as most former speakers have done." should be edited to "Pelosi is reported to seek the office of Minority Leader in the upcoming 112th Congress." The second half of the current sentence is highly inaccurate. In the last 150 years (and maybe in the entire history of the United States) the only ex-Speaker to resign following their party's relegation to minority status was Dennis Hastert.
Zentalon ( talk) 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I changed the text further, adding reference and removing speculation. Also note that resigning from Congress is not her only choice - she could certainly stay in Congress and not run for Minority Leader - so the text was more editorializing. Let's stick to the facts as reported.
Tvoz/
talk
16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, were anybody to make that change for clarity and accuracy, it would promptly be reversed on Liberalpedia, oops, meant to say Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"As Speaker, Pelosi is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden, which makes her the highest-ranking female politician in American history.[2]"
Based on information in the reference, this is misquoted. The referred article quotes Diane Sawyer as calling Pelosi the "most powerful woman in American history." Later on the article refers to Pelosi as "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." Given that two other women have held the post of Speaker of the House, the line as it currently stands in Wikipedia is inaccurate. Suggest using "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." and dropping the mention of history.
"Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."
I would recommend adding the current year and regularize the expression of date by dropping the ordinal: "...November 2, 2010," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivemile13 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right. However, the article is still misquoted. Perhaps the history should be mentioned separately, perhaps by quoting Sawyer's comment. Fivemile13 ( talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess since the article is not specifically quoted, but only cited, it can stand. Thanks for correcting the expression of date on the election. Fivemile13 ( talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain, but isn't Gun Control more of an important subject than a rambling, incoherant, and ultimately ambiguous statement about her feelings on Birth Control? Really, there should be a section on her record on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. I would venture to guess that Handgun Control Incorporated and the NRA both have a position on this lady. I seriously doubt that Trojan Condoms and Planned Parenthood really care, though. -- 132.22.254.237 ( talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
People, please refrain from putting Boehner down as Speaker-elect. The FULL House chooses the Speaker & it won't be doing so until January 2011. GoodDay ( talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto that. It's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Anything can happen between now and then. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove the number of the order they held the office in. For example, do not remove 60th Speaker of the House and just put she was Speaker of the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the language in the opening concerning the change of leadership. Technically, in the House there is no actual position called Majority Leader or Minority Leader, that is just how they are commonly referred to. The positions are Democratic Leader and Republican Leader. I've noted this and the common usage. Also, Pelosi did not get "re-elected" to this post because it is currently held by Steny Hoyer (the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are two different positions). I know, it's arcane parliamentary stuff, but need to be accurate. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a edit conflict. Perhaps it's best to straighten out differances 'here'. GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe there was a quote in the article that said "she will be replaced as speaker". How do you know? DO you have a crystal ball (see WP:CRYSTAL She may be replaced or probably will be replaced, but let's wait for the confirmation. Things could change. 24.128.247.159 ( talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I really think the section on Popularity of Speaker is a bit biased, and somewhat misleading. It cites a Rasmussen Poll (leans Conservative) and offers figures that are in some measure the result of relentless political attacks by Republicans and Republican-leaning media, on the speaker. Like her or not, should this section not also mention that among Democrats, she is very popular and considered effective? If we can't do that, can we at least mention that her "unpopularity" is somewhat partisan in nature, or can we mention the political attacks from conservative media outlets? Note: I am NOT asking for a defense of Speaker Pelosi, nor am I asking for an attack on Fox News. I am simply asking for a more balanced view about her popularity, or an explanation of why she is perceived so negatively by some.
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)But Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was 8% in one poll, conducted by a Republican-leaning pollster. That was my only quibble. The section needs context. If I can find other polls with different figures, or quotes favorable to her, may I add them without setting off World War III?
Please stop adding statements like "Pelosi will no longer be speaker" or "Pelosi will be Minority Leader". None of this is official until votes are cast on January 3. Please see Wp:Crystal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.247.159 ( talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been pushing all along that Pelosi's Speakership ended on January 3, 2011 & yet today, CNN coverage had her as still House Speaker. We need clarification folks. GoodDay ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft - a Boeing 757 - for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[49][50][51]
The requested aircraft in citations 49-51 was a G-5 Gulfstream. Citations 49-51 do not mention a Boeing 757 aircraft. Please correct this.
82.244.224.47 ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Has Rasmussen been declared unreliable and/or biased by wikipedia? I believe they are still considered reliable polls. Soxwon ( talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)My understanding as a free-lance writer and a media historian is they are considered Republican-leaning, and I've always been told to balance what they say with another poll that is considered more neutral.
DevorahLeah ( talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)I have no problem with her tenure as speaker being covered. And I have nothing against Rasmussen, although I would not rely on it. I simply felt the way the section was framed demonstrated conservative bias, and provided no context for the "facts" presented. To only provide one poll and say this "proves" something is misleading. I thought the section should be more neutral and should have provided both favorable and unfavorable information... or nothing at all. Thanks for the conversation about it.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I decided to clean up some of the article in preperation of her taking the speakership on thursday. If by some diabolical miracle she loses, I would be glad to put everything back the way it was, but I doubt it very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericl ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Section 3.13 states:
Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.
This explanation of the Patriot Act is not necessary and is certainly not neutral. It should be removed or edited. The words "tool," "ferreting out" and "lurking" are innapropriate in this context. ( 61.91.191.6 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
Read David Brook's Jan. 4, 2007 column in the New York Times.
It is clear that Nancy Pelosi rose to power largely due to her fundraising prowess. Before being elected, she arranged fundraising events for the Democratic party. In office, she raised money and donated it to her colleagues. Her husband is an "investor".
This fundraising side of Pelosi must be included, or else the article is grossly incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.14.5 ( talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6107062.stm
Her fundraising prowess is unquestioned: the mother-of-five has raised more for the Democrats in this mid-term election than almost anyone else.
Cannot edit - Why is this page non-editable? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.45.18.16 (
talk •
contribs)
Pelosi did not rise to power “largely because of her fundraising ability” no more than any other political leader did. It’s a job requirement for a political leader to be an excellent fundraiser. Many politicians who hold office raise money and donate it to their colleagues. It’s how the party system works. All the heavyweights do this.
Huckabee, Lieberman, Guiliani, Delay, Boehner, and Bush are all “known for their fundraising” yet none of their Wikipedia articles attribute their success as political leaders to their ability to raise money. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House because she is an excellent politician, just like all those who held this position before her. She is not Speaker of the House because she “bought it” and this POV is biased, chauvinistic and offensive.
David Brooks OPINION about Ms. Pelosi is scathingly sexist and cites no references. This Wikipedia article will be grossly negligent if it includes this biased POV. If you want to list and cite her incredible fundraising accomplishments, go for it. If you want to say that she raised more money than any other Democrat in a certain time period, find the citation and include it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Computerhag 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr Brooks column is an editorial -- an editorial is not fact. I am always confused by people that don't understand what an editorial is. Mr Brooks opinion is stated in his editorial columns. The wikipedia page on editorials does a marginally fair job at trying to define an editorial -- please note it is merely an opinion in mock-thesis form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisforgary ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi was minority whip in the 107th Congress, not minority leader.
"She has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged while increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes."
While it's true that Pelosi did advocate for tax increases, the targets of these increases are mostly the wealthy. For example, in a recent speech Pelosi stated "Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level", then refering that "certain level" to mean people whose annual incomes are over 250k-300k.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=8906 141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I question whether the opinions of the Traditional Values Coalition qualify as a Neutral Point of View in this context! -- Mpwrmnt 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Africa Pelosi sponsored the to Harvest bill, which urges the President to:
-
The statement "Pelosi has voted for federal funding of abortion facilities and for financial aid to such organizations." needs a citation. I don't know how to do it, but at
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2409&can_id=H0222103
It says that she voted in favor of said things.
Optimism.rll 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Optimism.rll 1/8/07 9:05 PM
First sentence is a pov problem because the text does not truly match the source (semantics) as it is a link to her voting record. Further along, Pelosi should not be refered to as "she". Last sentence needs sourcing.
=== Gun control ===. Pelosi voted against the 24 Hour Background Check Amendment bill. [1] Pelosi also voted for an amendment to this bill that would extend the waiting period to 72 hours. [2] Pelosi also voted against the Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995. [3] Pelosi has also voted against the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006" (HR 5013), which now mades it illegal for federal, state, and local authorities who are funded by federal monies to confiscate legally owned weapons in national emergencies. [4]
Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable about this subject that can fix this up and put it back in, as it is an important issue. Thanks. Jasper23 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jasper23. I have made the suggested corrections. Please review them and let me know if they are appropriate and in good taste. 71.115.7.71 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Thank you JoShua
This whole Political Platform section seems trumped-up and looks more like a laundry list of one-sentence headings. I looked at other articles for political leaders and many don't even have a section on platforms and votes (Hastert, Gingrich, Foley, Daschle, Lott, Dole). Those that do have a couple of paragraphs which highlight a significant platform, not track all activity. With this in mind, I re-read the entire section and honestly nothing stands out as significant. She appears to vote in a predictable pattern for a Democrat or with the majority. This whole section should either be removed or significantly streamlined.
The elections section is a list of useless information that doesn't add any significant information to this article.
Computerhag 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article on Pelosi, compared to others, has more information as it pertains to voting history is because Pelosi is a current political leader. I don't think the structure of the information presented for any one person has to follow the same pattern. It would be nice and I can understand how that would benefit the Wikipedia site in general. I think the more information that can be found, the better off the site will be. The information presented might not be significant to you or you might find it useless, but somebody took the time to create this section, so it must have been important to them. I don't want us to forget that the first amendment guarantees free speech. As long as the information presented is factual and has reliable cites, I don't see a problem. Voting history is a very important aspect to creating educated voters. Knowledge is power. Thank you, JoShua 03:26, 13 January 2007
This edit messed it up. Can someone please clean it up. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a communist, is she? Someone's trying to be funny. 81.159.240.240 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The top of the article says her middle name is Patricia and her maiden name is D'Alesandro. However, the "Early life" section says she was born as Nancy D'Alesandro, with no mention of her middle name. If her middle name was added through religious ceremony, i.e. baptism, that should be mentioned. Rhythmnation2004 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen alot of vandalism these last few days and I think it's time to lock this article for the non-account users.
Obviously some people can't
act civilized even though they are against the content of this article.
62.16.202.221
19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be restructured. Right now it is just a list of random positions and votes. There is no narrative and the list format invites random people to insert random things. Anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Jasper23 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly in the history of Congress. But when you speak of the American Federal government, you must also include the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor is arguably the most powerful female in the history of the American Federal government. It's close, anyway. MoodyGroove 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
:::That's in the intro already.
Xiner (
talk,
email)
21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be D'Alessandro, not D'Alesandro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForzaFabio ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
A user has reverted the revision:
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories but does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning American Samoa—its minimum wage is set by a committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Labor. [1] One Republican congressman who voted against the bill accused Pelosi of unethically benefiting a hometown company by the exclusion of the territory; Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. [2]
back to
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories except for American Samoa. The exclusion of American Samoa has attracted ethics criticism from one Republican congressman, since Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. [3]
It's worth noting that the text of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act) in its current form is completely silent on the issue of American Samoa. There is no special exemption that was not there before Rep. George Miller introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Settler 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section discussing what's wrong with her face. Any confirmed plastic surgery or botox overdoses? See, for example, Tina Fey's article and the section regarding her scar for precedent. Thats why I read this article, and I was disappointed to find that the answer isn't here. Maybe her aides removed it?
66.56.34.50 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is preemptive seeing as I am sitting here watching the State of the Union now, but perhaps President Bush's statement about it being his "honor and privilege" to be the first President to start his address with "Madam Speaker" should be recorded?
I've noticed that she seems to be blinking a lot during the State of the Union speech.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of publicly mischaracterizing her need for a larger military aircraft to travel back and forth from the West coast. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250781,00.html Crocoite 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, you have dismissed an editorial comment from one of the largest circulation newspapers in the United States, highlighting "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy from the third-highest ranking official in the most powerful government in the world, as "Freeper spin and vandalism." Would you care to discuss it? Dino 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm here now as well, Dino - (to protect Wikipedia) By the way... "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." My entire purpose here - FAAFA 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse.
Jpgordon, how does including notable, well-sourced criticism "make ... Democrat articles worse"?
Dino - what happened to this claim of yours? "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel ..."
FAAFA, I observe that you've joined your friend in Wikistalking me over here. You're claiming it's "to clear repeated errors," but the fact of the matter is that it's a content dispute, I've tried to disengage, and the two of you won't let me.
Now that the immediate danger of Wikipedia being sued has passed, I've turned my attention to making Wikipedia articles better. I am as serious as a heart attack about WP:NPOV. In general, articles about Republicans contain a great deal more criticism than articles about Democrats. Here we have an article about the Speaker of the House with 20 years of House service, and her article is shorter and contains less criticism than an article about a freshman GOP by the name of Peter Roskam, who has one month of service.
If you think that's a fluke, and that Roskam's article is not representative, compare the Pelosi article with Dennis Hastert's. Again, the Republican's article is loaded with criticism compared to this one.
The goal of making the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another more closely can be achieved by (1) making Republicans' articles less critical, or (2) making Democrats' articles more critical, or (3) both. I've chosen the third option. I hope that they will meet somewhere in the middle, and that we can all achieve consensus on the question of "how much criticism is too much," applying it equally to both Republicans and Democrats.
I will take whichever of the three options we can all reach a consensus about, if there's a substantial body of opinion claiming that the third option is unacceptable; but rest assured that one of the three options is needed and will be pursued. We can compare apples with apples (the Pelosi article with the Hastert article) or oranges with oranges (the Roskam article with the Melissa Bean article, for example). But in the end my point will be proven, and I suspect that all of you already realize that.
The New York Post editorial is notable criticism. Yet you choose to remove not just the excerpt from that editorial, but the entire section. Why? I've answered your question. Now it's your turn. This leaves the entire article almost devoid of criticism. Dino 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! - You win a prize Dean - 1) start naming those Republican scandals. 2) you've been on Wiki 3 weeks and you're telling an admin with a 3 year history how to run Wiki 3) you're spouting tin foil hattery nonsense about DU. 4) don't copy Crockspots with his 'Teh Rove'. Have some originality! Think up your own childish wordplays (you can't use my Chimpy-Bush-Laden ™ either!} - Fairness and Accuracy for Delay, Abramoff, Ney, and especially Randy 'Duke' Cunningham 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What is Dino attempting to do here? Show us any credible proof (and by credible, we mean NOT the editorial section of the New York Post!) of Pelosi ever requesting a C-32 plane, and then we'll add it in. That's all we're asking for. 12.149.141.19 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch the ongoing Dino/BenBurch/FAAFA shitstorm with a ten-foot pole covered in holy water, but I would like to point out that the prevailing mode of attack in modern politics is to throw everything you've got at the proverbial wall and see what sticks. I can't see how it's a good idea to record every non-criminal accusation that gets thrown before we know which accuastions actually have the potential to impact policy or elections. If this were an ethics/lawbreaking charge instead of "hypocrisy," I'd be more open to the idea - anything that carries the possibility of official censure, viz. Monica, is more noteworthy than something that has weight only in the court of public opinion. Every piece of partisan mud that gets slung cannot be encyclopedic, or the articles on the US Congress alone will explode the servers. ShaleZero 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You know what Dean? You and I actually agree that partisanship and POV issues are MAJOR problems for Wiki. One of the chief problems is that every contentious article has a group of partisans trying to sway it one way or another, and depending on the numbers, and how well they know WP, these partisans can be successful in turning ANY article into a hatchet job, or a glowing tribute, and not much can be done if you're in the minority. These partisans will spend hundreds of hours arguing about minor details - and the only way that the issue will be settled is through formal arbitration taking hundreds of more hours. Look at the arguments and RfA over Juan Cole for instance. This dispute has been going on since before I even got here. IMHO, I have the perfect solution. There are 100's of contentious articles that should be 'locked' and checked, then edited for POV by a team of experienced editors who have NO interest or feelings about the subject. The American political articles could be checked for POV and edited by Japanese Koi aficionados who don't even vote, for instance! Suggested changes would be debated on the talk pages, and no more than once a month the ones that are approved would be added to the article. The tens of thousand of hours wasted now by editors trying to affect POV could be spent actually improving Wiki because these fruitless battles would no longer exist. (are you listening Jimbo ;-) - FAAFA 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this article being written by Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh? I have added a couple of edits, here and there recently (which included good, fair, balanced information on Pelosi). The Wiki article editor, inexplicably, removed these edits (apparently to make room for the Rush/talk radio hatchet job on Pelosi, with non-stories like the "Pelosi plane affair.")
In the "The War on Terrorism" section, the article states simply that Pelosi voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution that authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I added this info below (which includes fair, balanced information in which Pelosi explained her 2002 vote at the time the vote was being conducted):
In explaining her opposition to the resolution, Pelosi noted that Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet had told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq's Saddam Hussein launching an attack on the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction was low. "This is about the Constitution," Pelosi said. "It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware what the challenges are to us. It is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops."
But, of course, the extreme-right-wing Rush-loving Wiki editors removed this edit of mine. It's quite amusing how Wiki claims to be "neutral." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.57 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, February 15, 2007
we need a section devoted to CONTROVERSIES that cover allegations against Pelosi. You will find a controversy section on *EVERY SINGLE* major conservative on Wiki (show me one that doesn't). So to be fair, and NPOV, we need to make sure that readers of Wiki are informed of Pelosi's controversies. I want to know about her failed promises and be informed of any allegations against her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 ( talk) 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
What about the failed promises of Pelosi? I'd like to see those in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 ( talk) 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
[ [5]] and [ [6]] off the top of my head. Both possible presidential candidates and Brownback is very conservative. I just gave you two but you only asked for one. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is in bad need of some detail on the failed promises. Congress under Pelosi's leadership is experiencing some of the lowest approval ratings ever (lower than President Bush's!), yet this article contains almost no information about why this may be so. During the campaign she promised to pursue oversight of Bush, but she has blocked this oversight in many ways other than simply blocking impeachment proceedings. For example, it has now been more than 3 months since the house judiciary committee passed its recommendation that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten should be held in contempt of congress. This is the only oversight-related recommendation that the house judiciary committee has made in the 110th congress, and it has been blocked by Pelosi. Surely this is in some way relevant to the article? When I attempted to add it, User:Loonymonkey reverted it without consideration. Does anyone have any advice for how best to make these statements without compromising neutrality? 74.129.232.248 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First, JPgordon, if you object to a few words of the paragraph I added, I respectfully suggest that you should have deleted those few words rather than the entire paragraph. Second, the sourcing in the Washington Post is as solid as depleted uranium. Third, the reference to Pelosi's explicit rejection of the term limits proposal is on the second page of the Washington Post story, about halfway down the page. Let's work together to make this a better article rather than engaging in an edit war, or accusing each other of harboring bias. I encourage you to replace the paragraph you just deleted. Dino 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I think. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
Could an administrator please semi-protect this article to cut down on some of the rampant vandalism here? Thanks. Dce7 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Infobox says she has been in the same district since '87 and Sala Burton preccedded her. Shes been in district 8 since 1993. From 87-93 she was in district 5 precceded by Sala Burtton. Now her predessecor in 8 is Ronald V. Dellums.
I'm moving the Logan Act stuff to the section about the Middle East trip--it doesn't need its own heading. Also, I removed link to the blog per WP:RS. It's citing the WSJ piece anyway. I also removed the comment that Pelosi "has not been indicted"--there is no expectation that the Speaker of the House would be indicted and little evidence that she should be. To include that sentence is implying that she has done something wrong, which is POV for sure. It's enough (or maybe even too much) to say that some people think she violated the Logan Act. Dce7 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pelosi has not violated the Logan Act; the WSJ editorial is off the mark. Check the NY Post editorial linked to above, and also have a look at this CRS report about the Logan Act. If a CRS report is not a reliable source I don't know what is. Page 9 says that the Logan Act is not directed at members of Congress. [9] Dce7 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The section on Pelosi's trip to Syria appears to be non-controversial, but for one line: "Some people say...Logan Act...," and a reference to opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is not WSJ. The controversial line should be deleted until a neutral, objective source can be identified. ctj 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. She 'violated' a provision of an 'act' which has NEVER been enforced, in over 200 years since it was originally adopted (check out " Logan Act", don't believe me!). This 'act' has a 200 year history of being a complete non-starter...if someone has an opinion that's contrary to the party in power, it's treasonous to voice it. What an abomination to the first amendment of our Constitution! I can't believe any but the true "Bushies" lend any credence to this claim. This is desperate 'reaching' beyond anything I've seen so far.
Loonymonkey has removed the information regarding the logan act. His given reason was "Agreed with previous. This never broke from blogs to real news. Not worthy of inclusion." This is absolutely worthy of inclusion. It was covered on several news channels including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, plus pretty much every local affiliate news program where I live (Phoenix, AZ). Also, it was discussed all over the place on several prominent and widely used news and editorial pages all over the internet. Also, this information is well covered over in the Logan Act article, so if it's worth mentioning there I think it's definitely worth mentioning here. Here are just a select few I found in less then 2 seconds of searching:
I'm putting the information back in the article as it was newsworthy and widely covered. Elhector 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlODU3MDc3ZjEzZjEzYzVkNGRmNzhiYmZiNjkwNTI= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the "Democratic Party Leadership" section.
Over one third of the section is one Rep.'s opinion (cited from "The Nation" of all places) of Ms. Pelosi being "too liberal." There are plently of people in political power who had the opposite opinion (quotes upon request)...why is Ford the only one allowed to comment on the Speaker?
Besides, both sides are well shown in the "Political platform and voting record" section. Is this biased quote even necessary?
69.136.84.130 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Aislin
"Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — met with with Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier, although the Bush administration asked Pelosi, as the leader of the Democratic Party, not to visit a state sponsor of terror."
This section is carefully worded in order to make it appear that Bush approved of the visit by three Republicans and was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit. However, the White House publically rebuked all U.S. officials visiting Syria unilaterally.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534
Not that I am looking to cleanse Pelosi's record, but the two sections that point out run-ins with regulatory bodies, the ones titled "Political action committee fined" and "Failure to disclose role in family charity" just seem completely disjoint from the rest of the article. Neither of these events were significant to her career.. there were no further ramifications of them, they were not turning points.. they are barely notable. She had regulatory issues, they got taken care of, and no other consequences came of them. I propose to remove them both and tighten this article up to only those parts that are absolutely necessary.
Thursday 4/19/07
Hi!
This cannot be true! Was Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi really born on born March 26, 1900? That would make her over 100! I don't know what the correct date is or how to correct it myself. Can someone look into this for me.
Thanks 69.116.8.163 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Melissa
I don't think the current picture is adequate. Thoughts on using a different one? Maybe one that isn't lit to look like there's a hole in her temple? 134.84.100.80 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The link is down or something for the source claiming Del Monte didn't contribute for democratic campaigns under the Minimum Wage Section of the article. If the website where this source is hosted continues to have this problem of being unreliable and not displaying requested sources, the section of the article should be amended or another source found. 72.45.14.84 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This subsection doesn't seem to meet the quality standards to be included in a main article on Nancy Pelosi. It authoritatively says that a member of Congress failing to disclose their role in such a charity is illegal, when that's very much disputed. The public law that regulates financial disclosures of members of Congress explicitly offers specific exceptions to the rule that says members have to disclose their roles in certain organizations, and charities are one of those exceptions. 76.97.107.61 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
An extensive search on lexis-nexis has revealed exactly two articles on this subject (same paper, same author, same day). Is this even really a controversy? Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel, says it's illegal but that prosecutions are rare. So rare, apparently, that not a single example is given. And this is so controversial that not a single follow-up story could be found. R. Baley 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It belongs whether you like it or not. You can go to just about any Democrat's or Republican's Wiki pages and find whole sections devoted to "controversies" no matter how significant or trivial. Heck, some people have entire pages devoted to their controversies. I don't see any of you bitching about those. The fact of the matter is that this was a real event, it was notable, and it was reported in a reliable source. Whatever criticism of its inclusion in the article you have is simply made up of whole cloth and I suspect it is wholly based on your personal prejudices. Jinxmchue 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the Bill Frist article. Frist did almost the exact same thing Pelosi did and failed to disclose his status with a family charity. The Frist article, though, integrates this information in a much more appropriate (though not necessarily perfect) way; the charity disclosure stuff is mentioned under a section about Frist's financial status. At a minimum, this supposed controversy does not deserve its own attention-grabbing section heading in the Pelosi article, and it needs to be better integrated into the article. Perhaps the sentence in question could be moved up to the "Family" section of the article, which contains information about Pelosi's financial status. Dce7 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
User:69.142.1.189 keeps adding in a statement that Pelosi is the wealthiest Speaker of the House ever. I've removed this statement because the person who has added it refuses to give a citation, but he/she keeps putting it back in and I can't remove it again without violating WP:3RR. Could someone else please take it out or find a citation? Thanks, Dce7 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This begs a question on whether it goes by personal income or congressional pay. In the latter case, she would be tied with Hastert, as there was no increase for the Speaker or pro-tempore this session. -- 70.141.10.214 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Three questions / requests: 1) According to the Clerk's office, there were a ton of write-in votes in Pelosi's 2004 election. Now, 5,000+ write-in votes from nowhere simply does not happen unless someone's running a campaign and stirring people up. Nevertheless, the Clerk's office declined to mention the name, and some other election sites (like CNN) don't even acknowledge these votes' existence. Does anyone know what the heck happened?
2) Are there any good sources on Pelosi's special election in 1987? It's mentioned in passing several places, but I can't find the straight up numerical results, nor exactly the format (I assume that this was an "everyone jumps in with no primary" thing, hence the two dems in the race?). This is a matter of public record, yet several creative Google searches aren't turning up much.
3) Was it more a renumbering of districts from the 5th->8th in 1992, or did Pelosi actively hop into a basically new district after the redistricting (a la Newt Gingrich)? This would be good to mention in the article. SnowFire 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright 1987 The New York Times Company
The New York Times April 9, 1987, Thursday, Late City Final Edition SECTION: Section A; Page 14, Column 4; National Desk
LENGTH: 709 words (185 words posted here, out of copyright concerns –feel free to delete if necessary once info is used) HEADLINE: HOUSE RACE IN WEST GOES TO RUNOFF BYLINE: By ROBERT LINDSEY, Special to the New York Times
BODY: 'Nancy Pelosi, a former state Democratic chairman, outpolled five fellow Democrats and eight other candidates in a special election Tuesday to fill the unexpired Congressional term of Sala Burton, who died Feb. 1. Because more than 64 percent of the voters in the Fifth Congressional District are Democrats, she is widely expected to win the House seat in a runoff election June 2 against Harriet Ross, a deputy public defender who led three other Republicans. The candidates of four minor parties will also be in the runoff. Mrs. Pelosi received 38,021 votes, 36 percent of the votes casts for all 14 candidates, followed by Supervisor Harry Britt, a Democrat who is a leader among local homosexuals, with 34,031, or 32.2 percent.'
snip
Credit for Senate Takeover
Mrs. Pelosi, who is 47 years old, has never held elective office before. She was chairman of the host committee of the 1984 Democratic National Convention and, as chairman of the 1986 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been praised by party members with playing a key role in the successful Democratic effort to regain control of the United States Senate.
According to the washington post(June 3, 1987; no author; p A5 title: 'Nancy Pelosi Wins House Seat') Pelosi went on to win the runoff against Republican Harriet Ross. "With all but one of the 543 precincts reported, Pelosi had 45,719 votes for a better than 2 to 1 majority over Ross, who had 22,162 votes. Four independent party candidates got 4,308 votes. Turnout yesterday was about 24 percent of the 300,000 registered voters in the congressional district." R. Baley 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Pelosi has been the subject of heaps of notable criticism, especially as of late. Why is there not a controversy section, which is prevalent in most other politicians' profiles? -- 70.141.10.214 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In some articles, criticisms are written into the existing sections. I haven't examined this article to see if that's the case, but if you have specific criticisms you'd like to weave into the article, that would probably be the best approach at the current time.-- Gloriamarie 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
my addition to pelosi's attidue to Turkey and the so-called Armenian Genocide has been cur out by the editors, whose identity I don't know. Some of them might work for the PR office of the Pelosi, who probably regularly check the wikipedia secton on Pelosi. I do strongly think that there shall be criticism sections, as Pelosi has a lot of controversial stance issues. Her unconditional favorism of Armenians is one of such issues. If you are okay I would go and add these type of criticism on Pelosi's page. Raman, Amherst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.72.6 ( talk) 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Citations 19, 20, and 21 are all cited to a "Project Vote Smart" website, but the pages are no longer available, therefore the claims are not properly cited and should be. Happyme22 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the section is long and sprawling and ready for its own article. That would make this page much more readable.Agreement? Disagreement? Turtlescrubber 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is not excessively long at this time, her political positions are important, and they add to the article rather than detract. I don't think she warrants a separate page for her political positions at this time.-- Gloriamarie 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much speaks for itself. I'm aware that the final sentence might not be up to wiki standards, but I do think it's important to let the reader know that Pelosi's position on Colombia has been criticized from both the left and right.
Gay rights section and the Civil liberties section both mention the same vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Seems redundant. It may be useful to mention it in both, but with each section following after another, its not needed. I suppose we should only put that mention once in the gay rights section.
Hi, please write a bout her field and how come she passed levels up to became Nancy now? I wish one day i become like her. I think women like her are strong and every woman proud of her.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). What do you mean by her field?-- Gloriamarie 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like it should be there at all. It was a non-issue at the time and was mentioned for a day or two in various conservative blogs, but never jumped over into real news. What is the controversy? Plus, the citation for it is from the laughable Worldnetdaily, not exactly a credible news source.
The dust settled on this one ages ago. It simply isn't worthy of inclusion. I've tried removing it, but it keeps getting reverted.
Comments? -- Loonymonkey 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Several users believe the information on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act stemming from her trip to Syria should be removed from the article. The given reasons are that it was a non-issue and may not have recieved enough news coverage to be important. Please read the discussions conerning this above and leave your opinion below. Thanks! Elhector 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfC template now. The info had already been removed from the article long before there was any feed back here so I guess it was really pointless starting it and trying to go that route. In any event the RfC has been open for a few weeks and this looks like all the feedback we're going to get. Most of the feedback recieved at this point is pro removing the info so what's done is done. Thanks for everyone's participation that commented above! Elhector 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Pelosi married? If yes, who is her husband? There is nothing on her husband in the article. Quite surprising for the lady who came so close to the presidency and who has a lot of children?
This page could use a semi-protection. IP vandalism is very high. -- VartanM 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Enhanced interrogation" should not be accepted as a NPOV term even when used is a section title as "Enhanced interrogation/Torture". Can that section title be changed to something more neutral such as "The controversy over what constitutes torture" ? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jee what a great record. She should be in a Congres somewhere to make it come true. If not: it is a cheap bullshit record. Let's wipe it out. PR only - DePiep ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Found this in the article and removed it. One of the more shameless examples of POV I've seen. My emphasis added: Sources at the Israeli Prime Minister's Office at the time said that, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her".[29] She has continued this practice without reservation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC) KVND 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It says she was born in 1940 AND married in 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.186.184.126 ( talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How about starting a controversies section? It seems to be a popular trend on Wikipedia for a variety of public figures. Surely the House Speaker (whomever he or she is at any given time) has been involved in controversial issues, whether self-started or having become embroiled. 96.234.182.35 ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, can you all stop acting like controversy pages are so against wiki policy, when rush limbaugh has a page thats longer than pelosi's normal one? you arent fooling anyone, and it make you guys seem a lot more credible if the same rules applied to people you like and dislike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009
{{ Editprotected}} I'm a staff member at On Point (NPR) - Hoping to add external links of times when she was featured on our show. Pdrosso ( talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading of "Waterboarding and CIA controversy" there is a link on "Office of Legislative Counsel" that redirects to "Office of Legal Counsel". I thought they were different in that Office of LEGISLATIVE Counsel was part of the Office of the Clerk and not part of the Department of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.198.151 ( talk) 02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like there should be a lot more information regarding her fight for a public health care option. This deserves its own section if you ask me. Deepfryer99 ( talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone should fix the following text from the article:
As you see, it does not make any sense Wlod ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
This is terribly in the past, it looks like it hasn't gotten a good update since 2007. All it says about health care is that she supports Medicaid? Really? It's a terrible information source for one of the most powerful people in the world. US2010 ( talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It says "List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards". Is this really appropriate? She's the Speaker of the House, not a celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.225.130 ( talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Is her name actually "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi"? Congressional Biographical Directory doesn't mention "Patricia" at all and just notes "D'Alesandro" as her maiden name. Nor does her website mention either her middle name or say her maiden name is part of her name currently. If "D'Alesandro" isn't in her name currently, then we should say "Nancy [Patricia] Pelosi, née D'Alesandro", not "Nancy [Patricia] D'Alesandro Pelosi". We should also find decent evidence for "Patricia", which seems to be lacking. john k ( talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
"Pelosi is up for re-election in 2010 facing a challenge from Libertarian Republican John Dennis. Dennis is the founder of the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus. John Dennis supports peace, and opposes the War in Afghanistan."
This is a ridiculous thing to include in the opening paragraphs of an article about Nancy Pelosi. It's transparent, topical political advertising in the introduction to a reference article and should be deleted. Loccol ( talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"Pelosi, an admitted lesbian..." This statement is factually inaccurate. Please correct immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.6.91 ( talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I find it completely inappropriate to list a politician's religion in the info box. It looks to me like religious affiliation is given equal prominence with political party or job history for these public figures. Is it American POV to say that there should be no religious test for public office? Is there another discussion thread on this? 173.8.220.209 ( talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 Loccol ( talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
Rep. Charles Rangel on 03312010 stated on NY1 News that "was the strongest Speaker in recent history..." and perhaps "...of all time" I am not getting involved in the politics, but that may be notable.
{{editsemiprotected}}
I think D'Alessandro (with double s) is the correct spelling. I'm from Italy and I never see the word Alesandro, while Alessandro is a widely used name. An english source that confirm this: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Pelosi,+Nancy+Patricia+D%27Alessandro
Alv21 ( talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Someone inserted the words "is a bitch" into this page. It's probably a good idea to get rid of that.
Nopaniers ( talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you edit this so it reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like a 7th grade book report? Nobody cares whether or not she "publicly scolded" somebody as it's ultimately immaterial. And the section starting with "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader..." is innane and premature given that she's still in office and perceptions of her are changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.241.114 ( talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What a ridiculous picture. What is it - 30 years old? Here is another: http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.JPG That's what she really looks like, not her high school picture above! Geeze: Wikipedia The Democratic Advocacy Site and Web Encyclopedia !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.194.111 ( talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What is it with wiki nowadays? You guys are afraid to make a criticism/controversy page for obama and pelosi, and i cant understand why. there are certainly more than enough incidents... you guys have no problem going after republicans, how bout being a little fair? 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
John Boehner has a "Political Controversies" section... while I'm sure it is valid, I dare say most polls would show that Pelosi is more controversial than he is. I might add that her colleague in the Senate, Harry Reid, also has a "Criticism" section. It's a fair request, IMO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 03:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
They do. They are all about politicians. You have to apply the same standard, to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. But then, this is Wikipedia after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That would seem to be every edition, at least as it relates to the issue at hand.. I can't see Britannica including criticism sections in some entries and not others unless no criticism existed (I think even the know-it-alls here would have a hard enough time finding such a person, esp. in politics). As for getting rid of the ones that exist, that would seem to make sense IF it would ever happen. If it has been stated previously so many times, perhaps someone can explain why it has not happened to date? Case in point: the so-called irrelevant entries... I know it's easier to avoid the basic and reasonable premise of uniformity as well the principle of accurate, complete information about the U.S. Speaker of the House's career, but come on.
Of course you're done discussing it, because you're clearly applying a double standard. God forbid you get called out on it. How typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 ( talk) 00:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
<--Happened to read the article and check the talk page. I see criticism sections in many articles of WP and I find nothing wrong with them. The two pages linked are both essays holding no weight. Anything better? Griffinofwales ( talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Consistency. What is so hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.242.50 ( talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with a criticism section as long as it's fair and balanced, and contains credible references. I agree that the criticism shouldn't come from the editors of Wikipedia, but well documented criticisms from reliable sources should be included to make a more elaborate article. Avoiding citations of criticism for one person and not another does not make a fair and balanced encyclopedia. Parcanman ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I can edit semi-protected now...but I just wanted to see what other people think about removing the sentence "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader; like the others (Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) she maintains negative approval ratings." I have sources that dispute this sentence, it's unsourced and not backed up, and Approval ratings are always changing. I just don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia like article, and I would say the same thing no matter what political figure was in question. JahnTeller07 ( talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence about Pelosi being the "least unpopular" congressional leader is not strange or awkward; it correctly accounts for reality that most congressional leaders have net negative approval ratings. Despite her net negative approval ratings, however, Pelosi typically remains less unpopular than her counterparts. Thus Pelosi is the "least unpopular" congressional leader.-- Edwinysun ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Already done
Pelosi's legislative record and leadership of the House should be spun-off from the "political positions" section. Here the article should detail the history of her role in the passage of legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses. -- Edwinysun ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx
This is just one poll which disputes the sentence I deleted. WrightisRight05 ( talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
12.5 million is not what you will find when you search elsewhere on sites that document the official congressional disclosures of net worth. It might have been last year, but it has been updated.
Realistically, she has a net worth of about 90 million, but the oft quoted statistic is in the range of 25 million to 35 million. Since representatives can list everything have a range of values, and since Pelosi lists many items as having a negative net worth, her overall range is from -33 million to 90 million, with an average of 33 million. This is a quote from one source:
According to an analysis of financial disclosure documents by The Hill newspaper, Speaker Pelosi's net worth rose last year by $9 million to a (very conservative) estimate of $21.7 million.
Should the statement of her net worth include the range and how congress members net worths are reported?
Whatever the case, according to The Hill, her net worth is $21.7 and is probably more realistically much more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.9.53 ( talk) 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was logged in. That is my comment about net worth above. Aaron hoffmeyer ( talk) 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Change title to Former House Speaker
Addyp9340 ( talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Saying "Former Speaker of the House" would be a false statement until January, however, it would be appropriate to write "Succeded by
John Boehner."
24.98.218.168 (
talk)
21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Pelosi has lost her position as House Speaker as of November 3, 2010. DragonFire1024 ( talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
How about,
"Nancy Pelosi has served as Speaker since January 4, 2007. Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 07:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Should probably go ahead and wedge in a placeholder for "Succeeded by: X" in the table. 173.59.225.169 ( talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does that mean? Barring some bizarre and, frankly, impossible series of circumstances, she WILL be removed as Speaker. Why is that phrase so wimpy on this fact? 71.49.83.246 ( talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The sentence "Pelosi is also reported to seek the office of Minority Leader rather than resign from Congress, as most former speakers have done." should be edited to "Pelosi is reported to seek the office of Minority Leader in the upcoming 112th Congress." The second half of the current sentence is highly inaccurate. In the last 150 years (and maybe in the entire history of the United States) the only ex-Speaker to resign following their party's relegation to minority status was Dennis Hastert.
Zentalon ( talk) 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I changed the text further, adding reference and removing speculation. Also note that resigning from Congress is not her only choice - she could certainly stay in Congress and not run for Minority Leader - so the text was more editorializing. Let's stick to the facts as reported.
Tvoz/
talk
16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, were anybody to make that change for clarity and accuracy, it would promptly be reversed on Liberalpedia, oops, meant to say Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"As Speaker, Pelosi is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden, which makes her the highest-ranking female politician in American history.[2]"
Based on information in the reference, this is misquoted. The referred article quotes Diane Sawyer as calling Pelosi the "most powerful woman in American history." Later on the article refers to Pelosi as "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." Given that two other women have held the post of Speaker of the House, the line as it currently stands in Wikipedia is inaccurate. Suggest using "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." and dropping the mention of history.
"Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."
I would recommend adding the current year and regularize the expression of date by dropping the ordinal: "...November 2, 2010," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivemile13 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right. However, the article is still misquoted. Perhaps the history should be mentioned separately, perhaps by quoting Sawyer's comment. Fivemile13 ( talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess since the article is not specifically quoted, but only cited, it can stand. Thanks for correcting the expression of date on the election. Fivemile13 ( talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain, but isn't Gun Control more of an important subject than a rambling, incoherant, and ultimately ambiguous statement about her feelings on Birth Control? Really, there should be a section on her record on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. I would venture to guess that Handgun Control Incorporated and the NRA both have a position on this lady. I seriously doubt that Trojan Condoms and Planned Parenthood really care, though. -- 132.22.254.237 ( talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
People, please refrain from putting Boehner down as Speaker-elect. The FULL House chooses the Speaker & it won't be doing so until January 2011. GoodDay ( talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto that. It's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Anything can happen between now and then. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove the number of the order they held the office in. For example, do not remove 60th Speaker of the House and just put she was Speaker of the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the language in the opening concerning the change of leadership. Technically, in the House there is no actual position called Majority Leader or Minority Leader, that is just how they are commonly referred to. The positions are Democratic Leader and Republican Leader. I've noted this and the common usage. Also, Pelosi did not get "re-elected" to this post because it is currently held by Steny Hoyer (the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are two different positions). I know, it's arcane parliamentary stuff, but need to be accurate. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a edit conflict. Perhaps it's best to straighten out differances 'here'. GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe there was a quote in the article that said "she will be replaced as speaker". How do you know? DO you have a crystal ball (see WP:CRYSTAL She may be replaced or probably will be replaced, but let's wait for the confirmation. Things could change. 24.128.247.159 ( talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I really think the section on Popularity of Speaker is a bit biased, and somewhat misleading. It cites a Rasmussen Poll (leans Conservative) and offers figures that are in some measure the result of relentless political attacks by Republicans and Republican-leaning media, on the speaker. Like her or not, should this section not also mention that among Democrats, she is very popular and considered effective? If we can't do that, can we at least mention that her "unpopularity" is somewhat partisan in nature, or can we mention the political attacks from conservative media outlets? Note: I am NOT asking for a defense of Speaker Pelosi, nor am I asking for an attack on Fox News. I am simply asking for a more balanced view about her popularity, or an explanation of why she is perceived so negatively by some.
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)But Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was 8% in one poll, conducted by a Republican-leaning pollster. That was my only quibble. The section needs context. If I can find other polls with different figures, or quotes favorable to her, may I add them without setting off World War III?
Please stop adding statements like "Pelosi will no longer be speaker" or "Pelosi will be Minority Leader". None of this is official until votes are cast on January 3. Please see Wp:Crystal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.247.159 ( talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been pushing all along that Pelosi's Speakership ended on January 3, 2011 & yet today, CNN coverage had her as still House Speaker. We need clarification folks. GoodDay ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft - a Boeing 757 - for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[49][50][51]
The requested aircraft in citations 49-51 was a G-5 Gulfstream. Citations 49-51 do not mention a Boeing 757 aircraft. Please correct this.
82.244.224.47 ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Has Rasmussen been declared unreliable and/or biased by wikipedia? I believe they are still considered reliable polls. Soxwon ( talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
DevorahLeah ( talk) 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)My understanding as a free-lance writer and a media historian is they are considered Republican-leaning, and I've always been told to balance what they say with another poll that is considered more neutral.
DevorahLeah ( talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)I have no problem with her tenure as speaker being covered. And I have nothing against Rasmussen, although I would not rely on it. I simply felt the way the section was framed demonstrated conservative bias, and provided no context for the "facts" presented. To only provide one poll and say this "proves" something is misleading. I thought the section should be more neutral and should have provided both favorable and unfavorable information... or nothing at all. Thanks for the conversation about it.