Talk:Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

I noticed that her name is Ponce Niggerton while her real name is Nancy Pelosi please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaigyo (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 April 2009

Controversy Section?

I removed my request for comment; I found the "waterboarding" section already present in the article.

The following are my reasons for why a Controversy Section be added, including the two balanced sources from which one claims Pelosi didn't know about waterboarding and another reliable source arguing that she did get briefed on waterboarding back in 2002. All insight on this section and on the addition of it in the article may serve the subject and our readers best is appreciated. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In compliance with Wikipedia:NPOV as per Writing for the "enemy", the neutrality policy says claims dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources are acceptable because the attributing claim is made by someone else. For instance, it is acceptable to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________."

Moreover, the policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

Point being, here's recent controversy surrounding a claim Nancy Pelosi made; one source discussing that SHE DID get briefed on waterboarding, and another where Pelosi claims SHE DIDN'T know about use the of waterboarding. Since this information is well documented but is also controversial, if presented in a neutral point of view and by also adding both sourced articles (above), may I add it into the article? Recommendations on its location within the article will also be helpful, too. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Added relevant, reliable source to waterboarding section. No need for "controversy section." Tycoon24 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Partisan?

What are others feelings on the current wheel war going on with the most partisan survey? My personal opinion is that it amounts to trivia and clutters an already cluttered article, providing no real informational value. Additionally from reading the hill article the label has nothing to do with her political views, it is more about her procedural actions. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that the next person to revert this without at least pretending to discuss it on talk is going to get blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How is there no value for this? It shows that she is very partisan. Maybe it is not a political view, but it is worthy of a mention. The Red Peacock (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It shows a select group of house republicans think she is partisan, it does not show she is very partisan. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm against using bits of information like this based on opinions. My feelings are we should show, not tell. I feel the same way about approval ratings, we should be showing what's actually happening and not what people's opinions are on it. Dayewalker (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no universally, scientifically, or statistically defined/accepted metric by which one defines another's degree of "partisanship". This "survey" is simply meant to inflame and malign, as well as give conservatives more talking points and to posture some pseudo-statistical data as fact. It is similar to people saying that the President is "the most partisan president in history" because it truly means nothing and is grounded more in opinion than fact; It is simply not encyclopedic. DKqwerty (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, DKqwerty. faithless (^speak) 01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RemovedKVND 16:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Third" in line

{{editsemiprotected}}

I've seen and heard this same 'mistake' many times; at least it is in my mind -- The speaker of the House is "third in-line" of presidential succession. This should state "Second in-line"

The following is the statement on this page:

"As Speaker of the House, Pelosi ranks third in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden,.... "

The following is from the Wiki. Note the # next to the Speaker, ie, # 2:

This is a list of the current presidential line of succession[1], as specified by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. § 19) and subsequent amendments to include newly created cabinet officers.

1. Office Current Officer

1 Vice President and President of the Senate Joe Biden 2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi 3 President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd 4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner 6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 7 Attorney General Eric Holder 8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar 9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack 10 Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke 11 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis 12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius 13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan 14 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood 15 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu 16 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki 18 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

Regards,

Rick

I agree. According to simple counting she is second in line of Presidential succession. I understand that the speaker could be considered third in line for the presidency if one considers a sitting president "first in line", though even that is a stretch because "in line" implies waiting, not sitting. I agree that this error is made very often in many media. I second the motion to have it read "Pelosi ranks second in the line of presidential succession". DKqwerty (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, done - grammatical error; in the same way, for example, Prince Henry of Wales is third in line to the UK Throne; William is 2nd in line, Charles is 1st and the Queen is the Queen.  Chzz  ►  10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Religion

Religion should be changed to lapsed Roman Catholic or former Roman Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.154.111 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any [WP:RS|reliable sources]] to show she is lapsed? Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no sources. This is something conservative Catholics say about any Catholic politician who supports abortion rights.KVND 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

I noticed that we had a popularity section for Harry Reid, perhaps we should have one for Pelosi? - Nite Owl II 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding/CIA scandal

It's obvious it's the CIA's word against hers, and the section is written in the CIA's favor, but on the Colbert Report a week or so ago, Senator Bob Graham, who was the "Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence" claimed he also wasn't informed about the "enhanced interrogation techniques," and that the CIA told him and the press he was. I think it's pretty significant to add this to the section... Xmzx (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob_Graham maybe playing damage control for Pelosi since he is a member of her party....just sayin he may be covering up for her SACP (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seven years ago he falsely documented something in his notebook just in case he'd have to cover for her in 2009. DKqwerty (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelosi's career path

Nancy Pelosi has been and probably yet is the subject of a call-demand influence network. One applicable question, believe it or not, is whether her political career will continue if her newsletter is discontinued; as a sort of political journalism, its continuance also continues her political placements. Unfortunately, the same influence-network has also operated to ruin other women's lives as a continuous report/reply demand strategy interference -- see the unfortunate results for various 'Cindy's. beadtot66.217.68.79 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you even have a point? Or did you just string random English words together? DKqwerty (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Which dog tags?

I don't understand. Pelosi held up the dog tags of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas in 2006 says section Nancy Pelosi#Israel. They were kidnapped, how did the dog tags get into Washington? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They are replica's, presented to members of congress by a Jewish lobbying group on the 1 year anniversary of the indefinite detention of the Israeli enemy combatants by the Hezbollah in 2006 [1]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well OK then, that should be written there. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Political positions and voting record: idle and void

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

What are you talking about? There are 435 members of congress (give or take) and they vote on things. The senate and the president also have their say, so her political positions and voting record do not become law. This section is useful for informing people about Pelosi's stands and votes on the issues. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about: her opinions are irrelevant. If her voice is 1 out of 435 then it doesn't matter, don't you think. What did she do or reach? Why write down 435 opinions on say 12 subjects? Not relevant. US Congress is not about "vote on things", or having a say. It is about laying down a law. Being some first in Hiroshima does nothing. I repeat: she should be in legislation, making laws. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, this article should represent that. Not her traveling scheme. What is hetr record? Any blood or fighting visibele? -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the editing of this article. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for an explanation of why it's inappropriate to engage in general discussion about the subject of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculative POV

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