Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Random Unsigned Comment

the particular source about her keeping a ledger about political favors has routinely and repeatedly been repudiated and been proven false. this site is intended to be a sourse of facts......

In addition to the other comments, I noticed the heading "Abortion" also contains "Killing Babies," obviously the position of some who do not favor a woman's right to control her own body and reproductory functions. Delete the words following "Abortion" since this is supposed to be a neutral biography and not a political diatribe. (Thank you -- I see it has been corrected.)


It's not a POV, it's fact:

"In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News. The BBC has been consistently critical of Bush and the Iraq war. U.S. Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive materials in “powdered form, which is easily dispersed,” said Bryan Wilkes, an Energy Department spokesman. The material would have been ideal for a radioactive dirty bomb. Then energy secretary Spencer Abraham hailed the operation as “a major achievement.” Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland’s military intelligence chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents."


A. Falsely is a strong, clearly POV word, stop trying to hide it as anything else.
B. Radioactive material doesn't equal WMD's, so you are wrong anyways. Staxringold 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Enriched uranium is 90% of the way to a bomb. The Hiroshima bomb wasn't terribly complicated, and used this type of material. Plutonium takes a lot more talent to set off. If this article is true, and there was 1.77 metric tons of uranium that qualifies as enriched, then if the French had gotten their way in getting the sanctions dropped (they were trying from about 1998 on) Saddam would have had nukes within a year or two. U-235 bombs are seriously easy to make once you have the material. It's just a gun firing a slug of uranium into a target of it.

Changed back to reflect reality.

I'm newly registered, so I can't make changes, but here's an article from August 11, 2004 showing that Iraq had ended its nuclear weapons program in '91:

The fact that they had some uranium left over from their old nuclear program and some radioactive medical and industrial supplies does not imply a weapons program. Someone should change this article to say that Iraq had no WMD programs. It is common knowledge now that they had no WMDs or WMD programs. Whatever Pelosi may have said, there were no WMD programs, and to say that she "acknowledged" them implies that there were weapons programs. Someone should edit this.

CelestialDog 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Something needs to be added on the GOP's hypocritical criticism of Pelosi when Tom DeLay has done things much worse. For example, Republicans take more lobbyist trips than Democrats.

Can somebody please delete the garbage vandalism which was added to this site:

"Pelosi is viewed by mainstream America as perhaps the most rabid, and dangerous, liberal democrat in Congress. Pelosi is fortunate to have made her run for office in California, as it is unlikely she could have been elected in any other state, Massachusetts notwithstanding. Pelosi is the type of goverment official that causes the average American to distrust the government entirely."

Why do people make statements like the above?

First, everyone should recognize there are legitimate reasons for congresspersons taking funded trips...

What we as citizens need to keep an eye on is:

  1. Are family members always going? Are these boon-doggles?
  2. Who did the lobbying? Do they represent the interests of the congressman’s constiuency?
  3. What were the results of the trip? Policy changes, etc.

Yes, Democrats have taken more trips than Republicans, but lets look at the REASON they were taken.

Nancy Pelosi, for instance... You can find a list of her travels here: [2].

You can find Tom Delay’s trips here: [3].

What bothers me is a trip like Delay's to the Northern Mariana Islands ... and his subsequent "block" of Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski bill (passed unanimously in the Senate] to reign in sweat shop labor practices in that US Territory.

(EDIT: by Ryan Marquis) First of all, there's not a sweat shop labor practice in Alaska, and second of all, Alaska is a STATE, not a US Territory. That should be the issue...

There is a sweat shop labor practice in Northern Mariana Islands, which is not a state, but a US Territory.

Are people that politically biased that decency and reason mean LESS than political affiliation?

--Earnric 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not just yeah,HELL yeah. "Party before People or Planet!", that's the American Political Way! :( -- Some random jerk

For or against Iraq war?

I just changed the Nancy Pelosi article back to my edit to reflect the facts. Nancy Pelosi DID, in fact, vote against the Iraq War resolution and here is the proof:


Elvey is incorrect and I am not lazy as he said I was.

Sorry. Still, the issue is unresolved. ...she voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force against those responsible for 9/11. [5] But, that was a vote "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States". Since Iraq had very little to no responsibility for the attacks, it's probably fair to say she did NOT support the second US invasion of Iraq. I'm confused. I've no idea which is the definitive vote. Where's the text, etc of the bill she voted AGAINST? The text of the bill she voted FOR is available via the link I provided. -Elvey 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not unresolved, Elvey. The link you provided me was a vote to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan. She DID vote for that, yet that is a distinctly diffferent vote from the Iraq War resolution. The military force authorization against the Taliban was from end of 2001, and the Iraq War resolution was from October 2002. The vote for the Taliban resolution was 420 ayes to 1 nay, while the Iraq war resolution was much more contentious.

Your apology was very weak considering you chastised me on this public message board. I have a Ph.D in political science and you should not be insulting my intelligence nor my work effort.

Sorry, I stand corrected and shouldn't have called you lazy; the votes are distinct, as you finally explained, above, such that I could verify it. Still, you shouldn't make 'Appeal to to Authority' claims! And your claim that I insulted your intelligence is false. We both make mistakes, it seems. :)

"Like most House Democrats, Pelosi opposed the resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq, and has acknowledged Saddam Hussein's WMD program. However, she has begun strongly criticizing the war effort since then, and has introduced an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill calling on Bush to specify a strategy for success in Iraq, as well as a timetable for a safe withdrawal of American troops."

In that context, "However" makes no sense because the two statements are in no way conflicting.

I agree, the "however" threw me off, I think we should definately change the however to read... "WMD program. She has also begun..." Qrk 00:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Has she really acknowledged Hussein's WMD program? Is there a source for this? Was there really a WMD program for her to acknowledge? I don't know much about her, but this seems kind of unlikely. Edmundssteven 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." [6]
October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." [7]
Durbinmj 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd seen the quotes from before the war, but the article makes it sound like that is her current view. I think a more clear sentence would be something like: "Like most House Democrats, Pelosi opposed the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but had stated belief in the existence of Saddam Hussein's WMD program". Also, in the same way it would not be appropriate to write, "Mel Gibson has acknowledged that the Jews have caused all wars", I don't think the word "acknowledged" should be used here concerning a statement that has since been disputed, if not disconfimed.Edmundssteven 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The above writer seems to think that Hussein never had WMD. He USED chemical weapons on the Iranians and against his own countrymen (the Kurds.) There is little to dispute this.

I could go for the sentence saying she opposed the war but believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Durbinmj 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote note

I touched up the credit for the quote:

"That's why they (the Bush administration) had to make up that story about weapons of mass destruction. Because that was the only thing that would sell to the American people, and that wasn't true."

And it's been further touched up. Originally said "falsely accused" Bush of lying. Besides the yellowcake forgery, Wiki doesn't like POV. Staxringold 03:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


I do not doubt that the Pelosi family is wealthy. However, is this in any way relevant? At the very least the family's personal wealth should be better integrated into the article rather than being in a "trivia" section. Aren't many if not most members of congress multimillionaires? Theshibboleth 02:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This article includes the following info: "The Pelosi family has a net worth of over $25 million, mainly investments of husband Paul Pelosi." I noticed that the main article on George W. Bush doesn't mention anything about his net worth, even though he clearly has an enormous fortune. Once again, it's clear that Wikipedia has become no more a "reference" source than the latest batch of press releases from the RNC.
Good grief. How sensitive and over-dramatic can you get? Add Bush's net worth to his article if it makes you sleep better at night. But why bring it up here? Dubc0724 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That's the way it has been decided. If you want a "Dempedia", go start it yourself. That's free enterprise. 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Mr Bush made $15 million (his portion) on the sale of the Texas Rangers at the conclusion of his tenure as the managing partner. Incidentally, he got a $600,000 advance from one of his "rich" relatives to buy into his 6% portion of its ownership. That's where he made his money. I have no problem with someone's wealth. At least very few Republicans have the gall to pretend they speak for the "little man". Pelosi doesn't speak for me.Engineer1234 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubc said it best. Pelosi's family net worth is encyclopedic. If someone wants to add similar information to GW's article, they should do it. Kingturtle 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say her wealth is noteworthy. She is the 8th richest member of congress. That makes her wealth noteworthy. (user rhuth 11/8/06)

Her wealth is definitely noteworthy, particularly when she votes for corporate profiteering. This article does not tell the truth about Pelosi, who is in fact, a Republican in disguise. Pco 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's quite relevant to mention the wealth of politicians, especially those who whine about the "tax breaks for the rich". And of course, it makes no mention of any politician who parks their money off shore to keep it from the local tax collector. An option mere working stiffs like me don't have. Engineer1234 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engineer1234 (talkcontribs) 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Quote Section

Why is there a quote section on this page. I havent noticed many of these on the pages of other congresional leaders (or senators). I think this section should be part of wikiquote. There is no wikiquote page so I think I might move these if nobody has any objections. Disagreement?

No disagreement so I moved the quote section to wikiquote. If any body wants to help with the formatting that would be great.Jasper23 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Added: House Democratic Leader

House Democratic Leader was added to her positions. Minority Leader does not necessarily mean House Democratic Leader (could be Republican after this November's elections) and she is the head of the party in the House of Representatives. I think this should be clearly noted. Tlaktan 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a Talk page

Some people seem not to understand the use of this page. It is not for jokes, as seen under the headline, "Ray", nor is it for political rumors.

For example, the comment about Democrats taking more lobbyist money than Republicans may be true. I do not know. But, the person brought it up, and didn't mention any specific article. If you have some fact, support it.

Finaly, even if you do not have an account, please mark your posts with four tildas (~). It helps administrators, editors, and the editing bots to identify who has made changes and comments. thank you Porvida 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputing neutrality of this article

This article, unlike most of Pelosi's critics articles, is clearly not balanced. Under her quotes there is not mention of her previous support for action against Iraq:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

There is also nothing about her earmarking policies or calls against DeLay for ethics violations far worse then her own. In fact there is no mention of how Pelosi has refused to call for any investigations of her Democratic colleagues for taking lobby contributions and travel expenses on the House dime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown (talkcontribs)

I agree. I added POV tags to article. Durbinmj 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think this article is fairly nuetral. Of course, lets leave the tag on but please explain. Jasper23 20:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Should I remove the pov tag? Could someone explain why this article is POV. Jasper23 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed one of the tags as per wiki policy. If the other tag is not explained then it will be removed also. You cant just leave a tag on a page and not discuss why. That is what the tag is there for. The comment you posted under is very old and in itself does not justify a pov tag. Please explain. Jasper23 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
the iraq quote comes from 1998. we didn't go to war in 1998. it's absurd to allege that the article is imbalanced because it doesn't mention a single (arguably irrelevant) quote from the late 90's. ~~
As for you question I hope this helps. Can you please explain why this page is pov. Thnaks Jasper23 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article is POV because it is missing large milestones of Pelosi's record that I think should be included in the article to define the Senator that she has become. About the only thing mentioned in her record section is the opposition to the Iraq war and how conservatives refer to her. I haven't been involved with this article until very recently so I don't know if this section has been gutted or if it has just been neglected but it certainly needs work.

I apologize for the use of both POV tags. My understanding is that the POV tag was for discussion and the POV check tag should be added if the discussion wasn't occurring or it wasn't progressing. I knew whoever started this talk section had started it some time ago and there was no discussion after that so that's why I went ahead and added the POV check tag. After you commented I assumed the originator of this section of the talk page was going to justify why they added the POV tag but with all of the unsigned comments here it's difficult to find who did it and see if they're still interested in discussing the issue. I also did not notice that you had asked me specifically for an explaination so I dropped the ball as well. I am certainly up for discussion on how it needs to be worked on, so I guess between you and I that justifies the POV tag but not the POV check tag right? Durbinmj 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think one tag is sufficient as it is. I was just worried that it was a hit and run POV tagging because you didn't explain why you left the tag and the comment is a couple of months old. I agree that the article is very basic and needs more of an encyclopedic feel. If you think the article needs more content go ahead and put some in. Jasper23 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Should I remove the tag? Jasper23 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say no. The "Record" section definitely has POV problems even though some facts are cited it seems that there are in between statements between them that need a rewrite. Rtrev 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a new Record section. I had a busy week, but should get it done this weekend. I'll post it here a then once we hash out any of my mistakes and oversights and get it into the article I would be all for removing the neutrality tag unless someone else has more objections. Durbinmj 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"widely praised by liberals"

Pelosi has been widely praised by liberals for her criticism of steps taken by the George W. Bush administration in the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Is it only "liberals" who praise Pelosi? What about civil libertarians? — goethean 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I changed it back to "by liberals" because I thought praise by anyone else shoud be cited, but I am open for suggestions. Durbinmj 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone on this talk page REALLY needs to start using four tildes to sign their comments!

Please use four tildes (~) at the end of any comments you make please! This is one of the most confusing talk pages I have ever seen before. Durbinmj 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Has she stated what religious beliefs she has, if any? If so someone should add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown (talkcontribs)

She's a Roman Catholic as are most Italian-Americans.
Being a vocal advocate of abortion, contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, many Catholics feel that she is subject to automatic excommunication. This is very widely reported in the Catholic media, yet when it is added to this site, someone (presumably one of her staffers) promptly removes it. Face the truth, and record the truth here. She has removed herself form the Catholic Church, and will likely be denied communion soon. 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)CJ

The fact is that she has not been excommunicated so there is nothing to add. Not to mention that no one here has mentioned a single reliable source that is maintains a NPOV. If someone would like to add a section that is NPOV discussing her relation to the Catholic Church and Church doctrine (or lack thereof) then please do so with reliable and unbiased sources in a way that does not push a POV. The best way to do that is to state what other reliable sources in the Catholic and mainstream media have said about Pelosi's beliefs. --Rtrev 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
On many occasions, she has stated she is a "Italian-American, Catholic mother of five, grandmother of five going on six."::
Which is an interesting boast on her part. She states her ethnic and Catholic credentials in a pathetic attempt to hide behind them. As someone who worked for years in Chicago with literally dozens of "Italian American Catholic grandmothers" as she likes to boast, I never met one of them who favored homosexual marriage or abortion on demand, no matter how late in term. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. Engineer1234 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

New section under Record

Here's what I came up with so far. Let me know what you think. When discussion is finished or dies down, I'll post it to the article, but I don't want to put it up there without some kind of concensus. Durbinmj 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Pelosi has a long record of being Pro-Choice.[1] Her record of voting shows that she is in favor of a woman’s right to choose, even up into the ninth month, the outcome of her pregnancy. Since 1995 she has consistently voted against any bill that challenges the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the landmark abortion case of Roe vs. Wade. However she has opened herself to some criticism because she voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2001 that makes it a federal crime to commit violence against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy but voted against it in 2004 when it was reintroduced with a new definition of a violent attack on a pregnant woman as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her fetus. She is also a consistent yes vote for federal funding of abortion facilities and financial aid to such organizations.

If the phrase "Death Tax" is going to be removed because it has bias behind the phrase, then surely "Pro-Choice" should be changed to "Pro-Abortion" or something similar. Everyone is Pro-Choice and everyone is Pro-Life. Its for or against abortion that is the issue. Also, the second sentence looks as though it was written by a third grader. Also, where did the criticism come from after she voted on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? Muyoso 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If only it was that simple. Almost nobody is "for abortion". Some people are for giving people the option to have elective abortions, and some people are against it. Characterising the former as being in favour of abortion is POV. Marnanel 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There are at least three different positions (the nuances of which could be split into further separate positions)
1) Anti-abortion (generally believe in using the power of government to prevent women from having an abortion in any way, shape, or form; may or may not accept contraception as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies; may criminalize doctors and women who participate in an abortion)
2) Pro-choice (generally believe in a more limited government that neither denies women access to abortion nor forces women to have abortion, although government funds may be made available to those who so desire it; may accept contraception as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies; will not criminalize doctors and women who participate in an abortion)
3) Pro-abortion (China is sometimes alleged of having such a dictatorial family planning policy. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of what exactly they do there.)
So I agree with Marnanel on this. Settler 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "Death Tax" is properly used here. The Federal law that taxes estates is considered a death tax as opposed to an inheritance tax which taxes those that received inheritances. This is the terminology used within the tax profession. Sometimes people do not understand the terms, but in this case it is a death tax. (user rhuth 11/08/06).

The current article has this under "Abortion":

"Pelosi has consistently voted to further research into adult and embryonic stem cell therapies.[10]"

Embryonic stem cell research and abortion are not the same issue, and it's inaccurate to treat them as such. Simply because embryonic stem cell research uses embryonic tissue and cells does not correlate to it being a facet of abortion. For example, embryos that are created by artificial insemination could be used for embryonic stem cell research without ever being implanted or "aborted". Her stance on the issue of stem cell research should be treated as a seperate topic from abortion. Mjatucla 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The California legislature passed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act in 1967 that was signed into law by then California Governor Ronald Reagan. This California law is at the root of Pelosi's support for access to abortion for all citizens of the United States.[2]

This seemed to be something of a non sequitur. The citation doesn't link Pelosi's to the 1967 law in anyway. I'm inclined to believe that she is pro-choice either because she personally supports the position or because that's what her base wants, not for support of a 40 year old California law. Gjc8 07:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree; I don't find the California law relevant at all. Do we have a cite indicating otherwise? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The current paragraph appears under the section abortion: "Although her views on this issue are contradictory and immoral, Pelosi sticks to the fundamental platform: it is a violent crime for someone to kill a woman's unborn child, but it is acceptable for the woman to take her own child's life." Whether her views are contradictory is a moot point, but their immorality is another issue althogther, surely. This paragraph is poorly written and smacks of heavy-handed pro-life bias. Rbfreitas129.78.64.106 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Pelosi has a reputation of being generally supportive of the agriculture sector in her district. [3] However, agriculture is not a large industry in her district so she cannot be counted upon to support the industry in all cases. One of her votes that caught the most criticism from the agriculture industry was against the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which was a continuation of a 1996 bill, signed into law by President Clinton that continued subsidies to small farmers.

Budget and Taxes

Pelosi has been a strong supporter of a balanced budget and supports federal funding of government programs with tax increases when necessary. [4] She has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged but would increases taxes on higher wage earners. Pelosi has even voted many times against repealing the Death Tax that taxes families on inheritance after a death. She has been an outspoken supporter of a balanced budget and has no tolerance for a deficit in federal spending, even to the point of increasing taxes for all Americans to cover spending.

Civil Liberties

Pelosi has been a consistent vote in favor of general civil liberties and supporter of First Amendment rights.[5] She has been consistent in voting for freedom of speech even to the point of voting against several bills that would ban burning of the American flag. She has voted and been a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. And she has been a supporter of redefining the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriages.

seperation of church and state is, as often used by laity in modern america, antithetical to the second half of the establishment clause, assuring free exercise thereof. She can't be both for "sepeation" in its modern context and for civil liberties. You're in for a can of worms on that one, and it might be better to further define her position on seperation as opposed to just using the loaded phrase. Thanatosimii 05:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

National Defense

Before September 11, 2001, Pelosi has been fiscally conservative when it comes to government spending on national defense and military programs. After 2001 she has been generally supportive of spending for national defense in areas of the war on terrorism.[6] In San Francisco, however, Pelosi is sometimes seen as more moderate, because she voted for the Patriot Act (which she now opposes) and authored the Presidio Trust Act, which privatized the Presidio of San Francisco. Like most House Democrats, Pelosi opposed the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, [7] and has acknowledged Saddam Hussein's WMD program.[8] [9] She has also begun to strongly criticize the war effort since then, and has introduced an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill calling on Bush to specify a strategy for success in Iraq, as well as a timetable for a safe withdrawal of American troops.

The wording, "Like most House Democrats" needs to be removed and is not important. Muyoso 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Pelosi has been a strong ally in the federal funding of education, both public schools and higher education.[10] She was even a supporter of the hotly contested “No Child Left Behind Act” in May of 2001 which instituted testing to track students' progress and authorize an increase in overall education spending to nearly $23 billion for fiscal year 2002, and about $135 billion over the 2002-2006 period.

Environment and Energy

Pelosi has a history of supporting the development of new technology to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and the adverse effect the burning of fossil fuels has upon the environment.[11] She has widely supported conservation programs and energy research appropriations. However in April of 2005 she stepped out of the Democratic party stance when she voted for drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Gun Control

Pelosi is a reliable vote to restrict the ownership of firearms and concealed carry.[12] She has voted consistently to restrict the amount of handguns sold in the United States and extending the waiting period for purchasing a firearm of any type. However she did vote against the bill that would make background checks at a gun show mandatory and she did vote against the Gun Ban Real Act that sets the mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of a firearm to 5 years in prison for possession of a firearm while committing a crime and 10 years in prison for brandishing a firearm while committing a violent federal crime or drug trafficking. She has received a rating of F from the NRA, which is the largest gun rights organization in America.

Saying Nancy Pelosi is a gun control advocate is like saying Babe Ruth was a baseball player. Her position on personal ownership of firearms is extreme, except for friends of hers (like Babs Boxer and "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr) who have CCW permits in their respective home states. She is nearly as rabid as Messrs Kennedy and Kerry regarding personal ownership of firearms. Keep in mind sports fans, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. It has been since the first gun control statute was implemented in Italy by their loser royalty 500 years ago. The 2nd Amendment seems to be the only right we Americans have which all liberals, freedom haters and imported Eurotrash seem to want to eliminate. This whole article on Pelosi is a puff piece which sugar coats every freedom hating position she has. Naive, wishful thinking on gun control by freedom haters (like the foreign policy fools who emulate Neville Chamberlain) only encourages aggressors and criminals and we freedom lovers have always known it. Engineer1234 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be moved into the Civil Liberties section, but it also needs editing. As a starting point, the "F" rating from the NRA doesn't really mean anything without explaining how their ratings work.

Health Care

Pelosi has been a supporter of strong government control over the health care industry.[13] She has continually voted to increase Medicare and Medicaid benefits across the board. In addition she has voted to support assisted suicide and research on human embryo's for possible cures.


Pelosi has been a constant supporter of immigrant rights no matter what their legal status may be.[14] She has voted against the States choice to deny public education services to illegal immigrants and allow them to collect public assistance such as welfare and Medicaid. Most recently she has voted against the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, to provide for effective prosecution of alien smugglers, and to reform immigration litigation procedures. She also voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to take necessary steps to stop unlawful entry of immigrants into the U.S.


Pelosi has continually voted for increasing minimum wage throughout her service as a Representative.[15]

Science and Medical Research

Pelosi has continually voted to further support adult and embryonic stem cell research.[16] Even as far as cloning a human being in the same manner Dolly the sheep was for research. She has even voted against a bill that would establish criminal and civil penalties for anyone knowingly participating in any stage of the process of human cloning.

Does anyone have an objection to my proposal replacing the Record section in its current form? Durbinmj 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You should just go ahead and do it. It looks good. Jasper23

I disagree. The use of the word "even" in this section implies that many of her positions are far more extreme than they actually are.

I'm troubled by several uses of the word "continually," which is a problem semantically. She hasn't been hitting a "raise the minimum wage" button several times a minute for nineteen years. Perhaps "consistently" is what you were looking for.Beeeej 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some conservative bias in the sections as written above. "Continually" and "Even" — which turns up frequently, generally to impress upon the reader that Pelosi is a liberal "even" to [some 'extreme' point] — have been mentioned, but the point about her supporting First Amendment rights "even to the point of voting against several bills that would ban burning of the American flag" has an implied criticism of her that is simply nonsensical. Flag-burning is protected speech, according to the US Supreme Court. It would be pointless for any member of Congress to vote for a bill that directly contravenes a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. I'm new to wikipedia, so I don't know how to embed a link, but here's one in long form: 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Pelosi has been a supporter of strong government control over the health care industry" is definitely not NPOV. Supporting more funding for Medicare and Medicaid does not equal believing the government should run every hospital, which is what the clumsily-worded phrase implies. "Pelosi has been a supporter of more funding for government healthcare programs" would be a more neutral way to put it. Also, in the same section, there is no reason to have an apostrophe in the word "embryo's." The plural of embryo is "embryos." Additionally, from a syntactical point of view, "Pelosi has been a constant supporter of immigrant rights no matter what their legal status may be" doesn't say what you think it does: "their" in this sentence refers to the immigrants' rights, not of the immigrants themselves. "The legal status of immigrant rights" doesn't really make sense in this context.

And what does "even up until the ninth month, the outcome of her pregnancy" mean? Pelosi has five children, therefore has had at least five pregnancies. So to whom does the "her" refer? It would make more sense to write, "including into the third trimester, which is the final trimester of the human gestation period" or something similar. Still in the Abortion section, how is "federal funding" different from "financial aid" of facilities that provide abortion services? I can see how she's voted for federal funding, but I'm not even sure what financial aid means in this sentence.

"Death tax" has been mentioned below, but it is clearly a Republican term which should be replaced with the neutral "Estate tax." Also, it needs to be pointed out that the estate tax doesn't "tax families on inheritance after a death" — because this wording implies the estate tax taxes ALL families. It taxes only inheritors whose inheritance is very large. And, again, your "even to the point of increasing taxes for all Americans to cover spending" implies some extremity in her position — why not just let her position on balanced budgets, and the potential necessity for increased taxes they cause, speak for itself? Unless you can prove that wanting to raise taxes to work on the deficit is extreme for her party.

"Redefining the definition" of marriage is almost an oxy-moron, and it plays off some Republican keywords. Try "She supports extending marriage rights to same-sex couples." Add "which is not a mainstream opinion in her party," if you want, and can provide a source for it, if you want to show that it's kind of a minority opinion in the U.S. But state the policy position in neutral language.

"Acknowledged Saddam Hussein's WMD program" has been pointed out as problematic. Saying she expressed belief in it would be more accurate, since according to David Kay and all evidence uncovered, there was no WMD program to acknowledge.

Where talking about alternative fuels, you use an "our" which implies a uniquely U.S. audience, which isn't appropriate.

The Gun Control section has been critiqued below.

Unless you can post a link to where Pelosi said she supported human cloning in exactly the same way as Dolly the sheep was cloned, and voted for the bill you mention, remove it. It needs a source. 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Is she actually missing or is she that unpopular? 11:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

She was with former President Clinton the other night at a fundraiser in San Francisco. Talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss changes or improvements to the article. Settler 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Death Tax and Immigration

The phrase Death Tax is leading. This is merely a ploy by those in opposition to the Estate Tax to make people believe that it is unfair. Please alter this phrase as it is unfair and makes her sound ridiculous. Name it "Estate Tax" and if the law is wrong, then it will be apparent based on its contents, not its conservative nickname. It makes the opposition to the law look weak when you have to trick people into opposing it.......

Basically, let's be truthful and name it what it is, not a polarizing name given to it by its opponents.

Also, concerning immigration. "She also voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that ... grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to take necessary steps to stop unlawful entry of immigrants into the U.S." Whether the actions authorized in the act are "necessary to stop unlawful entry" is a point of view, not a fact.

This entire section of positions are obviously written by someone who disagrees with many of her views, and is unfair and should be rewritten. Kudos on the call that she acknowledged the "existence" of WMDs. I did not know that. However, their "existence" was never proved, thus leaving nothing to be "acknowledged". She "believed in" their existence would be much more non-partisan. Let's please stick to facts, rather than mere opinions.

I appreciate your POV. I wouldn't be against changing Death Tax to Estate Tax. As far as the Secure Fence Act, I merely quoted the bill itself.
If you see something that isn't a fact let's discuss it. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
Don't assume that I am "obviously" someone who disagrees with many of her views. You don't know me. Let's keep it to a civil discussion. Durbinmj 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 19:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) That's the problem, you can tell. You should watch the way you use the word "even", you load many of your statements that way.
Yes, lets keep it civil. I think Durbinmj is interested in improving this article and discussion on the talk page should reflect that. That being said, I also agree that it should be Estate Tax and not Death Tax. Also, the immigration point you bring up could be reworded in a more npov way. ThanksJasper23 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


I have unprotected the page. It was semi-protected for more than four months. That is completely unacceptable. Pages should only be protected temporarily after being heavily vandalized by anonymous users. Semi-protection does not mean indefinite protection. Superm401 - Talk 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why complain about another administrator here where they may never see it? It's not like us non-administrators had a choice one way or the other. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave a note on the other admin's talk page? --RP88 02:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hacker attack

This page is 'capturing' anyone that visits can't use the back button to return to a previous page. Has it been Wikipedia or others? -- 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What OS are you using, what browser, what version of the browser, what page are you looking at (article or talk page). I have not noticed this using either Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.0 on a PPC Macintosh running OSX 10.4.8 but I don't have IE or Windows to test it on. This seems like it is most likely an individual problem and not a widespread one. --Rtrev 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI House Speaker

She hasn't been chosen as Speaker yet. Assuming she will be at some point in the future, she'll take over responsibilities in January. Settler 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is always a chance that she will not be chosen as the Speaker of the House but most likely she will. But until she is chosen please do not put that she will be the next Speaker. Jayorz12 06:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Read here: Reuters, the world's leading news wire service, is willing to call it for her. The article now reads "nearly guarantees". That level of certainty is truthful. Stephen Job 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
People were editing the article to write that she was Speaker effective immediately; this was an incorrect assumption. I agree she will likely be chosen Speaker as per Article I, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. That wasn't the point of my FYI notice. Settler 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood and sorry. I really appreciate the current wording: "universally expected". Stephen Job 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, elections for the Speakership will take place this week; afterwards, she will officially be speaker-in-waiting. 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fast Edits as things happen

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not appropriate to edit this page, or any others, rapidly and repeatedly as election results come in. We should wait till things settle down and write the story AFTER it has unfolded. Cazort 05:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely the case. WP is not a blog or even a news service. We should definitely wait on this. There is no reason to jump to it. If true it can be written up tomorrow. If false it just looks bad to assume. Wait and see should be the policy here. --Rtrev 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very Misleading on Issues!

I cannot edit the article, or I would, but I would like to point out that the issues listed are very misleading. for example, under gun control, the act should be called the "Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995." She voted against this bill not because she is easy on crime , but because the bill aimed to repeal bans on semiautomatic assault weapons. It also says that she voted against a bill that would make background checks at a gun show mandatory. Well, she voted against A bill to make these checks mandatory, because the waiting period was only 24 hours. She voted FOR an amendment to make the waiting period 72 hours. Please correct these changes ASAP , so people are not misled. I have not reviewed the other issues, but I plan to in the coming days.

I removed some dubious claims or obvious vandalism earlier; a lot of work remains to be done. :-/ Settler 08:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the info based on articles from Project Vote Smart. [8], [9], [10]. Thanks for the heads up on the incorrect info. Gdo01 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

socialist nonsense

the final sentence of the following passage is severely misleading:

"Pelosi supports federal funding of government programs with tax increases when necessary. [...] he has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged while increasing taxes on higher wage earners. Pelosi has also voted against repealing the Estate Tax. Pelosi is therefore, by definition, a socialist."

In fact a socialist by definition is someone who supports socialism, which is 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

OR 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Calling her a socialist is entirely fallacious. Adding "by definition" makes the sentence even more desperate and immature. If anything it makes her a liberal democrat, not a socialist. The sentence obviously comes from somebody who has no grasp of what actual socialism is. America has no socialist movement. There's still hardcore communist parties in europe. Grow up. Supporting social programs doesn't make you a "socialist."

Its been fixed. Gdo01 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
America has no socialist movement.
There's Bernie Sanders. — goethean 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a moot point anyway. To draw a conclusion about the subject, in an editorializing tone of voice (ie., "so-and-so did a, b, and c, therefore so-and-so is a socialist") constitutes original synthesis, a kind of original research, which is explicitly against WP policy. Even if the conclusion of Pelosi's "socialism" was logically unassailable, the phrase would nevertheless have to be stricken as original research. Kasreyn 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Please, include the Spanish interwiki: [[es:Nancy Pelosi]]. Thank. Satesclop 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also alphabetized the interwiki links. -Fsotrain09 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Danish interwiki, da:Nancy Pelosi, is also requested, thanks :) --Morten Barklund [ talk / contribs ] 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Gdo01 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Discussion

This article isn't NPOV. For instance, how can someone who "...has consistently favored general civil liberties and First Amendment rights" be the same person who voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act? Also in the civil liberties arena, if her support or non-support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is going to be made as a civil liberties issue, her constant anti-gun stance should be included--if we're going to include non-canon civil liberties (ie: ones not included in the bill of rights) such as gay rights, why isn't her stance on the right to bear arms (which is at least mentioned in the bill of rights, disputed as interpretation may be)? TheFrog 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't quite making sense here. NPOV means Neutral POV, though it's quite clear that you believe the article is biased. --Lehk 04:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Lehk raises a legitimate point. There is at least an appearance of POV created by including her opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment under "Civil Liberties," while excluding her opposition to expanded gun rights. Either put both in there, or neither. Goat10000 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV boilerplate. The current page does conform to the POV guidelines; None of the POV issues raised in this talk page are still outstanding. Just because it references a US political entity doesn't mean it's automatically NPOV, people.--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that nothing is outstanding is because your admins just keep deleting anything new. If they delete all additional information, then it is NOT NEUTRAL! Additionally, instead of just deleting the part they have a problem with, they delete the entire post - why? Pco 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting it back, as none of the issues raised have been resolved, meaning they're still outstanding. However, I'd like to personally thank you for the condescension, because it's really helpful!TheFrog 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd Amendment?

I'm rather interested in the following verbiage from the section on "Civil Liberties":

while coming out against the Second Amendment.

Oh really? So Representative Pelosi said something along the lines of "I think the Second Amendment was a bad idea and should be repealed"?

I call POV. There are varying interpretations of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under some interpretations - including the one common among mainstream Democrats - gun control issues such as the three-day waiting period are consistent with the constitution. Under the interpretation of others, apparently, any gun control whatsoever constitutes "coming out against the Second Amendment". If we have a source that describes her actions in this way, then we can quote them and cite them. Otherwise, it's inappropriate for WP to make such grandiose and judgmental statements. Comments? Kasreyn 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I thought this entire article was within the realm of "neutral" with the exeception of the "against the 2nd amendment" bit. Has she ever said she wants to repeal the 2nd amendment? If not, this sentence clause needs to be thrown out because it's not accurate. I think her record on gun control speaks for itself; no need for over-the-top claims that she is challenging the constitution.

  • I pulled the 2nd amendment language, as it's pure POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


The following article might be of interest to add to the external links once the edit block is lifted...

China anticipates bumpy road with U.S.
AP via Yahoo! News - Nov 09 1:09 PM
China is uneasily anticipating a bumpy road in relations with the United States now that the Democrats' victory in midterm elections has placed one of Beijing's most ardent critics in charge of the House of Representatives.

Over Zealousness

I think Admins need to be less trigger happy when it comes to protecting pages. Esp those featured on the main page. Wikipedia is seems to constantly be under martial law - where the admins are the marshalls ;)

I half agree but I think when the article is a biography of a living person some extra protection might be worthwhile. More people on the recent changes patrol would of course be better but as it stands I think this is quite sensible. Jellypuzzle | Talk 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Accession to Speaker: Terminology

I have reverted the language surrounding Pelosi's accession to the position of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives to: "...universally expected to become...". See source, or search any news site. IHT and NYT are referring to Pelosi as "Speaker-Elect", and when Bush called Pelosi to congratulate her, he referred to her as "Madam-Speaker-Elect". [17] Stephen Job 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see all of that, but let's wait for more concrete info before saying universally. I think "expected" is sufficient. We haven't really heard much on who may be the candidates. Though it probably will be Pelosi, lets avoid such broad terms. StayinAnon 21:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, the incoming Speaker is usually called Speaker-designate. Although 24 hours from now, we won't be needing that title anymore. 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On-going Vandalism

I came to this page a few hours ago to find some background information on Congresswoman Pelosi. (I don't live in the United States.)

Too my surprise, the page was littered with childish, nasty vandalism. I reverted a few of the more obviously defamatory ones and then checked the history page. It showed that the page had been suffering an on-going barrage of attacks. Even in the past few minutes this page has rapidly changed with reverts and new insertions.

A possibly naive question: Is this usually the case with the pages of newsworthy American politicians? If so, it’s a very great shame. People the world over use the Wikipedia for reliable information. It saddens me to see such a noble project undone.

(But I commend and thank those who defend its integrity. Kudos.) --OldCommentator 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sadly, it's a very common occurrence on WP for political partisans to resort to petty vandalism of bio articles. Supporters of every party of note have been guilty of it. In general, whenever any polarizing figure gets significant attention in the news, vandalism on that individual's bio article goes through the roof. Naturally, Representative Pelosi's recent media exposure, coupled with her high public office, are magnets for vandalism. Kasreyn 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Awkward wording, inaccurate or POV?

as of 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC): Under the Civil Liberties section, the following sentence appears:

"She has also been an opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment and enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment barring discrimination based on race."

The last phrase looks to be in error, POV, or undeveloped. Davodd 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a POV-pushing way of saying that she supports affirmative action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the stability criteria of WP:WIAGA as it is a current event on the main page. Tarret 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem quite fair, as much of the main page instability is due to vandalism rather than edit wars. Homestarmy 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lock this article!

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO RECENT VANDALISM. On 12 Nov at 5:57 mst, I removed the phrase "she drinks childs blood" from the history portion. This is clearly in violation of Wikipedia standards of quality. Repeat: This article needs to be locked from editing, ASAP! User: Aikibum

I don't really think it warrants a lock. I think that she has been receiving a lot of attention recently... clearly. But the vandalism has been fairly sporadic and is getting reverted very quickly (I think the forces of Wikipedia good are also paying attention to her). So unless some serious and sustained vandalism happens in the future I think that things are under control for now. --Rtrev 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New picture needed

A new, current picture is needed and appropriate. I dont know how to do make this change or i would. The current picture is ancient. Please, in the name of accuracy, someone make the needed change.

I am not really sure that it is that urgent. If someone finds a new copyright free headshot I am all for adding it but its clearly her. Her appearance hasn't changed that much. --Rtrev 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The current pages' picture is what is being used at her official website and the democratic leader page. I'd stick with what's official. I'm guessing there will likely be a picture change next year when the new term starts. DavidRF 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

In agreement with WP:AWW, I added the weasel words tag. The weasel words page has examples that are throughout this article and are being added at an alarming rate. For example... " widely regarded as..." "Actually..." "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..." Note this has nothing to do with the POV tag. It's not a one or the other deal! Durbinmj 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nom: fail

Any article about a controversial political figure needs to be rigorously NPOV and source all assertions. This article has clearly suffered at the hands of editors with political agendas both supporting and opposing Pelosi. I have tried to correct what I could but I am not going to try to continue to defend this article against partisan editors. I must fail this article, at least until the fact tags I have added are addressed. --Ideogram 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, a GA nom for this article belongs in the "Social sciences (includes economy, law, politics, war)" section. --Ideogram 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

60 Minutes appearance -- Civility

Not sure if this has been discussed, but one thing that sticks out in my mind is her appearance on 60 Minutes where she discusses "bringing back civility" to congress. The interviewer points out that she's said some not-so-WP:CIV things about Bush, to which she replies something to the effect of "I could say much worse." Anyway, the point here is that she's (as politicians do...) saying one thing and doing another, but it seems notable to me 1) because this in particular seems to be a big talking point for her, and 2) she gets called out by the interviewer as "part of the problem" and rationalizes it. In other words, her commitment to a stated goal is questionable. Maybe a bullet point under the political platform and voting record deal? 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, first you need to find a WP:RS asserting that her commitment to that specific stated goal is questionable. After that you can consider creating such a bullet point. That you yourself find her commitment questionable is not enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Look, I'm obviously familiar with Wikipedia policy such as WP:RS, or I wouldn't have cited WP:CIV, so you can cut out the condescension. My question, which you did actually manage to inadvertently answer, was whether this comment is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For clarity, this suggestion is biased and has no place in the article. It would be reasonable (WP:NPOV) to state that she has been a vocal opponent of Pres. George W. Bush, and that she has stated a goal for herself of "bringing back civility" to Congress. However, drawing the conclusion that this means "her commitment to a stated goal is questionable" is biased and therefore doesn't meet the NPOV standards this article is supposed to meet. If you obtain the references regarding those two WP:NPOV facts (her opposition to Pres. G. W. Bush and statement that she wants to "bring back civility to Congress"), they can (and I believe probably should, especially in regards to her historical political opposition to Pres. G. W. Bush) be added to the article independent of the biased conclusion. Mjatucla 10:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Lance Armstrong picture?

So she's met Lance Armstrong - big deal. It's not surprising given they are both relatively well-known. But it seems irrelevant (if not self-serving as a sympathetic POV for her by fans of Lance Armstrong) as I was unable to find any information regarding Lance in the article. I do not know how to remove images, so if people generally agree, I would appreciate it if it were removed. Jwigton 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed- The photo has little to do with the article, I suggest removal. StayinAnon 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it adds a nice visual to the article. I don't see the harm in having it in and wonder why it is was removed so quickly. I think I will put it back in. I think it has a lot to do with the article because it features Nancy Pelosi. Jasper23 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Jasper, sorry I jumped the gun, I misread the date on the original posting. I still don't think it has anything to do with the articles. I hate how these political articles have pictures in them that have nothing to do with the persons or positions. No one had any references to the picture or why it was taken, so it really was not relevant. StayinAnon 08:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Thats ok. I agree that the picture in question doesnt have any overwhelming relevance but if it is taken out I would like to see it replaced with a picture of similar or better quality. Just to break up the text in the article.Jasper23 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • By all means, Jasper, replace with any of the photos from her website, which are not copyrighted (and therefore wikifiable) as they are published by the U.S. Government. Joshua BishopRoby 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Given Armstrong's controversial nature, I don't see any reason to include it except to tarnish Pelosi by association. Removing it. Joshua BishopRoby 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the Democratic party it is the Democrat Party.

There are many instances in this article that uses the word "democratic" e.g. democratic party. This is not correct. The correct name is the Democrat Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I beg to differ. In the election of 1791-1792 there were two parties: Federalists and Democratic Republicans. By 1816 the Federalists had died out (era of good feeling). In 1825-1830 the National Republicans split from the Democratic Republicans in opposition to A. Jackson. In 1834 this party took the name Whig. At the same time the Democratic Republicans became the Jacksonian Democrats and later just Democrats. In 1850, the Whig party tore apart over slavery and the present Republican party was organized. If the Democrats wish to change their name again, they are certainly free to do so. But I do not think that they have formally done so. I believe the formal name i.e. the name on ballots etc. is still Democrat. Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Fair enough. Citation: p. 293. An American History by David Saville Muzzey, Ph.D. Barnard College, Columbia University, New York. Published by Ginn and Company Boston, New York, Chicago, London Copyright 1911 by David S. Muzzey.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • Did you just cite a source from 1911? Jasper23 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did. And what a great book. Muzzey taught at Columbia at the time that Woodrow Wilson (the great historian and later President of the US) was president of Columbia University. You can probably find the book in the Columbia U. library. You can certainly find it in the library of the University of Michigan. Or you can see it here: An American History. Just scroll to p.293 for the citation. Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

A source published in 1911 cannot by definition be reliable on the topic of the current common or proper name of the party, regardless of how "great" you consider it to be. Please find a current (published in or after 1988) source to support your assertion. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Democrat" is the noun used for members of the "Democratic party," but it's not the party name. You're misinterpreting what the man wrote, but he leaves himself open to misinterpretation by the use of "party," and then absence of the word "party" after "Republican" or "Democrat" in this one instance. Everywhere else in the book--including the index--"Democratic party" is used. Settler 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place to argue over "Democrat Party" versus "Democratic Party". If someone believes that "Democrat Party" is the real name in 2006, he/she needs to go to Democrat Party (phrase) and convince the editors there that The correct name is the Democrat Party, since that article clearly states it is NOT (as does Democratic Party (United States). Once that's accomplished, sure, come back here and point out that others have changed their mind. John Broughton | Talk 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not check out the Democrats Web Site. This was suggested above. I tend to believe that they know what their name is. That should solve the issue. Markco1 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "The Democrat Party" is a pejuritive term, akin to the "N" word for Blacks and the "K" word for Jews. Its origin goes back to the 1940s, when Senators Joe McCarthy and Robert Taft, Sr. began using it to imply that the Democrats were NOT Democratic. It's a slur, always was a slur and always will be a slur. (why isn't there an article on this?Ericl 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More on foreign policy

I removed the "opinion" and just left the fact and the source, yet it still keeps being deleted. Why?

Under Congressional Career, I posted

Even before the Democratic Party won a Majority of seats in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table", [4] as if it were solely up to her. This is profound and is something that no Congressional Representative has ever had the audacity to determine and announce all by themselves.

The reference was there. She said it, and it is notable. If it cannot be in there, then this is not a neutral article.

If anyone would like to help contribute, here are two sites regarding Pelosi's stance on the crisis in Sudan: [12] [13]. The sub-category "Africa" can be changed to "Africa and the Sudan crisis" with the added information. Thanks. --Shamir1 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral and people keep reverting without any good cause. If you did not hear pelosi say that "impeachment is off the table" I will provide a source, but if you are reverting the page every 2 minutes, no one can finish what they are doing.

Pelosi is a hypocrite and there are plenty of sources that prove it. so relax and let someone else put the truth on the page. Pco 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Don't put your opinion into the article as you have been, it's just going to get taken out. You said "infuriating the majority of voters", but you didn't cite any evidence supporting your claim that the "majority of voters" felt that way. So it got taken out. You said "Despite extensive factual accounts" but you didn't cite a source showing what these factual accounts were. So it got taken out. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to push your political agenda. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not pushing an agenda and I provided a source for the issue of taking "impeachment off the table". This is very relevant to her political career. Impeachment is not the choice of one representative, it is a process that takes place after investigations locate evidence. For her to say it, is very notable. I will locate the sources that factually describe the Israeli violation of law to steal palestinian land, and post it with the source. I thought it was common knowledge. Pco 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
All your source says is that impeachment is off the table. It does not say anything about a majority of voters wanting impeachment, Pelosi being powerless to stop the process, or nothing about "the audacity" of someone saying something. Either way, you are underestimating the power a Speaker has. Just because the last few Speakers have been low key (basically because there was no dissent), doesn't mean that Pelosi will not use the full power of the post to keep bills she doesn't like from ever getting anywhere. Gdo01 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You just deleted my post without even reading it, It didn't say anything about voters wanting impeachment. It only stated the fact of what she said. Why don't you take the time to read the post. If that is not a valid citation, then this forum is bogus and you are the biased one. Pco 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history, you will see that an ip has been vandalizing this page. Unfortunately, I had no time to read your edit since I was correcting the pretty blatant vandalism. Try to examine the situation before baselessly accusing those who are trying to fix the article. Gdo01 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement about impeachment

Even before the Democratic Party won a Majority of seats in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table", [4] as if it were solely up to her. This is profound and is something that no Congressional Representative has ever had the audacity to determine by themselves. Pco 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't let the info above be included, then the article is not neutral. She said it, it's notable. Pco 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

why deletions?

Every thing I add is deleted without any good reason. If you want a source, just do this: [citation needed] rather than deleting the whole post.

I can understand why you do not allow people to post what she failed to do, but the things she has done are relevant, even if contradictory. She did decide for the entire country that "impeachment is off the table" If that is not notable and relevant, than what is? I posted it, and it was deleted, even with a source. WHY??? 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why deletion? (2)

Why did the entry below get deleted? Pelosi has defended Israel from claims that the Arab-Israeli conflict is based on Israel's desire to control all land in the West Bank and Gaza ref: [14]. Despite extensive accounts of Israel's illegal occupation and violation of U.N. resolutions, Pelosi says "This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."[18] [19] [20]

Nancy plays on both sides of the table, so that is why all of the information about her is relevant. That is how people learn the truth about someone who pretends to have democratic party goals, when they actual have corporate profit goals. She wants to deny us the right to impeachment, but give us some minimum wage crumbs. If we do not expose all of her actions (good, bad and hard to understand), then the article is not neutral. Pco 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I posted this; it's not vandalism:

Pelosi plans to continue funding the Iraq War [3] and has informed the country that "impeachment is off the table". Pco 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF just about covers it. --Rtrev 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the article says she will not cut off funding - The line above seems to indicate that she is supporting the war. I think it may be more apropriate to say that she does not plan to leave our troops stranded in Iraq by cutting off funds. Markco1 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to incorectly quoted statement

Lets try to not slant quotes: Line read as such.
While he was mayor, Nancy helped him maintain a ledger of political favors owed or performed
This statement is misleading, article states the following.
This is testimony to Ms Pelosi's toughness. The lady from San Francisco learned the art of politics in the old school. Her father, a New Deal congressman turned mayor of Baltimore, kept a ledger of favours done and owed, and “Little” Nancy, the youngest of six children and the only girl, was in charge of the book. She has had no compunction about dishing out favours to her underlings—and about threatening punishment for miscreants.
Changing to the following
"In the family young Nancy helped her father maintain a ledger of favors amongst her siblings owed or performed
Markco1 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I believe that it should be removed but I have just fixed the deliberate slandering from a twisted quote. We should discuss whether this information is even needed in the article and if we should just strike it. Markco1 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As per the vote below I will remove this entry


Support removal Markco1 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the goal here is an encyclopedia article, not a full-length book, I also support removing this. John Broughton | Talk 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Support removal Just take it out. It's crap. Doesn't belong in any encyclopedia. See WP:CRAP. Jasper23 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support removal It would be very interesting for a biography but not so encyclopedic. --Rtrev 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Oppose Well no one consulted me and since this is a high-traffic article and the line had been there a month I did not have this watchlisted. I added this line and reference. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so I see no problem with including lots of information so long as it is referenced and does not represent undue weight. While the article is getting long, the "early life" section is not and if an article has too much content, the solution is to break it out into subsections, not try and keep it short. Pelosi's early upbringing in politics provides useful background on her ability to be effective (or not) as speaker. I ask you to reconsider. --Dgies 06:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - If information like that is placed in the article it needs to be at least quoted properly it felt too much like slander the way it was origanly written. The original text in the wiki article made it look like Nancy kept a ledger for her dad's political favors and hinted at corruption from an early age. Honestly I believe that the article that it was quoted from was intending to slant the facts, as we see happening more and more in dirty politics. I am interested on where that quote original came from. The writer of the article quoted did not seem to name their source. I had to read it several times to figure out what was being said so I can understand the misinterpretation. When I changed the text to be more truthful it just did not feel as if it were relevant anymore. This was echoed be several other folks. Markco1 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean to imply corruption. The Economist was talking about non-financial quid pro quo and I was just trying to include that info in my own words. I think there is relevant info; after all, how many politicians had such early experience at parceling out favors? We just need to find a fair wording for it. --Dgies 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi support for Murtha despite ethics concerns

I want to know why it isn't mentioned in here that Murtha has had a questionable ethics past, and yet, even though it's known, she continued to support him for a position of power like that. She promised to clean up Washington, and if that's the case, why did she support Murtha whose ABSCAM brush really did not show an very ethical person? It's on his page...why isn't the support for a man that did that (and the discussion it DID cause within her own party and others) in here? 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Because the ABSCAM situtation is discussed on Murtha's page, it would be inappropriate to discuss it here in any detail. The larger question is whether Pelosi's support is notable, particularly since Murtha didn't get the position. If you can find a BRIEF quote from (say) the Washington Post or the NY Times that says Pelosi's support was suprising given Murtha's past, or was inconsistent with her reform promises, fine, stick it in the article with the source cited, and see what other editors think of that (if they don't comment otherwise here, first).
The larger answer is: there are certainly a lot of things missing from this and most other articles in Wikipedia, and anyone is free to add them to the articles, themselves. We're all volunteers here. John Broughton | Talk 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Can anyone verify this statement in the article? "Having recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer Pelosi says her treatments will not affect her ability to serve as speaker." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markco1 (talkcontribs) 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Prop 8 was not 'narrowly' passed

It passed by almost the same margin as Barack won - which is described as a decisive win in that article. This is pretty blatant POV. I changed this before, but it was changed back with no explanation. (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And again it is changed to 'narrow' with no explanation. If you're going to keep changing it back, at least state why. (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the language is changed to include the inaccurate 'narrow' language. (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Poorly Written

The grammar and sentance structure in this article is some of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. Someone needs to do some editing work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvement? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Unsigned, and whoever it is can't even spell "sentence" correctly. I found nothing wrong with the grammar or sentence structure in the foregoing article. (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)ToddABearSF

Well, if think sentence is spelled sentance then you're probably likely to find numerous errors :P Apocryphite (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
            • PLEASE CORRECT**********

Pelosi is second in line to the presidency after vice president *Dick Cheney*, not clayton kirk. D. Brenner 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason for recently added "Koran" photo.

A photo was recently added with the caption "Pelosi swears in Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota with the Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson." The has nothing to do with her leadership position (she swore him in, as well as every other freshman congressman). Why was that specific swearing-in chosen and why does it need to be explained that it was a Koran? The photo and description has nothing to do with Pelosi and everything to do with Ellison. Thus, it seems to exist solely with the intention of attaching Pelosi to the controversy surrounding Ellison (which makes it non-NPOV). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment except to say that Pelosi is pictured in a historic ceremonial role at least if not more so than some of the other photos here. You could consider looking for a free photo of something you find significant during the past number of years rather than remove one I think is both a good quality image and a relief from images of male persons in such roles. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your last point. I was wondering why the image of Ellison was chosen over one of the other 30 or so Freshman that were sworn in that day, and why it was necessary to call attention to Ellison's choice of the Koran in Pelosi's article. What does that have to do with Pelosi? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the caption could be improved. Would you give it a try? For what it's worth, if I remember correctly this ceremony appeared on Wikipedia's home page in the news column—unlike other swearings in—because Rep. Ellison was the first Muslim any state of the US ever elected to Congress, including both House and Senate. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Which indicates it's significance to Ellison and religion in America, not Pelosi. Pairadox (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess someone "had to be there" and Ms. Pelosi did the honors. Cheers. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There are really too many pics in the article already, but since Susanlesch seems determined to have this one anyway (to the point of reverting another editor) I've simply changed the caption. Pairadox (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

30 or so freshmen sworn in and we just happen to use the one with the Koran? I don't buy it. The photo should be removed. R. Baley (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pairadox. As with any image, as I add and subtract them often, if the images in this article are reviewed in the future, say for a maturity level improvement, it is okay in advance from me to remove or move this one. No I wouldn't say I am "determined" at all but I do like the photo! Good grief. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a pretty historically significant event, but not in context of Pelosi; I'd suggest that it be moved to a more prominent place in Ellison's article. (Too many of him campaigning in that article anyway.) :D Pairadox (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, more photos of staffers on the phone, coming right up. Only kidding. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Time when she wanted a different airplane

I read the article and was surprised as it didn't make a mention of her wanting a 747. I think we should make a note of this as part of her speaker for the house section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong. It wasn't a 747 and the House sergeant-at-arms requested it for her for security reasons. Look at this news article for more info. Pairadox (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Pelosi

Ron Pelosi deserves his own article. He is Madame Speaker's brother-in-law, a former President of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, an owner of an automobile dealership, and a then-frequent personality on the local educational television station, KQED-TV. The Pelosi family constitutes a dynasty in SF politics (as do the Alioto family). He may be dead now.--Ace Telephone (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do Wiki-facists discourage verifiable truth?

How about the Wiki-facists, who have absolute control over content and essentially vandalize (wholesale removal of contributions) pages in an exercise of their unchecked power over this forum, just keep their politics at home. This should be a medium containing verifiable facts, not your personal selection of cherry-picked gems.

I have tried to contribute to Pelosi's record, but the usual Wiki-facists discourage such things. And now you've gone and blocked the page from further edits (facism at its finest).

(My contribution)

Pelosi opposes 2nd Amendment rights of American Citizens. She has voted to restrict the ownership of firearms and concealed weapons by American Citizens.[21] She believes that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for the (mis)use of guns. The NRA has given her an F rating, indicating a strongly anti-gun stance.[22]

None of that edit is a POV. All are verifyable facts. All extend reader's knowledge of Pelosi. The only reason for your vandalism of this edit is that its an inconvenient truth for you.

Now carry on with your book burning while reading your copies of Mein Kampf. Sieg Heil.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamrock (talkcontribs) 05:56, February 15, 2008

The source you provided was a broken link. I checked the correct URL at Project Vote Smart, and predictably, the language you used in the statement was nowhere to be found in the source. Statements as broad as the first sentence in your version must be sourced. I also see nothing in the Vote Smart voting record that supports your statement about her voting to restrict concealed weapons, so that also would have to be sourced. The only portion of your version that is not challengeable is that she has voted to restrict the ownership of firearms, but I believe that is implicit in the current version's statement that she is strongly pro-gun control. If you wish to add it to reinforce the point, please feel free. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Understand why the article was protected, despite claims of "facism" (sic). Unfortunately this makes it difficult for random wanderers to clean up stuff. Anyhow, this article should be added to Category:American women in politics. The category listings themselves should be looked at - she is in a bizarre set of them at the moment (compare other modern political figure categories for context). Thanks! (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelosi family

I'm skeptical that Pelosi's mother's name is spelled "Anunciata." In Italian it would be spelled "Annunziata." [My guess is that's where the name "Nancy" comes from -- an anglicized nickname for Annunziata.]

I checked Pelosi's own Congressional webpage (, but could find no reference to her mother there.

Djgibboni (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)djgibboni

HRC wording

Is it not more neutral to say; "she voted in agreement with the HRC's pro-gay legislative support", than; "she voted in agreement with the HRC's pro-gay legislative agenda". I think the word agenda sounds a bit too strong. gr8lyknow

In my view, "agenda" is a perfectly legitimate, neutral word in an issues-oriented context. I changed it because "pro-gay" and "support" seemed redundant to me. How about "HRC's slate of pro-gay legislative issues"? --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed I think that sounds better gr8lyknow —Preceding comment was added at 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

special powers

Aren't true and should not be added to this article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing it for the following reasons:

  • Per WP:LEAD, I believe that this article's lead she be four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
  • There are a lot of sections with only one or two sentences. Could sections be combined so the article doesn't look so choppy? Especially under Political positions and voting record, maybe the sub-headers should be eliminated altogether? This is just a suggestion.
  • Thomas L. J. D'Alesandro III, one of her five brothers, also served as Mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971. needs a citation
  • In Early life and career, needs to be turned into a footnote.
  • The third and fourth paragraphs under Early life and career need citations.
  • Are Family life and Financial status really part of her early life and career? They seem more current to me. Perhaps that should be moved to a new section about her more recent personal life.
  • Family needs citations.
  • Pelosi won the special election to succeed her, narrowly defeating San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt, and took office on June 2, 1987. needs a citation for "narrowly defeating"
  • Pelosi represents one of the safest Democratic districts in the country. ref?
  • Democratic Party leadership needs citations.
  • The first paragraph of Blocking of impeachment proceedings against Bush needs citations.
  • On November 16, 2006, Pelosi was unanimously chosen as the Democratic candidate for Speaker, effectively making her Speaker-elect. ref?
  • With her election, Pelosi became the first woman, the first Californian and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership. She is also the second Speaker from a state west of the Rocky Mountains. ref?
  • Pelosi has also come under fire from Democratic activists for not being aggressive enough in confronting Bush, despite the president's low approval ratings. ref?
  • The Hundred Hours' second paragraph needs citations.
  • 2007 trip to Israel and Syria needs more refs, especially for the quote.
  • She felt that it would be inappropriate for her to be a member of any caucuses. ref?
  • Nonetheless, she has never faced a serious challenger in the Democratic primary. ref? especially for calling none of them "serious"
  • Immigration has a "citation needed" tag
  • "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." ref?
  • The Footnotes need to be cleaned up and formatted. Template:cite web should help with that.
  • In my opinion, the article has too many pictures and looks cluttered. Try and cut down to pictures that contribute something to the article only. Just random pictures of her (like the one of her in the red shirt under Speaker of the House) don't add anything to the article.

Because the main issue is sourcing, and it probably will take more that one week to fix all of this, I'm going to fail the article. Feel free to renominate when everything is addressed. Thanks. Nikki311 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Needs to be MAJORLY updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk08210 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is she called Italian-American, she was born in Baltimore, not in Italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fact that Pelosi is also an Author is not Mentioned

Pelosi is also the author of at least one book on the subject of women and leadership. I see no mention of this in the article. (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Her Religion

Unlike some zealots in here, I think it makes sense more debate about her religious beliefs. What does she have to do with the Catholic Church, really ? She supports abortion, partial birth abortion, gay marriage. For some reason there´s a single atheist or agnostic in american Congress, in a country with 14 % of atheists and agnostics[15]. More americans would vote for a gay then for an atheist President. In Europe there are plenty of atheist and agnostic politicians. Could she be elected if she was an assumed non religious people ? Remember there´s not a single atheist as american governor or presidential candidate. (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

People who aren´t from USA need to understand that in this country to be a catholic or a jew is like an ethnic statement, like being italian-american or polish-american. It wouldn´t be politically correct at all for a politician to state that he´s not a religious person. Only a very courageous american politician would assume openly that he´s an atheist or an agnostic, for fear of losing many votes in such a "religious" country. This explains how it´s more politically correct to be religious, even if it´s hard to believe in their genuine faith, based in some of their statements, who often seem to be quite against his religion, then to be an atheist or agnostic. This explains why many american politicians like to present themself as religious, since it´s believed to be more acceptable for this country political mentality. There are some non religious american politicians, very few, like Henry Kissinger, an agnostic, and Jessie Ventura, an atheist. We can also blame american Catholic Church political correctness, since they think it´s more acceptable to be a fake catholic then a true atheist, since they don´t even excommunicate the so called catholics who support partial-birth abortion, that´s a form of infanticide. Anyway, this debate belongs more to the "Catholicism and American Politics" and "Descrimination Against Atheists" articles. (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that her religion should be removed. She has not stated publicly that she is a Roman Catholic; and on all issues, her stance is opposite to Catholic teachings. It is biased and prejudice to assume that all Italian-Americans (or other ethnic groups) are adherents to the R.C. faith, based soley on their ethnicity. Factcorrect12 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I realize this is possibly a minor point, although I don't know how minor, which is why I am asking.

She is therefore the highest ranking woman in United States government history.

"Therefore" seems to add undue skepticism to the claim. If no one objects I'll change it to:

She is the highest ranking woman in United States government history.

But I am in no rush, so I am open to argument the other way. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "therefore" was/is an attempt to link the sentence to the one that precedes it. I've made a bold edit to suggest a more graceful way to do this. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That works for me, and still connects the two sentences. Thanks for responding. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I am a noob here. Doesn't a statement like that violate some rule like RECENTISM since it will become false at some point? Doesn't it need some clarifier like "As of 2008,"? Thanks. --Rrand (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, recentism doesn't really apply as it is historical fact and it is likely to be several years before that statement becomes obsolete (at which time we would change "is" to "was."). Statements such as "As of 2008..." are unnecessary as it's generally assumed that the encyclopedia is current anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Water Resources Development Act controversy

I was wondering if anyone was willing to write something about the Water Resources Development Act, in which a $25 million contract was awarded to Speaker Pelosi's husband's company. Also, does anyone disagree there should be some mention of it, and if so why not? I am willing to write it but i want to see some consensus that it belongs on this page. Thanks for any input. Cwagmire (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability and verifiability of this issue is not at all clear. Where did you read about it? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I found it at, and at, along with several other websites such as The reason I was cautious about putting it in is Judicial Watch is a conservative group, but I believe there is merit since is considered by many to be far less partisan than many other political organizations. I also found the text of the bill in it's entirety, and it includes a the earmark but I would need other sources to show where it goes and who benefits from it. If it would help, I could gather information and link to it here so everyone can see all the info, and then decide if it is credible enough to go in this page. And just fyi, I am incredibly conservative and as such figured it wiser to at least present the idea here before writing it, and if I do write it I would use only facts and try to represent both sides. Cwagmire (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to give it a few more days, and if there is no debate or opposition by 7 August 2008, I'm going to write it. If that sparks some discussion we can see where it takes us. Cwagmire (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems with the sources you provide. They aren't up to the reliable source standards and an editorial mention in those sources does not rise to the level of notability. On verifiability, they are simply internet-published editorial opinions (there isn't any need to argue whether they are "blogs" or not as the term is so subjective) so they would fail the basic WP:RS requirements (and this being a biography of a living person, the bar is set even higher). It would need to have appeared in several actual news sources (major newspapers or news magazines, network news, etc.) to be considered reliably sourced. As for notability, it's a similar problem. Just because some websites editorialized about it, doesn't mean it's notable enough to appear in the biography article. It would have to be a real issue, actually reported on, which required some level of response. This is just some sort of editorial speculation from over a year ago that never went anywhere and reading through the articles, doesn't appear to have much substance. Are we really supposed to believe that the ports of San Francisco are being redeveloped simply because of a vague notion that property values several blocks away will possibly rise? There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I know of at least 3 newspapers that printed a story about this, as well as reports on The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity and Colmes. The reason I was asking here is because I was unsure if it belonged on Speaker Pelosi's biographical page, which I believe it does based on issues I have seen on other biographical pages. If there is strong and reasonably argued disagreement to this, however, I will not pursue it since I have only started editing on Wikipedia after spending some time contributing where I could on other websites. I have started compiling sources, articles, and facts regarding this issue and should be finished in the next couple days (which is why i tentatively said 7 August 2008 above). I will present the main points on the talk page before taking any action on the Speakers article. I would also like input on whether or not this "controversy" (assuming the sources are up to Wikipedia's standards upon further inspection) would merit the creation of a new page instead of being placed on the Speakers biographical one. Again I am rather new here and would like any suggestions I can get to try and reach a consensus before I decide whether or not to move forward with this issue. Cwagmire (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and write it for sure Cwagmire. Even if you have an incomplete draft, as long as you source it well, we can improve it and then add it into the article carefully. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, you're ignoring the fundamental point that it isn't notable to the biography. It was a brief editorial criticism from a year ago that never went anywhere (and there isn't any evidence to back up the accusation). Adding it would be a violation of WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Pelosi turned off the lights on the Republicans who refused to leave Washington on vacation without getting a vote on drilling! Where is a section on her energy policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I re-added this sourced statement and would suggest that it be reworded rather than deleted again. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, Federal Reserve and Treasury department held an unusual nighttime meeting in House leader Pelosi's office, where government leaders were surprised to learn how fragile the U.S. economy was in September 2008.[23]


  1. ^
  2. ^ "Abbreviated History Of Abortion Law In California". Planned Parenthood. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-12. 
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^ [1]
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (September 19, 2008). "Congressional Leaders Were Stunned by Warnings". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-09-19. 

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the significance of this addition; what does it add to Nancy Pelosi's biography? --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

107th Congress

Twice I've had to delete 107th Congress from the top of this article, concerning Pelosi tenure as House Minority Leader. Dick Gephart was House Minority Leader during that Congress. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dick Gephardt resigned during the 107th Congress (to run for president) and Pelosi was elected to replace him. I've restored the language. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what's reflected in this & the Dick Gephart Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. It's a confusing point because Gephardt resigned and Pelosi was elected in 2002 (so most news accounts from then say "Pelosi replaces Gephardt") but she didn't officially ascend until the vote for Majority leader in January. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always tricky stuff, believe me. PS- you mean Minority Leader. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Majority leader. That's the reason for the confusion. It's a weird arcane ritual where everyone votes for Majority leader, even members of the Minority party (the Dems voted for Pelosi and the Repubs for Hastert even though the outcome is foregone based on who controls the House.) That's how she officially became Minority leader (even though she won the election within her own party a couple months earlier). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The election of the Speaker of the House is seperate from the vote for the Floor Leaders. At the beginning of the 110th Congress (Jan 2007), the entire House voted for Speaker, the Democratic candidate (Pelosi) won (not surprisingly, as the Democrats were the majority part). The Democrats 'only' voted for their Floor Leader (who would be the Majority Leader, as the Dems are the majority party). The Republicans 'only' voted for their Floor Leader (who would be the Minority Leader, as the Reps are the minority party). GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I meant election for Speaker, not Majority leader (but not Minority leader, either). She was elected to replace Gephardt in 2002, but didn't become Minority Leader until the Speaker election in Jan. 2003. Alright, this has gone on too long...the text in the article is now correct and it's just an academic point anyway. ;) --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, all we had to do is check the United States House of Representatives article. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


No mention is made in this article of Congress' overall low approval rating. The Madame Speaker also has a low approval rating. I believe it is only fair to include this information, as she is the Speaker of the House. The article on President Bush discusses his low approval ratings and this article should do the same about the Speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Congress' approval ratings are mentioned in the article. Have you read it all the way through? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pelosi's PAC pays bills for spouse's firm

The Washington Times reports that speaker Nancy Pelosi funneled $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting charges over the last decade from her political action committee to Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a real estate and investment firm owned by her husband, Paul Pelosi — a practice the House voted to ban last year with Pelosi's support (after which the bill failed in the Senate).

Since her husband became treasurer of the speaker's PAC to the Future, the payments have quadrupled, according to Federal Election Commission records.</ref></ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masskillingspree (talkcontribs) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions and Voting Record Reads like an Advertisement

Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen is currently on wiki-probation, yet Wikipedia takes no action whatsover on this blatant propaganda. The entire Political Positions and Voting Record sounds like it was written by Nancy Pelosi's staff.

I've never seen a conventional encyclopedia list a politician's views on a plethora of issues. Since Wikipedia offers greater exposure to information than conventional encyclopedias, it's probably appropriate to have a link to her positions and voting record. But putting it in the article violates the Wiki guidelines.

The last time I tried to delete this section, it was blocked from editing.Rmmiller44 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, far from being a "violation of Wiki guidelines," political position and voting record sections are quite common in articles about prominent politicians and candidates. If you have specific criticisms of the language, please discuss them here, but keep in mind that political position sections just list the positions and voting records, not criticism or interpretation of those positions by others (otherwise they simply become a coatrack for critics and supporters to fight it out). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So where's Eric Paulson's section for Political Positions and Voting record?Blooddraken (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote issues?

I see that the references are flagged as unsatisfactory in some way. My first time visiting the article, but I don't see why. Shouldn't a non-obvious citation such as this be explained here on the talk page? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some references use citation templates; some use embedded citations, and many are incomplete according to either of these citation styles. One style of citation should be adopted, used consistently and filled out completely. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspended from Communion / Technically Excommunicated

Wasn't she also banned of taking communion in masses, like Joe Biden ? (See Talk:Joe Biden). She's even more pro-choice then he is and she also supports partial birth abortion unlike him. (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy for Children

This has been one of her passions and key areas of focus as a legistalator. I don't see much in the article on this, however.

What form of child advocacy are you talking about? The right to abortion on call or her defense of spending millions on contraception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (talk)


This needs a serious update; nothing even about the bailout? Ridicilous. She's the incumbent Speaker of the U.S. for God's sake. Moderate2008 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. There will always be current legislation that, as speaker, she will be involved with. While applicable to current events in congress, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


There was a discussion about whether prop 8 was 'narrowly passed,' and it appeared above the "footnote issue?" section heading, but now it's in the middle of archive 1, completely out of chronological order. Why would that be moved into such a random place? (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should "President" be taken out of the infobox?

She's not a cabinet member or an administration official, so should President be taken out?

Moderate2008 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • She's second in line for the Presidency after the Vice President. I'm not sure thats enough to justify keeping it in the infobox, but its something. Nabber00 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Other members of Congress have sections on various controversial topics regarding their tenure in either the House or Senate, but I don't see one here for Pelosi. Is that not standard for the template? It would seem to me that someone this high up in government would have some controversy attached to her. (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact the standard is to specifically not have a controversy or criticism section, but rather weave any controversies into the body of the article (as has been done here). While I'm sure there are a few less-traveled articles that do not adhere to this, great effort has been made across the project to dismantle controversy sections (as they always become nothing more than coatracks for people with strong opinions against the politician. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the prior speaker of the house has a controversy section that is almost 1/2 the words in the article. I think there is a little POV going on. (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit the Dennis Hastert article, but a cursory glance at it indicates that you do have a point. The "controversy" section is a WP:COATRACK and a good example of why we try to avoid such things. That article could use a lot of work trimming and integrating those sections. Take a stab at it if you have the time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Immigration" needs work

"Pelosi has been a supporter of rights for immigrants in the U.S." Ignoring for a moment that that statement belongs in a campaign ad, what exactly does that mean? Does she support amnesty for illegals? Does she make a distinction between illegals and documented immigrants? Just what "rights for immigrants" does she support? This section is awfully vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarScout0304 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful or you might need to go to a re-education camp! Seriously though, the statement you pointed out is completely worthless. It doesnt say anything. What politician wouldn't say the same for him or herself?? It does not say anything about her thoughts/policies on illegal immigrants, the border, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi's Education

I am curious as to her education. It is not mentioned in her bio. By "education" I'm referring to college or post college work. (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions her graduation from Trinity College in 1962. What else did you want to know? --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

doesen't use email

"Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House ... do{es) not use e-mail much."

I'm not inserting this fact but it would really become important if there were an office email scandal or if there is a technology section in the article. Ipromise (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's more a piece of trivia than anything else. Not really notable to the biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

request for Pelosi external link

{{editsemiprotected}} request to link to make external link to Nancy Pelosi interview in video format

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Leujohn (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Nancy Pelosi was given the Honor of 'Cavaliere di Gran Croce Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana' (Knight of the Grand Cross Order of Merit of the Italian Republic) .Here it's the medal, from the nancy's page: footnote: (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pope confirms to Pelosi RC position on abortion

Worth including: (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What's worth including? That the pope is anti-abortion? That's not exactly earth-shattering stuff. We heard this same stuff in 2004 when John Kerry was running for president. faithless (speak) 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What's worth including is that Pelosi's notion of the RC position on abortion has been rebuked by the RCC's head guy. (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

She as been denied communion recently by the Roman Catholic Church, like Joe Biden ? Like it was said before she even supports partial birth abortion unlike him. I don´t understand what kind of Catholic Church is that one that doesn´t shows the same standards for everyone. (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

represented state

This might seem like a minor thing, but it would be prudent to include the fact that Ms. Pelosi is a representative of California. Being a Government student myself, I know that this can be very useful to those who are researching political leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falazure (talkcontribs) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well first, she doesn't represent California, she represents the eighth district, which consists of San Francisco. Second, it says right at the beginning of the article that she represents the eighth district of California - what more would you suggest be done? faithless (speak) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi is a radical democrat who condescends to everyone she talks to and can't defend any of her statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User of military aircraft

Fasttimes68 removed this section:

Pelosi responded that the policy was initiated by President Bush due to post-9/11 security concerns (Pelosi is second in line for presidential succession) and was initially provided for the previous Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert. The Sergeant at Arms requested, for security reasons, that the plane provided be capable of non-stop flight, requiring a larger aircraft. The Pentagon said "no one has rendered judgment" that Pelosi's use of aircraft "is excessive."[48]

with the edit summary:

the reference does not support the statement provided (regarding Gulfstream G550)-

I returned the edit and asked them to discuss it here. First, why delete the sourced, balanced statements concerning all the facts (Bush initiated, Hastert started, the Pentagon denies any excessive usage, etc.) if your only concern (I'm guessing here) that the Sergeant at Arms required a larger aircraft? You are right that the source didn't state the G550 hence why I didn't mention it. Do you have a problem including Pelosi's defense or should we only include Judicial Watch's allegations? If so, why? I relied on the following from the source for my statement, "The Sergeant at Arms requested, for security reasons, that the plane provided be capable of non-stop flight, requiring a larger aircraft.":

The House Sergeant at Arms asked for an aircraft that can travel between the District and Washington without refueling citing security reasons. ... The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable.

Maybe you think that a larger plane isn't required in order to fly non-stop coast-to-coast? Basically this is a continuation of the campaign imbroglio which was debunked and strictly speaking doesn't belong in her bio (WP:BLP WP:FRINGE, unsubstantiated partisan smear, WP:WEIGHT, etc.) but am willing to compromise as long as it contains balance. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that section again because the statements do not respond to Pelosi's demand for specfic aircraft, rather it mentions a policy which is not being disputed (the allowed use of aircraft).--Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:BRD and stop reverting until we resolve it here. The statement is Pelosi's verifiable sourced response regardless if you personally feel it is inadequate -- please read up on WP:V. Without it, the section fails on WP:NPOV grounds. Personally, I think we should not include this non-notable, partisan addition and I think the article is improved without it. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a new source [16], which gives the same information in even greater detail. I will readd this to the article. I would suggest that information from a reliable source not be removed without discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with a mention of this (in NPOV terms) -- my objection was the excision of her response. The amount of detail that you have added violates undue weight -- first, this is a political shot from a conservative group, it received little MSM coverage. I would suggest this revision:

In March 2009, the New York Post reported that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which demanded that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft for Pelosi to use for government-funded travel.[46][47] Pelosi responded that the policy was initiated by President Bush due to post-9/11 security concerns (Pelosi is third in line for presidential succession) and was initially provided for the previous Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert. The Sergeant at Arms requested, for security reasons, that the plane provided be capable of non-stop flight, requiring a larger aircraft. The Pentagon said "no one has rendered judgment" that Pelosi's use of aircraft "is excessive."[48]

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fair compromise and suggest leaving the NYPost and Washington Times citations in the footnote. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Done -- added in the WT reference, the Post and the two MSNBC references. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Has Nancy Pelosi ever had a private sector job?

I checked out her resume and there is no mention of ever working in the private sector. Does anyone have the answer? I wouldn't really consider being a political consultant or campaingn worker private sector. I'm talking about job and product or service producing sector...

Thanks, Barry Hinckley, Boston, MA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you define "private sector" differently from everyone else, no. She's been in politics since before she was born. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll stick to my guns, politics ain't the private sector...

Not really relevant to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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 andPieces 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 andPieces 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)
Removed. A survey ranking the ideology of the opposition of a political group is simply inflammatory and not encyclopedic KVND 16:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talkcontribs)

"Third" in line


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



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)

Yes check.svg Done


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

Are there any 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)
Try conservapedia, in that case. They've largely done away with those pesky sources. (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Her family section should be expanded to explain her background. Where was she born? Where did she grow up? Whose daughter is she. I believe she is related to the D'Alesandro family of Baltimore politicians such as the two Mayors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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)
Huh?? I think I disagree with whatever it is you're trying to say, but I'm not sure. (talk) 06:39, 25 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 [17]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well OK then, that should be written there. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Are all politician's bios written by the "Swift Boat Crowd"? Come on, the whole policy section of this thing has been crafted by Ms. Pelosi's worst enemies. If it can't be corrected (and I'm not expert, I was just curious about her -- and this hachet job is what I found), I guess we should tell the world that Wikipedia should truly not be consulted in matters political. Aren't the hate blogs enough? Stop crying..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)