Section on Turkey
Come on guys. The section on Turkey is highly biased and provides more space to the justification of Pelosi's attitude to the proposed bill on the so-called Armenian Genocide and doesn't give the other side to provide any justification why the Prime minister of Tuyrkey has negative attidue on this bill. I think that for the neuturality of this article, the section on Turkey shall be extended and editors shall give opportunity for the other side to justify why Pelosi is wrong on this issue. 

Otherwise, this section seems like an election platform of ms. nancy prior to elections. 

I have been trying to extend this section, but pro-Nancy editors and probably her office staff are deleting all my additions without any justification.

"Turkey
On October 11, 2007, regarding a proposed House resolution to label the 1915 killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide, Pelosi said that the measure would be brought to a vote because "While that may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur, it did within recent memory in Rwanda, so as long as there is genocide there is need to speak out against it..." [27] Turkey's prime minister said that approval of the resolution would endanger U.S.–Turkey relations. [28]""  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.72.6   

Stop with the damn accusations of pro-nancy and elections. If you knew anything about American politics you would know how silly that sounds. You have been warned twice on your talk page to be civil and not use this talk page for a platform. You also have the ability to edit the page yourself, but I doubt you will be able to keep a neutral tone. Also, remember that this is a page about Nancy Pelosi and not about Turkey and and the Armenian Genocide.  

"give opportunity for the other side to justify why Pelosi is wrong on this issue"? This is not the POV by Nancy Pelosi or US House of Representatives Committee, but a tragic event recognized by the most of democratic societies and countries. And surely this biographical article is not the right place for such an "explanations of other side" (simple denial of the anti-human crime).  

Andranikpasha, your nickname expalins who are you? YOu are an armenianorigin person. Andranik indeed has been one ot he heads of the bloody Armenian militia killing Turks, Kurds and Azeris, with his terrorist acts has been the reason for the reaction of Kurds, Turks and Azeris after they returned from the war in 5 fronts. So your response is absolutly biased, because of your nationality and firm belief in an event that never occured or occurded only for the Armenian church who uses this so called armenian genocide to mobilzie armenians and prevent their assimilation. 

As to the fact this is not the page for the other side, this shows how much you are anti-democratic and biased on this issue. This is against the Wikip3edia neturality principle as well. You give one side an opportunity to jsutify her action, but the other side only one general and useless sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if you are a pro-Pelosi person. Please, don't accuse others with stupidity and etc. I know quite a lot about American politics and how it is run. I completed my studies in US. This is for your education and information. 

If I don't see any more jsutified response I will go an and extent the Turkey section and also create the Criticism section. 
Raman, Massachusetts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.72.6