Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 2

message: I decided to clean up some of the article in preperation of her taking the speakership on thursday. If by some diabolical miracle she loses, I would be glad to put everything back the way it was, but I doubt it very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericl (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, she is STILL not Speaker.  I don't understand why people can't bring themselves to wait on editing this.  She will be speaker, I assume, when they VOTE ON HER sometime after 12:00.  JCO312 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After countless premature edits (since November 7th, 2006), Pelosi (after being sworn in, following election by the Full House on January 4th, 2007), is now the Speaker of the US House of Represenatives. GoodDay 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone who can edit it needs to change "fromer" to "former" Freepatriot 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done DSRH 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  56 Hours to go 

message: Section 3.13 states:
Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.
This explanation of the Patriot Act is not necessary and is certainly not neutral.  It should be removed or edited.  The words "tool," "ferreting out" and "lurking" are innapropriate in this context.
(61.91.191.6 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Reference to the Patriot Act 

message: Read David Brook's Jan. 4, 2007 column in the New York Times. 
It is clear that Nancy Pelosi rose to power largely due to her fundraising prowess. Before being elected, she arranged fundraising events for the Democratic party. In office, she raised money and donated it to her colleagues. Her husband is an "investor". 
This fundraising side of Pelosi must be included, or else the article is grossly incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.14.5 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently sprotected.  The policy can be seen here.  The reasons for the current protected status can be seen on the talk page (back in the archived discussion I think).  It mostly relates to frequent vandalism from what I remember.  If you want something edited post it here and an established user can do it.  Hopefully we can unprotect this page soon but that remains to be seen. --Rtrev 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the  tag appear in the article itself, then? -- Heath 24.53.130.213 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise to power as a Fundraiser must be mentioned 

message: "She has supported many bills which would increase assistance to the poor and disadvantaged while increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes."
While it's true that Pelosi did advocate for tax increases, the targets of these increases are mostly the wealthy.  For example, in a recent speech Pelosi stated "Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level", then refering that "certain level" to mean people whose annual incomes are over 250k-300k.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=8906141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your comments, anon. This isn't a blog. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signed.  I enjoy your attitude towards fellow Wikipedians Haizum.  141.154.82.59 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section on Tax and Budgets 

message: I question whether the opinions of the Traditional Values Coalition qualify as a Neutral Point of View in this context! --Mpwrmnt 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I've reduced the comment to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in Civil Liberties Section? 

message: Africa
Pelosi sponsored the to Harvest bill, which urges the President to: 
* set forth five-year and ten-year strategies to achieve a reversal of current levels of hunger and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, including a commitment to contribute an appropriate U.S. share of increased bilateral and multilateral poverty-focused resources for sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on health (including HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment), education, agriculture, private sector and free market development, democratic institutions and the rule of law, micro-finance development, and debt relief; and 
* work with the heads of other donor countries and sub-Saharan African countries and with private and voluntary organizations and other civic organizations to implement such strategies; and calls for
* Congress to undertake a multi-year commitment to provide the resources to implement those strategies; and 
* the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to report on such implementation. Jasper23 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, she voted to withhold funding for family planning organizations overseas unless they do not promote abortion. Xiner (talk, email) 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs formatting and sourcing 

message: First sentence is a pov problem because the text does not truly match the source (semantics) as it is a link to her voting record. Further along, Pelosi should not be refered to as "she". Last sentence needs sourcing.
=== Gun control ===.   
Pelosi voted against the 24 Hour Background Check Amendment bill. 
Pelosi also voted for an amendment to this bill that would extend the waiting period to 72 hours. 
Pelosi also voted against the Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995.
Pelosi has also voted against the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006" (HR 5013), which now mades it illegal for federal, state, and local authorities who are funded by federal monies to confiscate legally owned weapons in national emergencies.
Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable about this subject that can fix this up and put it back in, as it is an important issue. Thanks. Jasper23 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov issues in gun control section 

message: This whole Political Platform section seems trumped-up and looks more like a laundry list of one-sentence headings. I looked at other articles for political leaders and many don't even have a section on platforms and votes (Hastert, Gingrich, Foley, Daschle, Lott, Dole). Those that do have a couple of paragraphs which highlight a significant platform, not track all activity. With this in mind, I re-read the entire section and honestly nothing stands out as significant. She appears to vote in a predictable pattern for a Democrat or with the majority. This whole section should either be removed or significantly streamlined.
The elections section is a list of useless information that doesn't add any significant information to this article. 
Computerhag 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a catchall for every fact about a person.  It is an encyclopedia.  Look up a US senator in another encyclopedia you will not see a list of every bill they have sponsored, voted on, etc.  You will see short sections on important legislation.  If you want a complete list of platform issues and legislation there are entire internet sites devoted to it.  That is not what the WP is for.  This article is becoming simply a legislation list and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy I think we can probably pare this back to "important legislation." --Rtrev 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  platform and election Sections 

message: This edit messed it up. Can someone please clean it up. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo, Settler. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I try my best to catch formatting errors and restore these articles.  Sometimes easier said than done... Settler 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The messed-up references section 

message: I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a communist, is she? Someone's trying to be funny.81.159.240.240 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's not a communist; however the Communist Party of the United States, isn't out-lawed. GoodDay 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As it shouldn't be. It has every right to exist. --dool325 03:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelosi a communist? 

message: The top of the article says her middle name is Patricia and her maiden name is D'Alesandro. However, the "Early life" section says she was born as Nancy D'Alesandro, with no mention of her middle name. If her middle name was added through religious ceremony, i.e. baptism, that should be mentioned. Rhythmnation2004 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone write her office an email or letter? Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name? 

message: I've seen alot of vandalism these last few days and I think it's time to lock this article for the non-account users.
Obviously some people can't act civilized even though they are against the content of this article. 62.16.202.221 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that this page needs semi-protection. Jasper23 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request article restriction. 

message: I think this article needs to be restructured. Right now it is just a list of random positions and votes. There is no narrative and the list format invites random people to insert random things. Anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Jasper23 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Key votes on substantive issues are part of a politician's record and should be included in the article. However, too many of them are not useful for the average reader. Obviously, everything must be verifiable. Xiner (talk, email) 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think lists are very encyclopedic and this article reads very poorly. No well written article about a politician uses this format. A good guide is the Barak Obama page. That page looks nothing like this one. Jasper23 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Barak_Obama#Senate_career, especially considering his short political career? Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Point. However, have you looked at the references on the the Pelosi page. A good amount of them are just vote records. Maybe we could pick out a few important sections and dump the rest. Take a look at the agricultural vote section on the Pelosi page. Quite a difference. Jasper23 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for succinctness, but I'm also afraid of being too much so. Please see this discussion above. Xiner (talk, email) 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Format 

message: Should be D'Alessandro, not D'Alesandro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForzaFabio (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, the latter pulls up a lot more pertinent results on Google, so I think the former is a typo. I know Spanish, not Italian, but in Spanish there wouldn't be two s's. Xiner (talk, email) 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maiden Name correction 

message: A user has reverted the revision:
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories but does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning American Samoa—its minimum wage is set by a committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Labor. One Republican congressman who voted against the bill accused Pelosi of unethically benefiting a hometown company by the exclusion of the territory; Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing.
back to
As Speaker of the House, she also spearheaded the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 as part of the 100-Hour Plan. The Act raises the minimum wage in the United States and its territories except for American Samoa. The exclusion of American Samoa has attracted ethics criticism from one Republican congressman, since Del Monte Foods is headquartered in Pelosi's district and Del Monte Foods' StarKist brand is a major employer in American Samoa for tuna processing. 
It's worth noting that the text of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act) in its current form is completely silent on the issue of American Samoa. There is no special exemption that was not there before Rep. George Miller introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Settler 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the editor is in the process of addressing this. I'll wait a while for further comment. Settler 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted minimum wage edits 

message: There should be a section discussing what's wrong with her face.  Any confirmed plastic surgery or botox overdoses?  See, for example, Tina Fey's article and the section regarding her scar for precedent.  Thats why I read this article, and I was disappointed to find that the answer isn't here.  Maybe her aides removed it?
66.56.34.50 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do either of you have anything semi relevant or constructive to add? (Wikifan999 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face 

message: You know what Dean? You and I actually agree  that partisanship and POV issues are MAJOR problems for Wiki. One of the chief problems is that every contentious article has a group of partisans trying to sway it one way or another, and depending on the numbers, and how well they know WP, these partisans can be successful in turning ANY article into a hatchet job, or a glowing tribute, and not much can be done if you're in the minority. These partisans will spend hundreds of hours arguing about minor details - and the only way that the issue will be settled is through formal arbitration taking hundreds of more hours. Look at the arguments and RfA over Juan Cole for instance. This dispute has been going on since before I even got here. IMHO,  I have the perfect solution. There are 100's of contentious articles that should be 'locked' and checked, then edited for POV by a team of experienced editors who have NO interest or feelings about the subject. The American political articles could be checked for POV and edited by Japanese Koi aficionados who don't even vote, for instance!   Suggested changes would be debated on the talk pages, and no more than once a month the ones that are approved would be added to the article. The tens of thousand of hours wasted now by editors trying to affect POV could be spent actually improving Wiki because these fruitless battles would no longer exist. (are you listening Jimbo ;-) - FAAFA 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisanship and POV problems

message: Is this article being written by Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh? I have added a couple of edits, here and there recently (which included good, fair, balanced information on Pelosi). The Wiki article editor, inexplicably, removed these edits (apparently to make room for the Rush/talk radio hatchet job on Pelosi, with non-stories like the "Pelosi plane affair.")
In the "The War on Terrorism" section, the article states simply that Pelosi voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution that authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I added this info below (which includes fair, balanced information in which Pelosi explained her 2002 vote at the time the vote was being conducted):
In explaining her opposition to the resolution, Pelosi noted that Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet had told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq's Saddam Hussein launching an attack on the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction was low. "This is about the Constitution," Pelosi said. "It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware what the challenges are to us. It is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops."
But, of course, the extreme-right-wing Rush-loving Wiki editors removed this edit of mine. It's quite amusing how Wiki claims to be "neutral." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.57 (talk • contribs) 15:12, February 15, 2007
*Well, actually, people on the right tend to say Wikipedia is a nest of flaming leftists, while people on the left tend to say it's a nest of flaming rightists. So it's probably fairly well balanced. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, the edits that you did are still in the article, what are you complaining about? The only thing that was reverted is the fact that your web browser completely destroyed the language links. They had to be repaired. Read through the article, your edit is still there. Gdo01 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Wikipedia only giving the extreme-right/Rush Limbaugh version of Pelosi? 

message: we need a section devoted to CONTROVERSIES that cover allegations against Pelosi.  You will find a controversy section on *EVERY SINGLE* major conservative on Wiki (show me one that doesn't).  So to be fair, and NPOV, we need to make sure that readers of Wiki are informed of Pelosi's controversies.  I want to know about her failed promises and be informed of any allegations against her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential front runner. Gdo01 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a "CONTROVERSIES" Section like all repulicans on Wiki have 

message: What about the failed promises of Pelosi?  I'd like to see those in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.159.95 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential front runner. Gdo01 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelosi's failed promises

message: Could an administrator please semi-protect this article to cut down on some of the rampant vandalism here?  Thanks.  Dce7 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection needed 

message: Infobox says she has been in the same district since '87 and Sala Burton preccedded her.  Shes been in district 8 since 1993.  From 87-93 she was in district 5 precceded by Sala Burtton.  Now her predessecor in 8 is Ronald V. Dellums.
:Well, anonymous contributor, judging by 100th United States Congress, 102nd United States Congress, and 103rd United States Congress, it looks like you are right on the money.  So I've made the changes you recommended.  I determined the start date (june 9, 2007) fyrom this reference [] .  I also removed "minority house leader" from the infobox because it is totally redundant to "democrat house leader". 74.129.232.248 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not correct. She did not change districts.  Like all California reps, her district was renamed (this is mentioned in the article).  Ronald Dellums is not her predecessor as he has never represented the district she represents. He represented Oakland, not San Francisco. (This is wiki standard.  See Ron Dellums' page, for instance....he is succeeded by Barbara Lee, not Nancy Pelosi) --Loonymonkey 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the Infobox 

message: Look at the "Democratic Party Leadership" section.
Over one third of the section is one Rep.'s opinion (cited from "The Nation" of all places) of Ms. Pelosi being "too liberal." There are plently of people in political power who had the opposite opinion (quotes upon request)...why is Ford the only one allowed to comment on the Speaker?
Besides, both sides are well shown in the "Political platform and voting record" section. Is this biased quote even necessary?
69.136.84.130 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Party Leadership Section- BIASED 

message: "Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — met with with Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier, although the Bush administration asked Pelosi, as the leader of the Democratic Party, not to visit a state sponsor of terror."
This section is carefully worded in order to make it appear that Bush approved of the visit by three Republicans and was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit.  However, the White House publically rebuked all U.S. officials visiting Syria unilaterally.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534
:There's good reason for thinking Bush was partisan in his disapproval of Pelosi's visit, even according to the article that you just cited:
:"The White House and at least one Republican presidential candidate have sharply criticized visits to Syria by members of Congress but have mentioned only Pelosi by name." Dce7 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This may be the case, but the worse part is that the partisan nature of Bush's request isn't really brought back in anywhere in the rest of the paragraph or section.  As such it is an extraneous detail.  If more should be said about the domestic political ramifications of her visit, then it ought to be made its own paragraph, and both sides played out.  As such, I'm going to take out the reference to Bush. Slarson 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 trip to Israel and Syria - Misleading/Incomplete information 

message: Not that I am looking to cleanse Pelosi's record, but the two sections that point out run-ins with regulatory bodies, the ones titled "Political action committee fined" and "Failure to disclose role in family charity" just seem completely disjoint from the rest of the article.  Neither of these events were significant to her career.. there were no further ramifications of them, 
they were not turning points.. they are barely notable.  She had regulatory issues, they got taken care of, and no other consequences came of them.  I 
propose to remove them both and tighten this article up to only those parts
that are absolutely necessary.
: She's a political figure so a critical section is bound to pop up no matter what. People look for a place to grind their ax. --TrustTruth 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think it should be avoided.  Still tempted to remove it soon. Slarson 08:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Criticism and controversy" sections are ubiquitous in wiki articles about political figures.  Why should this article be different? (re-edited because I forgot to sign in before replying) DWRoelands 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Sections -- why are they there? 

message: I don't think the current picture is adequate. Thoughts on using a different one? Maybe one that isn't lit to look like there's a hole in her temple? 134.84.100.80 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: The link is down or something for the source claiming Del Monte didn't contribute for democratic campaigns under the Minimum Wage Section of the article.  If the website where this source is hosted continues to have this problem of being unreliable and not displaying requested sources, the section of the article should be amended or another source found. 72.45.14.84 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Missing For Del Monte Campaign Contribution Records 

message: This subsection doesn't seem to meet the quality standards to be included in a main article on Nancy Pelosi. It authoritatively says that a member of Congress failing to disclose their role in such a charity is illegal, when that's very much disputed. The public law that regulates financial disclosures of members of Congress explicitly offers specific exceptions to the rule that says members have to disclose their roles in certain organizations, and charities are one of those exceptions. 76.97.107.61 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it got almost no attention even from right-wingers, and it really isn't a controversy.  It certainly doesn't deserve its own section heading, and probably does not belong in the article at all unless it can be better integrated and its significance explained. Dce7 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can prove Stanley Brand, former House general counsel, and by extension Wikipedia and USA Today (which is used as a footnote in the Wikipedia article on Nancy Pelosi), wrong when they state as fact that a member of Congress who fails to report a role in a family charity has broken the law. I can do this by quoting the law. The United States Code, to be exact. Title 5--Appendix, Section 102, Subsection (a) states: "The identity of all positions held on or before the date of filing during the current calendar year (and, for the first report filed by an individual, during the two-year period preceding such calendar year) as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or any educational or other institution other than the United States. This subparagraph shall not require the reporting of positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity and positions solely of an honorary nature." There is a reason why a spokesman for Rep. Rahm Emanuel is reported in the USA Today article as saying she doesn't believe Emanuel has to report his role in his family charity. It's because it's not clear whether family charities are exempt or not.76.97.107.61 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny how Pelosi complied with the law even though you claim [whoever you are] that her actions were not illegal. Jinxmchue 03:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, your proof here is considered original research and cannot be used to justify the removal of material from the article. Jinxmchue 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the article under discussion not some other unnamed article. If other articles have problems, those should be fixed as well, but this is not the place to discuss other unnamed articles. Derex 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, the fundamental problem.  The "community" never sees something as sourced as either trivial or problematic.  Therefore there is never anything to fix but some may rearrange the deck chairs.  To wit, this controversy, like Bill Frists, may not have a headline but it will be in the article.  That's why political bios and political articles suck on Wikipedia.  I call it the "Jesus or Judas" syndrome.  There are no editors willing to battle for the "Nancy Pelosi" article.  But there are plenty who want the Nancy "Jesus" Pelosi or Nancy "Judas" Pelosi.  And it extends to every article on a living political person.  Wikipedia needs to simply adopt a sympathetic tone for biographies and be done with it (although I can imagine the battle when some retarded warrior says George "Judas" Bush is a sympathetic tone).  --Tbeatty 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't belong, whether you like it or not, since it doesn't even fit into the same realm as the controversies of other politicians. It's not even a controversy on its own. It wasn't really notable and the reliable source got it wrong. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the main article.76.97.107.61 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a correction by USAToday regarding the story and you can remove the section. YOU and ONLY YOU claiming they got it wrong is not a good enough reason for removing it.  That's called "original research" and cannot be used on Wikipedia.  Barring a correction from USAToday, find some other reliable source that states that the failure to report was not illegal. Jinxmchue 07:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to provide a correction from USA Today since a serious article about Pelosi shouldn't be dependent on what USA Today does or does not do. And if I were to track down statements from the House and Senate Ethics Committees saying that they clearly interpret the law differently than Stanley Brand and USA Today, you would still dismiss that as original research. I quoted the United States Code above. That isn't original research, and it is sure as hell a lot more reliable source than USA Today.76.97.107.61 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That isn't original research, and it is sure as hell a lot more reliable source than USA Today." Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps someday it'll come true. Jinxmchue 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guy, you're the one apparently dimissing the United States Code as mere original research not worthy enough to argue against a Wiki article with. Maybe you should be the one concerned with arbitrarily making things true.76.97.107.61 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm dismissing YOUR INTERPRETATION of U.S. Code as original research, which it is. Unless you can provide a reliable source to back up your interpretation AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE, you've got nothing more than your say-so and no reason to be arguing for the deletion of the section from the article. Jinxmchue 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Failure To Disclose Role in Family Charity"? 

message: User:69.142.1.189 keeps adding in a statement that Pelosi is the wealthiest Speaker of the House ever.  I've removed this statement because the person who has added it refuses to give a citation, but he/she keeps putting it back in and I can't remove it again without violating WP:3RR.  Could someone else please take it out or find a citation?  Thanks, Dce7 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, the anon hasn't responded to requests for a citation or put in an edit summary when he/she reverts. R. Baley 07:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealthiest Speaker? 

message: Three questions / requests:
1) According to the Clerk's office, there were a ton of write-in votes in Pelosi's 2004 election.  Now, 5,000+ write-in votes from nowhere simply does not happen unless someone's running a campaign and stirring people up.  Nevertheless, the Clerk's office declined to mention the name, and some other election sites (like CNN) don't even acknowledge these votes' existence.  Does anyone know what the heck happened?
:Probably Green Party candidate Terry Baum.  She needed 1,605 valid write-in votes in the primary to qualify for the runoff (from GP voters). California election officials at first said she had received 1,659 votes.  But a few days later, the Director of Elections, John Arntz, said 229 votes for Baum weren't valid, following a re-count of the votes.  I think she went on to run a write in campaign for the general election after court appeals had failed, but so far I haven't located any results. R. Baley 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, maybe Baum didn't continue to run (or didn't make a showing I found this in The Daily Review (Hayward, CA), November 5, 2004 -->"Among the Bay Area's congressional races, the widest victory margin was claimed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who clobbered Republican Jennifer DePalma 84.7 percent to 11.8 percent, with Peace and Freedom candidate Leilani Dowell pulling 3.5 percent." So. . .Baum wasn't even mentioned. R. Baley 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Baum- thanks for the name, that and 5,446 in Google were the magic combination. See .  I'll edit that in. SnowFire 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The 5th was also predominantly the san francisco area (it doesn't look like she had to do any hopping).  The districts were redrawn after the 1990 census by a California Supreme Court-appointed panel of three retired judges (The San Francisco Chronicle, DECEMBER 3, 1991, "Redistricting a Blow to Some Lawmakers" BYLINE: Robert B Gunnison and Greg Lucas). R. Baley 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: R. Baley 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the information; that clears that up. SnowFire 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items of note. 

message: Pelosi has been the subject of heaps of notable criticism, especially as of late.  Why is there not a controversy section, which is prevalent in most other politicians' profiles?  --70.141.10.214 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously?  No Criticisms Section? 

message: Hi there. Citations 19, 20, and 21 are all cited to a "Project Vote Smart" website, but the pages are no longer available, therefore the claims are not properly cited and should be. Happyme22 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think the section is long and sprawling and ready for its own article. That would make this page much more readable.Agreement? Disagreement? Turtlescrubber 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page for political views? 

message: Pretty much speaks for itself. I'm aware that the final sentence might not be up to wiki standards, but I do think it's important to let the reader know that Pelosi's position on Colombia has been criticized from both the left and right.
:No, it's not up to standards. And it's curious that you consider that editorial in the WaPo to be "the Left."  On what basis do you claim such a thing?—Loonymonkey 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Colombia section to foreign policy 

message: Hi, please write a bout her field and how come she passed levels up to became Nancy now? I wish one day i become like her. I think women like her are strong and every woman proud of her.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).  What do you mean by her field?--Gloriamarie 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  field 

message: Several users believe the information on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act stemming from her trip to Syria should be removed from the article.  The given reasons are that it was a non-issue and may not have recieved enough news coverage to be important.  Please read the discussions conerning this above and leave your opinion below.  Thanks!Elhector 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments on Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act 

message: *Outside comment. I agree with the view expressed above. Finding a single news article would seem to be a requirement for inclusion. Eiler7 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Is Pelosi married? If yes, who is her husband? There is nothing on her husband in the article. Quite surprising for the lady who came so close to the presidency and who has a lot of children?
:Her husband is Paul Pelosi and is mentioned several times in the article.  --Loonymonkey 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy's family&husband 

message: This page could use a semi-protection. IP vandalism is very high. --VartanM 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: "Enhanced interrogation" should not be accepted as a NPOV term even when used is a section title as "Enhanced interrogation/Torture". Can that  section title be changed to something more neutral such as "The controversy over what constitutes torture" ? --Pleasantville (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the addition is specific to waterboarding, is there any reason not to use that specific term as the section head? --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No discussion or objections in a day and a half, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Enhanced interrogation" section title 

message: Jee what a great record. She should be in a Congres somewhere to make it come true. If not: it is a cheap bullshit record. Let's wipe it out. PR only -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  There are 435 members of congress (give or take) and they vote on things.  The senate and the president also have their say, so her political positions and voting record do not become law.  This section is useful for informing people about Pelosi's stands and votes on the issues. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I am talking about: her opinions are irrelevant. If her voice is 1 out of 435 then it doesn't matter, don't you think. What did she do or reach? Why write down 435 opinions on say 12 subjects? Not relevant. US Congress is not about "vote on things", or having a say. It is about laying down a law. Being some first in Hiroshima does nothing. I repeat: she should be in legislation, making laws. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, of course, this article should represent that. Not her traveling scheme. What is hetr record? Any blood or fighting visibele? -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this has anything to do with the editing of this article.  Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for an explanation of why it's inappropriate to engage in general discussion about the subject of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions and voting record: idle and void 

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

message: It says she was born in 1940 AND married in 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.186.184.126 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husband 

message: How about starting a controversies section? It seems to be a popular trend on Wikipedia for a variety of public figures. Surely the House Speaker (whomever he or she is at any given time) has been involved in controversial issues, whether self-started or having become embroiled. 96.234.182.35 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 number of 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) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This should be in the article somewhere. The Marine Corps veteran in the video says: "The Nazis were were the national socialist party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in their country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi's biography and that guy could clearly benefit from a freshman level Poly-Sci course.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This isnt pelosi's bio, its an encyclopedic entry about her. Its important to mention that she feels that around half of americans are nazi's, and considering she is the 3rd most important person in the country, people should know. you guys always try to weasle your way out of saying anything negative about prominent democrats, and its annoying and obvious. and fyi, the nazi party stood for national socialist german workers party, so loonymonkey should take a history class for apparently not knowing that obvious fact. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies? 

message: I'm a staff member at On Point (NPR) -  Hoping to add external links of times when she was featured on our show. Pdrosso (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Pdrosso. Please give a complete and specific description of the change you want made to the article. Administrators are not mind-readers :) If you want the page unprotected so that you can edit it yourself, consult WP:RFPP. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, without having seen the proposed additions, it sounds like they might not be appropriate for the biography article, per WP:EL. But please post them here, and we can discuss it.  Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request 

message: It seems like there should be a lot more information regarding her fight for a public health care option. This deserves its own section if you ask me. Deepfryer99 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with the caveat that we have to be careful about 22:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Care? 

message: Someone should fix the following text from the article:
:she expressed concern "that the new (Hamas-Fatah) Palestinian government, some of the people in the government, continue to remain committed to the existence of Israel".
As you see, it does not make any sense Wlod (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A messed up statement 

message: This is terribly in the past, it looks like it hasn't gotten a good update since 2007. All it says about health care is that she supports Medicaid? Really? It's a terrible information source for one of the most powerful people in the world. US2010 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: It says "List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards". Is this really appropriate? She's the Speaker of the House, not a celebrity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.225.130 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Is her name actually "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi"?  Congressional Biographical Directory doesn't mention "Patricia" at all and just notes "D'Alesandro" as her maiden name.  Nor does her website mention either her middle name or say her maiden name is part of her name currently.  If "D'Alesandro" isn't in her name currently, then we should say "Nancy [Patricia] Pelosi, née D'Alesandro", not "Nancy [Patricia] D'Alesandro Pelosi".  We should also find decent evidence for "Patricia", which seems to be lacking. john k (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: "Pelosi is up for re-election in 2010 facing a challenge from Libertarian Republican John Dennis. Dennis is the founder of the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus. John Dennis supports peace, and opposes the War in Afghanistan."
This is a ridiculous thing to include in the opening paragraphs of an article about Nancy Pelosi. It's transparent, topical political advertising in the introduction to a reference article and should be deleted. Loccol (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: w/r/t all but the first sentence. This article is about Pelosi, not Dennis. Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: I find it completely inappropriate to list a politician's religion in the info box.  It looks to me like religious affiliation is given equal 
prominence with political party or job history for these public figures.  Is it American POV to say that there should be no religious test for public office? Is there another discussion thread on this? 173.8.220.209 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 Loccol (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion in Info Box 

message: Rep. Charles Rangel on 03312010 stated on NY1 News that "was the strongest Speaker in recent history..." and perhaps "...of all time"
I am not getting involved in the politics, but that may be notable.
:He is just a rep.  I won't disagree on it too much but be sure to include his poltical party. 98.127.155.132 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongest Speaker in History 

message: I think D'Alessandro (with double s) is the correct spelling. I'm from Italy and I never see the word Alesandro, while Alessandro is a widely used name.
An english source that confirm this: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Pelosi,+Nancy+Patricia+D%27Alessandro
Alv21 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Her "official" bio uses only one "s" in her father's and brother's last names--see this. —fetch·comms 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I already edited it.  Spitfire19 T/C 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This book does not use the extra "s", as do all these. —fetch·comms 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Alv21, 29 May 2010 

message: Someone inserted the words "is a bitch" into this page. It's probably a good idea to get rid of that.
Nopaniers (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Welcome to Wikipedia, it is now removed, thanks for pointing it  out. Sorry for the inconvenience with the semi-protection, jonkerz♠ 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Nopaniers, 3 June 2010 

message: What a ridiculous picture.   What is it - 30 years old? 
Here is another: http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.JPG
That's what she really looks like, not her high school picture above! 
Geeze: Wikipedia The Democratic Advocacy Site and Web Encyclopedia !!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.194.111 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I think I can edit semi-protected now...but I just wanted to see what other people think about removing the sentence "Nancy Pelosi is the least unpopular congressional leader; like the others (Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) she maintains negative approval ratings."  I have sources that dispute this sentence, it's unsourced and not backed up, and Approval ratings are always changing.  I just don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia like article, and I would say the same thing no matter what political figure was in question.JahnTeller07 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: O also, I should probably include one of the sources I was using...http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx  From this source you can see he has a less % of people that disapprove, making him less unpopular than Pelosi.JahnTeller07 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

text: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-in-disarray.html  This one shows 25% disapproval, and 15% approval for Boehner, while http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pelosi-approval-rating-at-11-reid-at-8.html shows Pelosi has an 11% approval.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is worded strangely ... "least unpopular"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The edit-request template has been removed since JahnTeller07 has already edited the requested material. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested 

message: Pelosi's legislative record and leadership of the House should be spun-off from the "political positions" section. Here the article should detail the history of her role in the passage of legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
--Edwinysun (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative Record 

message: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121754/pelosi-image-negative-boehner-not-widely-known.aspx
This is just one poll which disputes the sentence I deleted. WrightisRight05 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Ratings 

message: 12.5 million is not what you will find when you search elsewhere on sites that document the official congressional disclosures of net worth.  It might have been last year, but it has been updated.
Realistically, she has a net worth of about 90 million, but the oft quoted statistic is in the range of 25 million to 35 million.  Since representatives can list everything have a range of values, and since Pelosi lists many items as having a negative net worth, her overall range is from -33 million to 90 million, with an average of 33 million.  This is a quote from one source:
According to an analysis of financial disclosure documents by The Hill newspaper, Speaker Pelosi's net worth rose last year by $9 million to a (very conservative) estimate of $21.7 million.
Should the statement of her net worth include the range and how congress members net worths are reported?
Whatever the case, according to The Hill, her net worth is $21.7 and is probably more realistically much more than that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.9.53 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Worth? 

message: Change title to Former House Speaker
Addyp9340 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. She is still house speaker until January --Fbifriday (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Although likely, it is not a done deal until he is elected Speaker, so - no, not until it happens. Tvoz/talk 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Addyp9340, 3 November 2010 

message: Pelosi has lost her position as House Speaker as of November 3, 2010. DragonFire1024 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She'll continue until January 2011. That said, there should be something in the article which says she will lose her position in 2011 as her party will no longer have a majority.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: As said above, she's not "former" until January. She's still Speaker until then. Lyly _ Neuc (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless, pending the final numbers being in confirming that her party will lose majority, something should be added about this. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that we need some thing along these lines. The only problem with the statement above is that I believe the house will resume sitting for a lame duck session this winter (Pelosi will still be speaker). So we could say, "Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, 2010, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the 112th Congress is sworn-in in January 2011. She is likely to be replaced by current House Minority Leader John Bohener.". There are more than enough mainstream sources for this, and Boehener's article on Wikipedia already lists him as the likely next speaker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The placeholder is already there in the infobox edit screen - when she is out of office as Speaker (in January), we'll add the name and it will pop into view. Nothing to do now.  As for the above speculation about Boehner, it is indeed likely to be the case, but there has to be a vote on that, and anyway this is a biography of Pelosi, not an article about the Speaker's office, so all that is really relevant here is what she is doing, not who is speculated as being her successor. Especially so in the intro to her bio. Tvoz/talk 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former House Speaker 

message: What exactly does that mean? Barring some bizarre and, frankly, impossible series of circumstances, she WILL be removed as Speaker. Why is that phrase so wimpy on this fact? 71.49.83.246 (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She is expected to be removed as speaker?" 

message: The sentence "Pelosi is also reported to seek the office of Minority Leader rather than resign from Congress, as most former speakers have done." should be edited to "Pelosi is reported to seek the office of Minority Leader in the upcoming 112th Congress."  The second half of the current sentence is highly inaccurate.  In the last 150 years (and maybe in the entire history of the United States) the only ex-Speaker to resign following their party's relegation to minority status was Dennis Hastert.
Zentalon (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done The existing phrasing is also a bit editorialized. I'm agreeing with you on this one. elektrikSHOOS 16:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Zentalon, 6 November 2010 

message: Of course, were anybody to make that change for clarity and accuracy, it would promptly be reversed on Liberalpedia, oops, meant to say Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong. The word "popularity" is neutral and can describe either popularity or unpopularity. The word "unpopularity" is not a WP:NPOV word. Let the article tell the story, while remaining neutral. (And I'm a conservative). --Manway (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section "Popularity as Speaker" Should Read "Unpopularity as Speaker" 

message: "As Speaker, Pelosi is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden, which makes her the highest-ranking female politician in American history.[2]"
Based on information in the reference, this is misquoted.  The referred article quotes Diane Sawyer as calling Pelosi the "most powerful woman in American history." Later on the article refers to Pelosi as "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." Given that two other women have held the post of Speaker of the House, the line as it currently stands in Wikipedia is inaccurate.  Suggest using "the highest-ranking woman in American politics." and dropping the mention of history.
"Based on the seats gained by Republicans on November 2nd, she is expected to be removed as speaker once the House resumes sitting in January 2011."
I would recommend adding the current year and regularize the expression of date by dropping the ordinal: "...November 2, 2010,"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivemile13 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Which "two other women" do you think held the post of Speaker of the House, may I ask? Tvoz/talk 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I'm not entirely certain, but isn't Gun Control more of an important subject than a rambling, incoherant, and ultimately ambiguous statement about her feelings on Birth Control?  Really, there should be a section on her record on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.  I would venture to guess that Handgun Control Incorporated and the NRA both have a position on this lady.  I seriously doubt that Trojan Condoms and Planned Parenthood really care, though. --132.22.254.237 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Control? 

message: People, please refrain from putting Boehner down as Speaker-elect. The FULL House chooses the Speaker & it won't be doing so until January 2011. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about referring him as Speaker-designate? That's what reliable sources have been referring to him as, and it's the standard we used during the 111th Congress when governors annouced their future appointees to the Senate prior to the official appointments. The GOP has nominated him to stand for election as speaker. I still agree it may violate WP:CRYSTAL, since official nominations won't occur until January just prior to the vote. I'm OK leaving it as TBD, but I'm just throwing out a suggestion for possible compromise, based on what reliable sources have been referring to Boehner as.DCmacnut<> 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even Speaker-designate. The Democrats get to vote on the Speakership too, in January 2011. Their candidate will likely be Pelosi. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Boehner 

message: Please do not remove the number of the order they held the office in. For example, do not remove 60th Speaker of the House and just put she was Speaker of the House.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been editing now for 'bout a month. Please learn to sign your posts & start responding to posts at your talkpage (you must've noticed the golden bar by now). GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in office boxes 

message: I've corrected the language in the opening concerning the change of leadership.  Technically, in the House there is no actual position called Majority Leader or Minority Leader, that is just how they are commonly referred to.  The positions are Democratic Leader and Republican Leader.  I've noted this and the common usage.  Also, Pelosi did not get "re-elected" to this post because it is currently held by Steny Hoyer (the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are two different positions).  I know, it's arcane parliamentary stuff, but need to be accurate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct terminology and succession. 

message: There seems to be a edit conflict. Perhaps it's best to straighten out differances 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning behind keeping Boehner hidden here is because it precludes people who don't read notes from putting him in as Speaker anyway but placates them because it can very easily be put in if and when he is elected early January. The other edits I've made not concerning Boehner in the infobox are for standardization and clarification purposes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Your edits are incorrect for other reasons.  The district changed numbers, she did not change districts. It's an important distinction because Dellums is not her predecessor, Burton is.  Pelosi and Dellums never served in the same district (he always represented Oakland and Berkeley, she has always represented San Francisco).  Please, stop changing it.   This has been covered repeatedly, see the talk archives.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox squabble 

message: I cannot believe there was a quote in the article that said "she will be replaced as speaker".  How do you know?  DO you have a crystal ball (see WP:CRYSTAL  She may be replaced or probably will be replaced, but let's wait for the confirmation.  Things could change.  24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: John Boehner is not the Speaker Elect until he is elected by the House of Representatives on the first day of the new congress.  24.128.247.159 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  December, 2010 changes 

message: DevorahLeah (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section on her popularity needs to be balanced.  However, if she really does have an 8% approval rating, it's going to be tough to say that it's only a reflection of her lack of popularity among Republicans.  24.128.247.159 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of Speaker 

message: Please stop adding statements like "Pelosi will no longer be speaker" or "Pelosi will be Minority Leader".  None of this is official until votes are cast on January 3.  Please see Wp:Crystal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.247.159 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pursuant to Public Law Number 111-289, the 112th Congress will be convened at noon on January 5th, 2011, which accordingly is when the election of the new Speaker and other organization business will take place. Safiel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions 

message: I've been pushing all along that Pelosi's Speakership ended on January 3, 2011 & yet today, CNN coverage had her as still House Speaker. We need clarification folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 20th amendment is your clarification. At 12:00PM EST on January 3rd, the 111th Congress ended. All members of the House are technically now considered representatives-elect (and when the House opens tomorrow you will see members addressed as such). Further the office of Speaker is currently vacant until the House elects a Speaker tomorrow. That is why on the opening day of each Congress, the House is called into session by the Clerk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.230.177 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please inform CNN of this fact. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure of this.  I believe Pelosi is still speaker until a new Speaker is electd.  All the new Reps. in the 112th Congress have been Representatives Elect since the election.  If we followed the logic of the above poster, there is currently no Speaker and no Congress?  If that was the case, what would happen if there was some sort of national emergency today.  We have no Congress at all? 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked up on the US Constitution's 20th amendment. Though not in session, the 112th Congress already exists, as of Noon EST, 3 January 2011. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN & Pelosi 

message: In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft - a Boeing 757 - for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[49][50][51] 
The requested aircraft in citations 49-51 was a G-5 Gulfstream.  Citations 49-51 do not mention a Boeing 757 aircraft.  Please correct this.  
82.244.224.47 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the page to request that edits be made to other pages. If you would like those pages edited you may make your  request on that articles talk page. Inka888 02:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit late, and the article isn't semi-protected anymore it seems, but the passage still seems to be the same as what was quoted by the IP above so I've moved this to the correct venue; I would check it myself but I don't have time, someone who's familiar with the article could see if this request has any merit, since the IP seems to be long gone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 82.244.224.47, 14 November 2010