Talk:Paul Pelosi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does it say "Nancy D'Alostino" instead of "Nancy Pelosi" under "spouse"?[edit]

Dr. Universe (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to use the maiden name of persons spouse in the infobox Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, it is not common, especially when the person is notable with their married name. I checked 10 random politicians and only found 1, Marla Maples, who was notable under her maiden name. I am changing it unless you have a policy that supersedes WP:Commonname. 2600:1700:1111:5940:C5A7:A07F:D1BA:A4C4 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Pelosi[edit]

Are there multiple reliable sources covering David Pelosi's death? Even the generally unreliable sources like New York Post and MailOnline say Paul Pelosi never went to court, and was exonerated by a coroner's jury. Any mainstream sources? If a misdemeanor charge would be included, those two points would seem relevant. Politrukki (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Politrukki: The source cited was the San Francisco Examiner, a highly reliable source. There's also a paragraph in the article already about another crime he was charged with. This edit is entirely permitted by WP:BLPCRIME. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's still one source. Pelosi is a public figure, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply, but PUBLICFIGURE does. The standard is "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident". Where's the evidence of that?
The 2022 incident has been covered extensively in high-quality reliable sources, and is a whole different matter. Politrukki (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only source which supports this edit is this 1957 article from the San Francisco Examiner; an unimpeachable source which accurately and without bias reported this tragedy. After news of this decades-old tragedy was unearthed this past week, multiple conservative media outlets reported it (though all are blacklisted at WP:RSP), while mainstream media predictably passed it over. This is not a case of WP:REDFLAG, and common sense should lead us to see this as a unique situation, where the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can be waived, simply because what is being reported is obviously true, and the information is pertinent to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's obviously pertinent, then find the sources. I don't see how this is particular unique. We get this all the time where some editor is convinced something belongs despite a lack of sources because they're all evil or whatever and it happens on all sides of politics etc. Probably about 80% of the time, there's little doubt that what the person wants to add is largely true. However it doesn't belong because there is insufficient sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: You write: "We get this all the time". Could you give me an example similar to this, where the only source available for a BLP was a reliable news report from the 1950s? Two examples would be better. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 There is also this source,don't know of its reliability.This article also references an article written at the time by San Mateo Times on 26 February 1957,however I haven't been able to find it yet.Only place I've seen it is one of those archive websites where you have to pay to be able to access it.
https://www.latinpost.com/articles/155422/20220601/nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-killed-brother-crash.htm Basedosaurus (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Basedosaurus: Thanks for the link, but the source cannot be used because the article just repeats information from the Daily Mail. What do you think of this one from NY Breaking? It actually includes a copy of the San Francisco Examiner article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 ok but you can use the article from the San Mateo Times that it references, correct? Some website has an electronic copy of the orginal print but to view it requires signing up for the free trial. (1)
Idk much about the NY breaking but it seems reliable at first glance. Basedosaurus (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of the website doesn't inspire confidence that it is any more reliable than the NY Post. "Lauren Boebert accused of ditching family in off-roading accident after losing control of vehicle" and "Kylie Jenner poses for a selfie in her $200K Lamborghini, which is just one of her 15 trips". No link to an editorial staff. What do you think WP:RSN would say? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: If I was responding, I would shake my head and wonder why there is such an effort to prove the sky is blue. Do you doubt the authenticity of the San Francisco Examiner article? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing veracity with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It is an issue of WP:ONUS, especially WP:WEIGHT. You think this incident from the 50s is important to include, but not enough RS care to report it currently when he is a public figure. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was widely reported. It's important to include driving infractions which lead to criminal charges. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Widely reported by RS? How many again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wasnt a public Figure at the time of the incident so of course there wont be mass coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PUBLICFIGURE shouldn't need to be applied to this otherwise we would need 5+ sources to confirm something like where a person grew up as a child etc. Basedosaurus (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if WP:PUBLICFIGURE shouldn't apply, WP:NPF and WP:BLPCRIME still do. What was the legal outcome of that 1950s crash that killed his brother? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was suggested earlier, Latin Post reported on this, and cited a second article published at the time in the San Mateo Times. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Latin Post is a RS given that it cites to the Daily Mail as you said and the popular articles it publishes as seen to the right of the article like "Chris Rock, Not 'Concerned' Over Jada Pinkett Smith's Plea on Reconciling With Will Smith After Oscars Slap", "Kamala Harris Net Worth 2022: How Rich Is the 49th Vice President?", and "Kim Kardashian Reveals What Pete Davidson Did to Get Her in the Mood for Sex"? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your missing the point,there is a second article cited by the Latin Post by the San Mateo Times from when the event occurred.The article by SMT could and possibly is a RS for the event.There is no intent to cite the Latin Post. Basedosaurus (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what that article says to use it per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT has nothing to do with this. Is this a game for you? I'm going to add the text back, with two sources. Thank you Basedosaurus. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake was notifying a noticeboard full of experts on how BLP protections work to keep things out. You should look at WP:BURDEN really carefully, especially the part about: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". Citing to an article that you have not read is not doing that. You must obtain consensus before re-adding this disputed material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
San-Mateo-Times, February 22 1957, Vol.57 No.46 (page 1) Basedosaurus (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677
[1] Im not sure if that link worked so try this one-apologies Basedosaurus (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The crash is also mentioned in the San Francisco Chronicle for Saturday, February 23, 1957, p. 4., in an article titled "S.F. Youth Killed as Sports Car Crashes", naming the victim as David J. Pelosi and driver as Paul F. Pelosi. It does not mention any citations or misdemeanors. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@63.155.44.196 The article does indeed actually mention that Paul was cited for misdemeanour manslaughter.As seen when the following is stated:
"Highway Patrolman Thomas Ganley said he will cite the survivor (Paul Pelosi) for misdemeanour manslaughter" Basedosaurus (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the SF Examiner article. I am referring to the SF Chronicle article. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a link to this article? Basedosaurus (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I viewed it from a library. Someone with a Newspapers.com subscription or SF Chronicle subscription might be able to access and clip it. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well we have multiple RS any way to confirm that the event happened so I think It should be re-added. Basedosaurus (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the text, and provided three reliable sources. I would appreciate input on the following:

  • "In 1957, while driving a sports car on Skyline Boulevard south of San Francisco with his brother David, Paul lost control and crashed, killing David.[1][2] Police said Paul would be charged with misdemeanor manslaughter; a coroner's jury later exonerated him.[1][3] Nancy Pelosi stated that the family's Catholic faith sustained them when "dear David" was killed.[3]" Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Youth Killed in Crash; Neck Brace Blamed". San Francisco Examiner. February 23, 1957.
  2. ^ "David J. Pelosi". Pacific Drug Review. 69: 40. 1957. OCLC 1084928151.
  3. ^ a b Page, Susan (2021). Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 9781538750711.
looks good to me Basedosaurus (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use the 4th source from the San Mateo Times. Basedosaurus (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Dear" could be dropped as needlessly sentimental. Also, the way the passage is written seems to rather callously state "Paul crashed, killing David". A more conservative, passive tone ("David was killed" rather than "Paul killed David") might be called for in a BLP. Also, the street where it happened might be interesting to locals, but is relatively trivial for a global encyclopedia. Even if WP:ONUS is met, description of the accident or DUI arrests shouldn't be treated in greater or disproportionate detail than other aspects. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 63.155.44.196, but it is a notable road, so why not leave it in. This would give us:
  • " In 1957, while driving a sports car on Skyline Boulevard south of San Francisco with his brother David, Paul lost control, crashed, and David was killed. Police said Paul would be charged with misdemeanor manslaughter; a coroner's jury later exonerated him. Nancy Pelosi stated that the family's Catholic faith sustained them when David was killed. " Edwardx (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that sounds good tbh Basedosaurus (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this in the BLP/N thread, but am posting it here too: there's a new in depth NYT piece that I can't read as I'm out of free NYT views for the month. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/fashion/news/nancy-pelosis-napa-wealthy-friends-and-a-husbands-damaged-porsche.html On Twitter, the description accompanying the link says The recent arrest of Paul Pelosi, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, in Napa Valley has shone a light on their lavish California life. It has also refocused attention on his troubled driving record, including a crash when he was 16 that left his brother dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the various opinions expressed in that thread, it's time to have an RfC here on exactly what is appropriate to include, based on whether Paul Pelosi falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE or whether WP:BLPCRIME should apply. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the two incidents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a strong consensus to include the 2022 incident, with a weaker, but still reasonable consensus as to the 1957 crash. Some editors have stipulated that coverage of the 1957 incident should be brief, and with the weak opposes and uncertainty some editors expressed over the 1957 crash material, it would likely be wise to keep it brief. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paul Pelosi a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME with respect to reporting about his 1957 crash and 2022 arrest? How should the two incidents be presented in his article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No, I don't believe he is a public figure given reports that he shuns the spotlight and he should fall under WP:NPF. The 1957 crash can be mentioned without assigning blame or discussing the legal outcome. His 2022 arrest should not be mentioned until conviction or whether it impacts his career in some significant way. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Public figure includes celebrities as part of its definition, and a "celebrity" is defined there as "a condition of fame and broad public recognition of a person or group as a result of the attention given to them by mass media". Paul Pelosi indeed meets this definition, and details about both incidents should be included, as they would for any other celebrity. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for 2022 incident, IDK for 1957 crash Pelosi's 2022 DWI has been extensively reported in several national level sources both during the arrest and in the month following. Here are the ones near his arrest: CBS News, NPR, Politico, CNN, and LA Times. Here are some today with his charges being filed or in the time between his arrest: USA TODAY, Huffington Post, Reuters June 15, Reuters June 23, and NY Times. These are just the sources green lighted at WP:RSP. Additionally, there are several sources that are local to the Napa area or the Bay Area that I do not have cited here that cover the story, including the San Francisco Chronicle. I think its hard to say whether or not Paul Pelosi counts a WP:PUBLICFIGURE; however, I don't think its relevant either way. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE only says exercise restraint and to focus on high quality secondary sources, like the one's that cover this incident above. This incident is probably one of Pelosi's most notable in his life; I don't believe he's ever received coverage on this level before. I don't know enough about the 1957 incident to analyze it, but if it's received significant coverage it should be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I think that there has been more than enough coverage from RS as previously shown for both incidents. Magnolia also makes a valid point in that Pelosi meets the definition of a "celebrity".As a result im going to have to agree that both instances should be included.Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak yes on 2022 incident, very weak no on 1957. I think that the substantial coverage in lots of mainstream outlets indicates that he's become a public figure, at least so far as the limited purpose of the DUI arrest holds. Coverage should be short and to the point, perhaps 1-2 sentences. I don't think that he is a public figure for general purposes, and I don't think the sourcing is there yet to show that the 1957 incident is WP:DUE. I take the NYTimes source very seriously on the 1957 incident, however, and it looks likely that it may be picked up by other reliable sources (but my crystal ball is not completely reliable). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Paul Pelosi is not a celebrity and not a public figure. He is the spouse of a celebrity/public figure. I lived in San Francisco for nine years and in the Napa Valley for 30 years. Everyone locally knows who Nancy Pelosi is but until his recent arrest, I doubt if more than 1% of random people could have remembered her husband's name. He does not seek out public attention. I oppose mentioning the 1957 charge. He was a minor at the time and he was acquitted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...because you lived in the area, you can assure us Paul Pelosi is not a celebrity/public figure. Maybe you weren't hanging out with the kinds of people who would have known about Paul Pelosi? Maybe you weren't asking the right questions? How can you be sure the random 1% of people that makes up your personal feelings of doubt...are truly random? You see where I'm going with this. Also, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says nothing about a person's age, minor or adult. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am on the fence on this, and probably won't !vote. But I am thinking that were this just the story of a DUI arrest of the spouse of a public figure, this would be a slam-dunk "no" but it is becoming a story about how the arrest is being handled by the press and by various governmental agencies (a "meta story" in other words) and to the degree the meta story deserves inclusion (if it deserves inclusion at all, and I'm not saying it does) is the degree the news of the arrest itself deserves inclusion, IMO. Le Marteau (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per above. ~ HAL333 03:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, for both. They are both significant enough to include under the personal life section as most BLP articles do. His 2022 arrest has also had significant, extensive, and lasting coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - He is not a public figure, he is a public figure's spouse. He is notable, so merits an article whether he wants one or not, but he is not a public figure in the way we define that (deliberately put himself in a position of high attention), so the stricter WP:BLP measures should apply. As such, I would oppose including the older arrest he was acquitted for. The newer charge is more notable, but should be treated with a great deal of care and caution. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you would agree the 2022 arrest should be included? Basedosaurus (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... again, with care and consideration for WP:BLP, but the sheer weight of attention is undoubtedly notable. Fieari (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes He is a sufficiently "public figure" per WP:BLPCRIME, and there is strong enough sourcing for both the 1957 crash and the 2022 arrest. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on 2022 arrest, No on 1957 - My argument for his inclusion under the term "celebrity" is that his 2022 arrest was reported in the media in the manner of a celebrity. The wide coverage of his arrest and DUI charge warrant its inclusion. The 1957 incident is more complex since a. it happened long before he was notable b. he was acquitted of any wrongdoing, which really only makes this a tragic event in his personal history rather than information which is relevant to the wide public. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I can't tell if this is resolved but the page history appears to indicate that the vote decided to include the incident, but it has been removed from the article. It is well-sourced and a crime by someone who is also on Wikipedia by virtue of unintentional public figure. Also agree to brief mention of 1957 incident as a related item. Even though at that time he was not a public figure, it is related to the current incident and info seems publicly available.Wikijenitor (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't think he is enough of a public figure . Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes In addition to this incident, his investment activity has come under heavy scrutiny. I don't see how he can justify being a private figure at this point. See significant coverage: cnbc, Reuters, Forbes, Financial Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, etc. Epachamo (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for 2022, weak no for 1957. If your name is being printed again and again and again in the headlines of major news publications, I think you are a sufficiently public figure for the purpose of WP:BLPCRIME -- that is, there is no general rule preventing criminal charges (without conviction) from appearing in your biography. His 2022 arrest is significant, given all the media coverage about it, so I think it should be included. In 1957, Paul was 17, meaning that incident has no real bearing on his adult life for which he is notable, and reliable sources have paid comparatively far less attention to the 1957 crash. The fact that the crash killed his brother though does mean it would be relevant for a robust and complete biography of his life, but I'm not sure that he's notable enough that a "robust and complete biography of his life" would really be what we're trying to build with this article in the first place. Maybe if secondary sources had cared more about it I would've changed my mind, though. Endwise (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, for both. There has been enough coverage now for both incidents to be described. Thriley (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, include both incidents within the article. Ageofultron (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for 2022, no opinion for 1957. For the former there is ample coverage (see User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers's comment). Alaexis¿question? 13:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion[edit]

WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE for an explanation of a "public figure", and WP:PUBLICFIGURE links to public figure for a more detailed explanation. Public figure includes celebrities (and links to it) as part of its definition, and a "celebrity" is defined there as "a condition of fame and broad public recognition of a person or group as a result of the attention given to them by mass media". Paul Pelosi indeed meets this definition, not just because a Google search returns "About 615,000 results", but because his drunk driving charge was widely covered in international media.

Way back in 2009, the LA Times ran this story which begins, "And Paul Pelosi was anonymous no more", after purchasing the Oakland Invaders. There are tons more articles about him.

Here are some photos of this celebrity who hardly "shuns the spotlight":

Public figure also mentions an "involuntary public figure". Absolutely a celebrity, and thus, a public figure. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not exaggerate his Q rating. It's his wife that is the "celebrity" or public figure in those photos. He wouldn't be in any of those shots if not for her. Newspapers wouldn't be giving his arrest the time of the day if not for the polarized coverage of her. The supermajority of the population wouldn't be able to identify the Oakland Invaders much less its minority share owner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't be in any of the shots if he "shuns the spotlight". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rely on verification by RS over original analysis of photos:
  • "an investor who has typically avoided the spotlight" [2]
  • "Throughout his decades-long marriage to the prominent California politician, he's remained a fairly low profile." [3]
Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the 2009 LA Times article you cited explains: "for a spouse whose forays into public life have largely been limited to the occasional fundraising dinner or political event for his wife" Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging previous talk page section & BLPN thread participants who haven't already commented in the RfC survey: @Politrukki, Nil Einne, 63.155.44.196, Edwardx, Muboshgu, Zaereth, 99.165.88.9, ScottishFinnishRadish, Zaathras, Cullen328, and Russ Woodroofe: Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, Paul Pelosi has been in the spotlight significantly for his investments. In addition to the above, in my mind this has made him a public figure, as they were his decisions. cnbc, Reuters, Forbes, Financial Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, etc. Epachamo (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul Pelosi charged with DUI including injuries[edit]

Why is this FACT not included in the article? Clearly his wife has some ability to pull strings here at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5C3E:23A3:8CF3:3557:3DDB:6650 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being included yet because Wikipedia has a policy of not covering unproven crimes (i.e. person has not been found guilty yet) allegedly committed by people who are not public figures. The discussion regarding whether Pelosi is a "public figure" is taking place above.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and stuff does not always appear instantly here, nor should it. We have policies we follow regarding how we cover living people, and this occasionally takes time. I hope this helps. Le Marteau (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the RfC, there is consensus to include both incidents but I have removed excessive or redundant detail that I felt was UNDUE.[4] WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS requires consensus for the removed details to be reinstated and those details do not improve the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to leave a brief note to say that I support removing the excess detail. I had trimmed some detail when I re-added to the article, and should have also removed the details of arrest charges. The RfC close indicated that a brief mention of the 1957 incident should be included. Cullen328 removed my attempt at this, which was through a similar lens to that of the NYTimes article. Perhaps there is something better to do there. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2022 )
It is true that I do not think this 1957 incident belongs in this article, but if consensus is against me, I just want it made clear that this incident happened 65 years ago when Paul Pelosi was a minor, and that he was acquitted of a misdemeanor. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I removed excessive detail again [5] that bordered on WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

What political party does he belong to? 2600:6C67:687F:FBB6:7188:F6D8:B32:C (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Accident[edit]

I've edited the brief sentence on the 1957 car accident to better reflect the sources that discuss it.

According to the contemporaneous account in the SF Examiner (23 Feb, 1957), Paul Pelosi was to be "cited" by a Highway Patrolman. But according to multiple other sources he was exonerated by the Coroner's Jury and no charges were filed. The current text states that he was "acquitted", which is what we would say if he were indicted and found not guilty at trial by jury. As such, it exaggerates the gravity of his jeopardy in the matter. FYI here is a description of "coroner's jury"[6]. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Also, the NYT source that was sourced before said “exonerated” not “acquitted”. So, exonerated is obviously correct. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Pelosi&oldid=1199200793"