Talk:Nancy Pelosi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speaker Emerita

Hakeem Jefferies declared Pelosi, Speaker Emerita. Should that designation be in her infobox. Here is citation https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3757247-house-panel-votes-to-designate-pelosi-speaker-emerita/ (Aricmfergie (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because the US House of Representatives hasn't voted to create that honorary position. The US Senate voted to create the honorary position of President pro-tempore emeritus, several years ago. GoodDay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about what to do about this. I'll (in length) address a few points that arise out of this

1) Does Pelosi hold such a role, and if so, how official is it and how do we label it?

If we want to get technical, Pelosi technically holds such a title officially, but it is conferred by the House Democratic Caucus]: not by the House itself. So we could acknowledge it with the attached wording that indicates that it is a caucus role, such as referring to it as being "House Democratic Caucus Speaker Emerita". However, I actually think we'd be good with simply saying she holds the title of "House Minority Chair Emerita". After all, minority party leadership positions (including minority leader and minority whip) and majority party leadership positions (majority leader and majority whip) are similarly conferred by party caucus/conferences alone and are not positions that have been established by a law or resolution nor appointed through formal House mechanisms/House business. We recognize those leadership positions and list them in inboxes, so one might ask, "why not a similarly caucus-designated speaker emerita position?"

However, unlike party leadership positions, Pelosi's emerita title lacks a long-established convention behind it. Also, it does not come with duties/powers, which one could argue means that it is not a weighty-enough position to merit inclusion in the infobox.

—2) Dynamics might shift if Dems win House, giving greater weight to title:
HOWEVER.....since Pelosi plans to run for another House term (which if her electoral record is any indicator, she's a safe bet to win) and since Democrats stand a very reasonable chance of regaining the House majority in 2024, it is not impossible that things will shift a bit in the 119th Congress.

If speaker, Jeffries would likely opt to continue referring to Pelosi by such a title, and one could argue that that would be enough to establish it as a House practice that Pelosi holds such a title.

It is further possible that the House might adopt a resolution to officially confer/recognize that title for Pelosi. This would certainly make it not just a role with the weight of a newly-established tradition behind it, but also a role that has been officially conferred to her eliminating holdups.

However, we'd then need to unpack whether we'd consider her to have held it only since 2025, or would we also consider her to have also held it in the 118th Congress? I don't know which we'd do.

—3) Senate pro-tempore title's existence/acknowledgement in Wikipedia inboxes

A resolution conferring the title onto Pelosi would be similar to the 2001 resolution in which the Senate conferred the position of president pro tempore emeritus of the United States Senate to Strom Thurmond.

Even though I do not believe that Senate resolutions were passed to refer to any further individuals by that title (and even though the language of the 2001 resolution solely conferred it to Thurmond, not outlining any automatic conference of the designation onto successors), Wikipedia currently considers all subsequent former pro tempores that remained in the Senate after their party lost the majority to have also held this title. Wikipedia currently lists it in all of their inboxes. I am actually wondering whether I should open up discussion on that, since while the title was perhaps used in practice, I do not believe it was conferred to subsequent individuals under any Senate resolution. Though there is an argument that the 2001 resolution established a Senate convention of this title being used, and that it does not require a Senate resolution much like House leadership positions

That's my two (hundred) cents SecretName101 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: As I said in my lengthy post above, I am uncertain about what we should do this. I'll reiterate two things I said that relate to your comment. The first is that we do acknowledge House party caucus/conference-appointed positions that lack any official creation by either House resolution or by legislation. For instance, the party leaders of the United States House of Representatives (who are appointed by their conferences) are listed in inboxes. However, those positions are not solely ceremonial longstanding convention and fulfill clear duties. The second is that, if I am not mistaken, the Senate never created the position beyond its use for Strom Thurmond. The 2001 resolution simply conferred it to Thurmond, but did not include any provision for its continued use by individuals beyond Thurmond. Unless there is one or more later resolutions I am unaware of, no resolution actually declared it to be a title for those who have conventionally held it subsequently (former pro tempores whose parties are no longer in the majority). Though one could argue that the 2001 resolution still established a clear grounds for the subsequent convention of that title's later use, which does not yet exist quite the same for a House speaker emeritus title.

Any thoughts you have in consideration of that further context? Your further thoughts might help us better assess this. SecretName101 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't or shouldn't use "President pro tempore emeritus/emerita..." in infoboxes & therefore shouldn't use "Speaker-emeritus/emerita...". Best not to have honorary titles in the infoboxes of these former speakers & presidents pro temp. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)