Talk:Al Franken/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Senate Run Update

On Nov.16 on the Colbert Report, Colbert announced that Franken had announced his senate bid earlier in the week. I can't find any information affirming this announcement by Colbert. Should this be added under the senate heading? Was Colbert right? ~~Thoolie

The interview from the day before had Franken saying roughly this: If you bring the Colbert Report to MN, I will announce my decision on your show. The day after, Colbert made that comment, followed by audience laughter. -JKChesky

Archive

I have archived the talk page so we can concentrate on the current state of the article. You might want to check the archive link above before you post a new discussion.--Jackbirdsong 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse?

I know it's been brought up before, but this article is still in need of criticism. I just finished reading Bill O'Reilly controversies and figured that there would be a parallel article regarding Al Franken. Don't tell me to add them myself; if I knew what they were, I wouldn't be here. Perhaps this is an issue better raised on the talk for Bill O'Reilly? —  MusicMaker 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Franken hasn't had the same number of well-publicized public feuds that O'Reilly has. Franken is less well-known and has a much diminished platform. He has feuded with O'Reilly and Limbaugh, but beyond that, the list is pretty short. He and Ann Coulter have traded shots, there was a run-in with Neil Boortz on Franken'fs radio show, and there's the Ashcroft letter. Most of those are addressed in the article. O'Reilly, by contrast, makes a point of engaging in these feuds and controversies. Croctotheface 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What?! He writes books that personally attack people by name-- "Rush Limbaugh is a Big fat Idiot" how is that NOT making "a point of of engaging in...feuds and controversies"?!

Sean7phil 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sean, you're making too much sense. Any unflattering material about Al is immediately and ceremoniously scrubbed from here. Don't you know about the pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias at Wikipedia?D323P (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, where is the criticisms section people. This is extremely biased that Oreilly and Limbaugh have these MASSIVE criticisms list, yet a well known liberal commentator like al has none. I believe this point to larger biases in the wikipedia audience. I wish i knew more about Al so I could add a section myself, but frankly i do not. 66.31.222.89 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)peterp

PeterP - I had a number of criticisms listed, but they were immediately scrubbed. This is not an honest operation here, and we're just gonna have to live with it. D323P (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia requires criticisms to be verifiable and reasonably true. It's this stubborn insistence on verifiable truth that makes Wikipedia have a liberal bias. If Wiki would drop that, then we could just put up pages asserting that evolution is false, that WMD's are in Iraq, etc. 24.211.245.174 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Al Franken page lacks a huge criticism list like the ones found on O'Reilly or Limbaugh doesn't mean the article is biased. Perhaps O'Reilly and Limbaugh have actually done things to merit such criticism. I'm not saying there is no controversy surrounding Al, but I certainly haven't found any outside of those who have a serious conflict of interest ;) Maybe the fact that you don't have any dirt on him says something. -km

Are you serious?? Don't you know what's going on here? Any unflattering material about Al is immediately and ceremoniously scrubbed. It is simply not allowed here. There is an organized effort to keep this article free from anything that would make Al look un-Senatorial. Look at the pictures. Where are the pictures from his SNL days. Or dancing on Solid Gold. Meanwhile, on the Norm Coleman page, there are some unflsttering shots from his younger days. Don't you see what's going on here? It's not about the truth and honesty and composing a good article, it's about having Al look his best, especially with the election coming up. D323P (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well since you bring it up (and no one else seems to want to do it), I will spend the next few weeks researching criticisms of Al. Many can be found already in other wiki articles such as his involvement in the Air America Loan scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America-Gloria_Wise_loan_controversy

I will also try and cross reference the criticism between O'reilly and Al as well since it is WELL documented. 2 Be Continued 66.31.222.89 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)peterp

The article you linked to makes it pretty clear that Al Franken wasn't very involved. How's that research coming? 134.29.33.15 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the same people who are demanding a seperate "criticism" page are at a loss to come up with critical examples off the top of their heads? I'd like this to be fair as well, but it shouldn't be forced just to provide a perceived balance to other topics. --24.199.105.177 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several criticisms of Al, such as those at [[1]]. They are immediately scrubbed by editors here, however. D323P 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that Al Franken needs a criticisms section. I saw a short clip of his fight with O Reilly on C-Span 2, which got me interested in Frankin, but I had to look elsewhere for any details. (IMO most modern political pundits need a brief criticisms section because so much of their career is spent arguing and tearing others down that it is hard to separate their feuds from their professional body of work.)Bookswinters 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is already loaded with material that would appear in a typical criticism section. The "writer and performer" section has two large paragraphs about controversy surrounding one chapter in one Franken book. The material about that single controversy is longer than the material about his entire 15 year SNL career. Far from being biased, this article focuses too much on criticism and not enough on a neutral overview of his career. Gamaliel 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When I first started editing this page a few months ago, I initially noticed the ridiculously oversized criticism/controversy section, which was filled with many of the same silly and frankly un-controversial things that are now integrated into the article proper. It was my doing, having reached a concensus in discussion, to remove the criticism/controversy section title and integrate the so-called controversial information into the rest of the article. I did this so as not to cause a ruckus, but honstly IMHO the info seems to pale in comparison to, say, O'Reilly or Limbaugh's controversies. Franken tricked some neocons into believing he was writing a book about abstinence; Limbaugh said that MJ Fox was faking his Parkinson's to win votes. I see a major difference between the controversies of these aformentioned pundits and Franken's controversies, which, as Franken is a comedian, are largely a by-product of joking around with the wrong people.--Jackbirdsong 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Al Franken is not of reputable character, and many logical people know this. And wikipedia does have a lot of leftist bias as well. DUH. The problem is that the bias cannot be addressed as wikipedia guidelines are used for defending left-wing ideologies, and for attacking right-wing ideology. Yet, at the same time, look at how much Bill Oreilly gets attacked and the size of his platform. Oreilly, Limbaugh, etc etc etc are all major voices and affect people by what they say...and people listen. I dont see Franken that much...he is the reason I cant eat Parkway Butter anymore.

Folks - if there's a "pro-Franken" bias, it's only because you have not done much in the way of making well-researched contributions to the article. Personally, I believe that O'Reilly is much looser with the truth than Franken, so if his article reveals that, it's probably just a reflection of reality. If you disagree, fine - MAKE AN EDIT already. Just don't forget to cite credible sources. -Pete 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. Your duplicity is astounding. "MAKE AN EDIT already"? You are among the first to immediately scrub any unflattering material about Franken. Please. Stop it. D323P (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - as you make those edits, consider carefully whether they belong here or on The Al Franken Show page - that's probably the better place for the kind of thing being discussed, if it's more about Franken as a talk show host than as a person. -Pete 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Which logical people are these? Sorry that was innapropiate, POV, and baiting. But wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias. If they did, You would be able to tell. They would start the Ann Coulter section by calling her a liar or something. Wikipedia attempts to maintain a balance, which isn't an easy thing to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs).

Parkay Butter Commercial?

This was added (and subsequently removed). Regardless of whether it is valid, I think it should be discussed and verified:

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PARKAY BUTTER COMMERCIAL HE DID? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism (?)

I removed him from this category because Al Franken is not a journalist, he is a writer/commentator. As he is not a journalist, he cannot be a journalist accused of fabrication or plagiarism. Writers are allowed to fabricate in many cases, but they are never allowed to plagiarize. I didn't see any allegations of plagiarism in this article, nor can I remember any being made in the news. If anyone can cite examples of him plagiarizing anything, perhaps he should be added to a category for writers accused of plagiarism. Anynobody 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If he is not a journalist, why is this part of the Journalism category? You can't have it both ways. References to his accusation are below under Plagarism. Bytebear 02:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Only on the pro-lib Wikipedia would an author of SIX books not also fall into the "journalist" category. It's obvious why Franken supporters don't want a "journalism" tag added. It would open him up to all the falsehoods he's published. It would add to the publicity of his plagiarism. D323P (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Journalist and author are not the same. rewinn (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Franken for Senator

One thing is certain: Franken can do a good impression of the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon. Wahkeenah 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He also did a dead-on Paul Tsongas on SNL during the 1992 Democratic primaries. Which was interesting, since Tsongas was a major critic of Bill Clinton during those primaries for "wanting to be Santa Claus" (with promises of a middle class tax cut), and Al later became a big fan and defender of the Clintons.

I'm thinking Tsongas is the guy who sounded like Elmer Fudd. Imitating him was like shooting fish in a barrel. Wahkeenah 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but he recognized the similarity. Chivista 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob Franken notable, bro Owen, not

I wonder why we need to name his non-notable brother?Chivista 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• In case he's reading it. Wahkeenah 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion by DavidShankBone

David, I'm irritated by your reversion earlier this evening. Your comment indicated that you prefer that one sentence stay in, but your reversion of my entire edit undid more of my work than just that sentence. I have now reinstated those other revisions, leaving that sentence intact. I left it because I have no interest in getting into a "revert war," but I still think it should go. Even if the citations support it, the tone of that sentence (stating that Franken had told political insiders that he would run) is more suitable to a gossip column than an encyclopedia. I can't see what historical significance it has, now that it's established that he's running - and there are all kinds of other references to his hints that he might run. -Pete 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you were irritated, but it's asking a little much to sloppily remove an entire paragraph and then expect another editor to ensure that your own work is preserved. But I see no reason to brow-beat a mistake. For a long time Franken has hinted he might seek office, but for two weeks prior to throwing his hant in the ring he told senior Minnesota Democrats that yes, he would be running. I guess I'm not wed to that one sentence - but what I don't understand is why it is such an issue for you to keep it in? Remove it if you like; that one sentence isn't worth the effort to write paragraphs over. I was more bothered that an entire section had been sloppily edited out. --DavidShankBone 12:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the mistake is actually mine. You reformatted the source, but in my edit window it looked like you removed the entire section. I owe you an apology. *I* was the sloppy editor. PS - along with the Franken photo, my photo of your Senator and his wife is on the Ron Wyden page. --DavidShankBone 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion is about the sentence starting "The decision was not unexpected ..." then let me contribute that that sentence is not a helpful addition to the article. Grammatically, if doesn't state by whom it was not unexpected. Second, it is not noteworthy that before a candidate announces a candidacy, some people expected him to run. Most substantively, if an editor really, really wants to note that the general public had a good idea Franken would run, reference should be to his many broad hints, on his show & elsewhere, heard by millions of persons, and not to a private conversation about which few people know nor ever knew. rewinn 15:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a dead issue that doesn't merit so much time and discussion. --DavidShankBone 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for taking the time to review the edits. I know that sometimes it's unclear at first glance exactly what an editor did - glad to hear that's all that was going on here. -Pete 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Controversy sections should document an actual controversy, covering both (or more) sides in a NPOV way. It is not notable that some people don't like the subject of the article; nearly all public figures have enemies. rewinn 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also not controversial that a person has a political view. A genuine controversy is something about which there are at least two reasonable, sourced POVs. I have removed the "Controversy" section since, at this point, it doesn't state a controversy. rewinn 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I forgot to actually read that section in context with the whole. Sorry. Should have delteded it Chivista 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're all volunteers! Be Bold! and thanks for your work. rewinn 17:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism, maybe because he's now a political candidiate. I guess it would happen to any well known polictio. Chivista 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the "vandalism" removed by Chivista is in fact neutral, appropriate, and well sourced. I pointed out that that there happens to be a popular book entitled: "100 People who are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)" by bestselling author Bernard Goldberg. This is reasonable and relevant. The highlighting of Franken was done by the author, not me. This is not an obscure book- it is literally on the the shelves of airport bookstores out there. I am not stating any opinion, but rather highlighting Franken's impact on the media. Is criticism in popular literature off limits? How is this "vandalism"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Progena (talk • contribs).

Okay, how about this, to remain balanced we put in a "critics" of Franken: Comedic, Political and Artistic along with a "supporter side" ... Do we put this in one separate section? BTW lifting sprotChivista 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not controversial for there to be a books or other works critical of the subject of the article. If it were, the articles on George W Bush and Michael Moore might be nothing but book reviews, lists of critical commentators, and links to editorial cartoons. The controversy should be stated first, and then documented. The contribution was also POV since it was not accompanied by "the other side" of the controversy (whatever that "other side") may be. rewinn 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chivista that a "Critics" entry is appropriate and have added it. Others may wish to add a corresponding "Supporter" section, though this is probably redundant since many more works in support of Franken have been referenced already than those critical.123456 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This type of issue has already been dealt with in pages such as Rush Limbaugh. Critical books go in a "Books About..." section without commentary on their content. This frees us from any need to decide whether the books are authoritative or merely hit pieces; the article simply notes the books are about the article's subject, which is true. rewinn 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still nothing in the Controversy section that's actually contraversial.. 81.151.124.185 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Agreed. Currently that section includes only Savin'ItGate and TakeDownGate, neither which gained much traction as controversies. Let's hope the scandalmongers do better in the future! rewinn 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism

Sources citing that Franken did plagiarize:

• [2]
• [3]
• [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608722/posts]

This justifies the category "Journalists who have been accused of Fabrication or Plagiarism". Not an accusation does not mean he is guilty, but he has clearly been accused. Bytebear 02:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not post accusations of plagiarism without authoritative sourcing. Blogs are not authoritative. It is not notable for Freepers to accuse their political enemies of bad behavior. rewinn 02:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

do you know of any other sources? As I understand it, this was a big deal. And when he is accused of fabrications, he switches from a journalist to a satirist. Bytebear 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." At poorly sourced please see "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

If someone sues the article's subject for plagiarism, you may cite that lawsuit as evidence. Otherwise, repeating accusations is merely repeating libel, which is not improve the article. rewinn 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications..." And the accusations of plagiarism do NOT come from a source like that, but a published book! Again - by not having this on the site, this is yet another example of the awful bias here. D323P (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Followup: are you thinking of the "Fox v. Franken" case? I see that that's already covered in the article. Because the result makes clear that the charges were not merely unfounded, but grossly unfounded, the proposed category would be giving undue weight to a claim that was "literally laughed out of court." amending my previous posting rewinn 04:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article OR Campaign Literature?

The pro-Franken bias of this article only reinforces that Wikipedia is not neutral; and editors adamantly cheerlead for liberals by immediately scrubbing material that may be unflattering to them. Before you charge me with an "ad hominem attack," compare this article to those for Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, or Laura Ingraham, and the disparity is as clear as day. There is one standard for liberals and another for conservatives. Editors are not assuming good faith per Wiki guidelines. D323P 09:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What edits do you propose to improve the article? rewinn 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's comical that conservatives find one seemingly similar sentence and lodge accusations of plagiarism against Franken. I think the charge would stick more if they could find more than one sentence. Is there more than one sentence out there that looks plagiarized, or is that all, that one sentence? --DavidShankBone 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics of Franken

Books critical of Franken don't belong in the section concerning his writing, since he (presumably) didn't write them. I have moved them to their own subsection. Also, I deleted a link to an article that talked about the content of the book, since the book itself is the better authority on itself and, in any event, it's undue weight to spend more than a sentence on that book. rewinn 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewinn, I have to disagree with you in the placement of the criticism section. Both books were written in response to his writings, not to his political career. Either the books belong as a subsection of his political humor section, or as their own section entirely (albeit small one). Mykll42 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I combined those books with the existing (small) section on books critical of Franken ... there was a slight duplication anyway. It's difficult to separate Franken's political humor from his political career, especially now that he's a political candidate. rewinn 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Last night, User:Wikipediatoperfection deleted several large chunks of text. It doesn't look like anybody noticed at the time, and subsequent edits - many of which are good ones - have added new material, rather than adding to or improving material that was already there.

So I reverted all those edits, even though several good an well-intentioned ones were in there, to make sure we're all starting from the same point.

If I reverted something you want in, I hope you don't take offense (as none is intended), and please add it back in. -Pete 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if you looked closely, Rewinn and I were on top of it. The section about his character from The Earth to the Moon was the only thing I thought didn't merit mention. Franken's an actor and talking about that much about a part he played didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I had actually cut and pasted a couple of the bits directly, editing for tense and placement only. Mykll42 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I edited too hasitly. My apologies. -Pete 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing, I was editing out what shouldn't be in there. Most biographies don't have a section of the article devoted to books about them. Furthermore, "He was the subject of a 2006 documentary film entitled Al Franken: God Spoke,[1] which premiered in April of 2006 at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City and was released nationally on September 13 of the same year." is not a major fact about Franken so I took it our of the intro. Wikipediatoperfection 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Being the subject of a documentary and having books written about someone are things that make people notable and definitely merit mention. Believe me, I was there for the New York premiere and he defintiely considers it to be notable.Mykll42 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like I owe apologies all around. Wikipediatoperf, when you delete a lot of stuff without bringing it up on the "talk" page, it generally looks like random vandalism. I think it's common courtesy to make a note of those deletions, and the reason for them, on the "talk" page - even if it's an uncontroversial removal, it makes it clear to other editors that it was an intentional act. Still, I should not have called it "vandalism" withoug looking into it further, and I'm sorry. -Pete 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was still getting used to posting on the talk page first. I edit a lot of controversial articles, so I have decided to pretty much automatically post an explanation on the talk page for most substantive changes. Wikipediatoperfection 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Phony quotes today 4-25-2007

Looks like we have a malfeasor. Chivista 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we do. Those quotes are not found in the article. --David Shankbone 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankenlies.com link being added by the creator of that site, Dave Pierre

It has come out in a request for arbitration that D323P is Dave Pierre, who has created Frankenlies.com. He has put this link of several Franken-related pages, in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. --DavidShankBone 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A mediator has ruled that Frankenlies.com is NOT spam. Here is the mediator's response:

"::No, it is not. Spam according to policy is widespread inclusion of external links. The inclusion of a valid external link related to the article is not spam. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is only one form of SPAM. See Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, also on the Wikipedia:SPAM page. --DavidShankBone 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the forms of spam are. However, keep in mind two things: one, WP:SPAM is not policy, it is a guideline. Two, from that page: "There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting")." Frankenlies.com is not the 1st kind of spam, as this article is about Lying Liars. It is not the 2nd kind of spam because it is not being widely included. It is not the 3rd kind of spam because it is not tangential, it is directly related. It is not the 4th kind of spam because it is not "crossposting" across user talk pages.

Therefore, this site fails to meet all 4 definitions of spam.

More accurately, what you are questioning here is the validity of the source, under the "reliable sources" section of WP:A. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The site was NOT originally added by me, and only until recently has it been deleted. It should be restored. Thank you. D323P 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dave Pierre, SwatJester didn't "rule" anything -he offered an opinion, an opinion that has no more or less weight than mine or yours on this website. Wikipedia doesn't have a heirarchy like that. SwatJester has administrative tools he is authorized to use, but otherwise has no more authority than you or I do. You can ask him yourself, if you don't believe me. At the very least, your inclusion of your own website is a Conflict of Interest. You shouldn't be the one fighting this battle, for your own website. You aren't a disinterested editor as regards your own self-published web pages. --David Shankbone 15:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that there was a dispute here. Even ignoring the obvious conflict of interest involved in posting your own site, WP:BLP prevents your site from being linked from here. Here's the relevant part of the policy:

Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

I will continue to revert this link per BLP guidelines. Also note that there are no external links critical of, say, Bill O'Reilly or George W. Bush. In both cases, it's certainly not because they aren't out there. Croctotheface 10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the O'Reilly article, and there is an external article critical of him. Again, there is not balance here. D323P 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankenlies.com has been cited in no less than TWO books, one of which was a New York Times bestseller. It was also mentioned by Bill O'Reilly on both his TV and radio shows. I have been interviewed by three major-city radio hosts, who found the site very informative. "Spam"? Not even close. Meanwhile, David Shankbone, who has leveled this false charge, attempted to post an anonymous "blogspot.com" site as a source for this page. This article continues to be emblematic of the rampant liberal bias here at Wikipedia. Any unflattering material about Franken is immediately scrubbed. D323P (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's inappropriate to link to a site that exists only to criticize someone in their BLP article. The Hannity and O'Reilly articles likewise don't have links to these kinds of sites. If an article on some other political figure, conservative or liberal, has links of this nature, I'd be in favor of removing them. Croctotheface (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Franken's degree

I just removed a reference to the degree that Al Franken earned. According to our article, his degree was in government, citing Time magazine, which only refers to his year of graduation, not to his major. According to his Facebook profile, he majored in general studies. (To see the Facebook profile, you will have to become his friend on Facebook to see it; I think he usually friends anyone who asks.) Ordinarily I would see citing Facebook as something akin to amputating a limb, but Facebook's system of registration provides a fairly high degree of certainty that Franken is actually the one behind his profile.

Please note that I have merely removed reference to his particular major, since that is the item in doubt. I have not replaced it with his major according to facebook.

I sent an email to his campaign website, alfranken.com, asking for further confirmation. I will post further bulletins as events warrant. Karl Dickman ^talk 20:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just received an email confirming his degree, and am adding that info to the article. Karl Dickman ^talk 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

Listen, I like Al, I'm a Democrat, mostly liberal, etc.

But some of the language in here seems awfully POV-ish. I'm going to try and find a transcript of his Fresh Air comments re Fox and the book. As written now, it sounds incredibly biased. He may well have said all that, but directly quoting him would come across much more clearly as reporting, vs. bias. NickBurns 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This page clearly holds a biased POV in Al Franken's favor. Nwbh (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks back I made a few edits to the Political Views section that I incorrectly hoped would be noncontroversial enough, like removing the rather meaningless line "Franken believes in protecting Social Security." A couple of sentences on Franken's position on social security could be placed here, but this line is a rather simplistic talking point opposed to a a balanced discussion on Franken's political positions. I did change the line about cutting oil subisidies to raising taxes on oil companies (which is a plank in his platform too), but this probably was in part due to personal bias against "cutting oil subsidies" as there is little direct oil subsidy in the federal budget; I feel it isn't a true position so much as an empty political claim. As this is more personal opinion I'm willing to let both in (that is, cutting subsidies and raising taxes), but if you disagree with any of this please say something here instead of just reverting.

Thanks,

Ben 19:14, 14 September 2008 (PST)

Frankenlies.com

Could someone please RETURN listing my site, Frankenlies.com, to the external links section. It was NOT originally placed there by me, but it was unfairly removed. Please read ABOUT THE SITE FIRST ---> About the site Thank you. (BTW, The Bill O'Reilly article has a link to FAIR , and Sean Hannity's has a link to Media Matters.) D323P 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of removing those links from the Hannity or O'Reilly articles before I'd be in favor of adding your site here. I don't think it's really wise within a BLP to have links critical of the subject. However, at least FAIR and MMfA are published by established political organizations. Your site is self-published, and "self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." Croctotheface 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that you call MMFA an "established political organization." First of all, the word "political" establishes bias. Second, my site has been around longer than MMFA! D323P (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that all you do on Wikipedia is come around every year or so and try to link your site from this article. MM is published, as I said, by an organization that has many employees and is invited on TV shows and whatnot to opine on the issues it publishes. Your site is self-published. Whether or not you put the first version up before MM doesn't mean that your credentials are greater. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

David Pierre, considering that you added this tag, could you explain what issues you have? Do they involve items other than not linking to your site? Croctotheface 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the NPOV tag. There's nothing in this article that reflects editor bias. All the POV stuff are quotes and positions of the candidate. Please point to any specific line in the article that deserves that tag. Otherwise it will be removed.--Appraiser 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Bias and Abuse in this article has been confirmed--MonkeyTimeBoy 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue that there hasn't been vandalism and at times, obsessive addition of POV material, but it has generally been dealt with in a timely manner. The article doesn't have a basic POV issue, and I think when that tag is added, the editor has an obligation to explain on the Talk page what the areas of concern are.--Appraiser 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Drug use" section

On editor introduced this section, without leaving a comment or edit summary, and has reverted my well-reasoned, good faith attempts to remove them, again without comment or edit summary. I will reiterate my position here: it is not an encyclopedia's job to chronicle or create a database of drug use by celebrities. I also recall that calling attention to Franken's drug use is a favorite tactic of conservatives who seek to discredit Franken. In general, just about every article about a celebrity could have a section like this. We refrain, I assume, because this kind of material is gossipy, trivial, and excessively personal to be appropriate for an encyclopedia biography. Croctotheface 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, a quick Google search revealed this Youtube user with the same name as the "drug use" editor here. Although I being a vocal critic of Franken does not explicitly diqualify someone from editing his Wikipedia page, it seems pretty clear that these edits are in support of a personal point of view. Croctotheface 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Franken's self-admitted drug use being included in the article; I just want proper citation to reputable sources. If he's fessed up, then he's fessed up, and it's notable enough. --David Shankbone 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough. I take issue with the notion that there is "fessing up" involved in the first place. To me, this is a personal matter, and sections of this nature could exist for just about any celebrity. A section of this nature seems designed, to me, solely to prejudice people against Franken. That seems to be the intention of the editor here. If this were somehow a big controversy, then OK, but it's not our job to help bring publicity to a minor story. I have POV/undue weight concerns because of that. Also, as an addendum, I do not see a sourcing issue here. The statements are attributed withing the text, which gives dates and publication titles (1994 LA Times and June 2007 Star Tribune). If you don't have a problem with an encyclopedia article documenting this content, then I don't think that sourcing is really a concern here. Croctotheface 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but we have a guy who is running for a national office who purportedly admitted to substance use. That was an issue for Clinton, that was an issue for Bush, and it's been an issue for Obama. It sunk a Supreme Court nominee. It has crept into the campaign of John McCain. It was an issue for Ted Haggard. By any measure, it makes it notable. What I want to see is proper citation format and some links, not nebulous references to stories that may or may not exist. This has happened before on the Franken page, where someone added information, attributing it to a source that I added; in fact, the information did not exist in the article. I want citations, proper citations. Which means article title, writer, publication and date, and a ref if possible, which in this case is more than warranted. That's all. --David Shankbone 16:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a one sentence mention in Bill Clinton of his lack of inhalation, and no mention of cocaine or drugs in George W. Bush. If there were a charge that Franken were currently doing cocaine or if this had more currency as a scandal, I might see the issue differently. I think the last issue is where my real objection lies: this strikes me as an attempt by an editor to stir up a scandal by using something that was reported in one book on SNL and in a couple of newspaper articles. If there were a great deal of secondary matierial on this subject, I wouldn't object. Croctotheface 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be the one to add it in or research it, but if someone else does I think it merits as much of a mention as it does in the Barack Obama article, or the William Rehnquist article, for that matter. --David Shankbone 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In both those cases, along with Bill Clinton, there's one or two sentences in a paragraph about something else. If it were a matter of one sentence, in context, I wouldn't object. There's a big difference between that and an entire section entitled "drug use". Croctotheface 18:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --David Shankbone 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a simple factual statement about his admitted drug use in the Personal life section, where it belongs. Glorifying it further is pure hyperbole and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.--Appraiser 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. A single purpose account with a clear agenda to highlight the drug use inappropriately continues to revert it to the issue section, where it does not belong. I do not see that Franken's drug use (nor Coleman's) is an issue as it was, say, in the Douglas Ginsberg's failed Supreme Court nomination. --David Shankbone 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If Franken makes a statement about legalization (for or against) as Coleman did recently, than the issue will have more bearing, as it does in Coleman's article.--Appraiser 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Additionally, that is under "issues" and not the 2008 re-election section. --David Shankbone 14:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the newspaper article cited from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The link in the reference list links only to the Star-Tribune's entry in Wikipedia, a search of the Star-Tribune's web site yields no results, and there are a very limited number of items returned on a Google search using "Candidates' past use of illegal substances surfaces" as the search term. A search of Google News yields no results for any time period. Further, about the only web page that actually seems to acknowledge the existence of some sort of article regarding Minnesota Senate candidates drug use appears to indicate that the author of the article is Jake Sherman and not Mike Sherman. Shouldn't a user of Wikipedia be able to verify the authenticity of these references? I don't want to delete the reference, but I think that it might be necessary unless someone can make it a bit more 'real'. Ossified 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Star Tribune reference is useless. I never use that paper as a reference, because the articles become unavailable for free viewing within 2 weeks of publication, I think. The drug use is documented in the book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, which isn't available free on-line, but one can look at the index, which shows that Franken's drug use is mentioned on page 93 and 94 of the book. Although I don't have the book, the current statement in the article appears to be adequately documented.--Appraiser 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Both books cited seem OK to me. It's just the newspaper article. Usually, one can find some evidence of an actual article archived somewhere on the 'net, but I wasn't able to. That the author's name doesn't seem to be an established fact also makes me a bit leery. I'm a newbie and so want to be careful about willy-nilly deletions, but I think that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reference should be either excised or supported. Does that seem reasonable, Appraiser? Ossified 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The section clearly doesn't belong. The only reason to include it is to forward a negative, POV-driven agenda. There is no citation that has Franken himself volunteering the information. Let's not let articles that WE'RE involved with reach such lows here. We're all better than this. --AStanhope 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not an issue of sourcing. It's an issue of undue weight and POV. It is very clear in similar articles that at WP, we do not consider it appropriate to draw attention to drug use the weigh adding this section would. Croctotheface 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) ....However, I noticed that someone removed the one sentence. I don't think that there is really an issue with that sentence, since I don't really doubt the source given. It's obviously a little bit harder to check a print source, but we shouldn't discriminate against them. I'm fine with a sentence, properly sourced, since if it's true and verifiable, and it's part of his biography, we can include it here. Croctotheface 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? --AStanhope 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What's confusing? My position is no to a large section called "drug use", yes to one sentence, in context, properly sourced. Croctotheface 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, drug use among Americans of Franken's generation (and probably later ones) was so common that it might be best handled by an infobox line: drug use: yes. It's simply not notable by itself. In Rehnquist's case, there was something additional: he may have been addled while on the bench. If a political candidate is intoxicated while a candidate or in office, that might be noteworthy but there's no evidence of that here. rewinn 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I mean, I'm not going to disagree that lots of people used drugs in the 60s and 70s. However, I take issue with the assumptions that seem to be inherent in a "yes/no" checkbox approach. That kind of appraoch, to me, would make it seem sort of like a issue or information that encourages readrs to pass judgment, based on their own opinion of what it means for a person to use drugs. We need not invite that kind of judgment. As to making a judgment about what is or is not noteworthy, it's obvious that this information is interesting to some people. To me, the questions to ask are not "do we consider drug use in the 60s and 70s a big deal" but rather "is it true" and "is it verifiable". Considering that it appears that it is both true and verifiable that Franken has done at least some drugs (I recall from his radio show that he discussed smoking pot), then I don't think it's appropriate for us, as editors, to essentially hide that information. Yes, some people's opinions of Franken could change because they discover this information, but that's not what writing from a neutral point of view is about. Croctotheface 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, we should not go with something like the infobox because that puts drug use out there in such a way that encourages people to make a value judgment based on it. However, we are not responsible if we address such information with neutral, in context writing and readers make value judgments of a person based on what we say. Croctotheface 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Against: 1/3 of Americans and 43% of American men admit to at least having tried marijuana. marijuana use statistics This does not merit a line in the article. Note that the reason it is mentioned on Norm Coleman's page is because his former college buddy is calling him a hypocrite on the issue. If Franklin makes decriminalization of marijuana or tougher penalties for drug offenders part of his platform, by all means mention it. Otherwise, stop vandalizing the page. Wikipediatoperfection 07:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolded comments are unnecessary. Woah, chill out, "vandalizing the page"? This is a disagreement about content. Even POV pushing, per WP:VAND, is not by itself considered vandalism. It is our job to assemble verifiable information. It is not our job to assess whether someone is or is not a hypocrite. Again, that assumes that we are making a value judgment that drug use is somehow bad. For inclusion, the main issue is whether it is verifiable, which it appears to be. Secondarily, we do have editorial discretion about whether it is sufficiently interseting. I would submit that it is obviously interesting to some people, or else there would not be a dispute. If Franken's drug use becomes even a minor issue in the campaign, which it could to already be based on the newspaper article, then that in my mind establishes relevance/interest. I think a similar case is Barack Obama, which makes mention, in a single sentence, in context, of his drug use. There is no issue of hypocrisy or other such value judgments there, just interest and verifiability. Croctotheface 07:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will refrain from using bold. I think it would make the page easier to read if this was standard practice for things like this, but whatever. You are right, it is not technically vandalism. Can you please point me to where in the Obama article his drug use is mentioned? Wikipediatoperfection 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. Bolded text can be helpful if there is a poll being conducted, but this is more of a discussion to arrive at a consensus than a "are you for or against" kind of thing, or at least I think so. The Obama article says, "He used alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years, Obama writes, to 'push questions of who I was out of my mind.'[19]" Croctotheface 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Obama, it was Obama's choice to feature drug use in his own autobiography. I think this is an exception rather than the rule. Wikipediatoperfection 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see that as any kind of legitimate reason. First, you could say that Franken chose to "feature" his drug use on the radio show or wherever else he mentioned it in interviews. As I said, I don't see sources as the problem here. I could see the concern if the source were some sort of gossipy, second hand, "I remember seeing Franken do drugs", but I don't think that's anything like what's at issue here. Second, in general, I don't think that in either the case of Obama or Franken, the information is significant enough to mention in WP if the source is an autobiography but not significant enough if it is not. Again, the tests I'm using are verifiability and significance, and I think that the sentence in question passes both. Croctotheface 09:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a simple statement from a reliable, verifiable source. I think either omitting it or blowing it out of proportion would be less NPOV. I don't want to tear the guy down, but it seems to be a well-documented fact from 20 years ago. Readers may choose to make a judgement, but I believe the line I added is about as non-judgemental as possible. And, leaving it out leaves room for a political adversary to add gobs of POV about it.--Appraiser 15:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is dumb/petty/unnecessary and politically motivated to include drug use in this article, however the current iteration with the cocaine/Diet Pepsi phrasing cited by Time seems like an acceptable compromise. --AStanhope 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think anybody could say that my support of including a mention is motivated by a desire to take a political shot at Franken. If don't think a review of my record here would find that I've been anything but fair to him (and why wouldn't I be, since I consider myself a fan). I have to confess that I think there is, from some people, a politically-motivated desire to hide his drug use. I'm fine with the current sentence, but I was fine with the previous one as well. Croctotheface 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is an acceptable compromise. Wikipediatoperfection 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm guilty of making a joke about the infobox; I was underlining the lack of significance of Franken's past drug use. I don't see how one could "hide" something that he's talked about openly, but I also don't see why if it's significant for Franken, it's not also significant for a great many other people. At any rate, the current text seems unobjectionable. rewinn 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alma Mater

I tried to add his Alma Mater to his infobox, but it does not show up. Help anybody? Wikipediatoperfection 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The template has education, but not Alma-mater. I changed it.--Appraiser 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberal vs. Progressive

Franken self-describes as a progressive rather than a liberal. Similarly, he was a featured talk show host on Air America Radio which describes itself as "progressive talk radio". By way of analogy, it's more correct to speak of Ron Paul as a libertarian, rather than a conservative, and since many people perceive that there's a difference between liberalism and progressivism, I'm going to change the single use of the word 'liberal' in the intro paragraph to 'progressive'. I'd be happy to discuss any objections. Ossified 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• The exact opposite is true. I took the photographs of him found on this page, and he was specifically asked about this issue and he flat out said he is a liberal, claims the term, and doesn't like attempts to hide it under the "progressive" label since being a liberal is nothing to be ashamed about. And I agree with him. There is also the argument that it does not matter how the subject wants to be described, we are here to describe him the way he is, not the way he wants. But I am not making that argument, since the "liberal" term succeeds either way. --David Shankbone 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty agnostic about it, and certainly wouldn't fault him for self-describing as a liberal for the reasons you mentioned. A look at his website [4], though, includes things like "Al's political philosophy had always been informed by his friend and hero, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, and when he moved home at the end of 2005, he found that the spirit of Wellstonian progressive politics was still very much alive." and "You might know him as the host of Air America Radio's "The Al Franken Show," the network's flagship program that helped put progressive talk radio on the map." and "On March 31, 2004, a brand new part of the progressive movement celebrated its first day on the air. Air America Radio was the first progressive talk radio network, and Al was its first star." and ""Americans have never backed away from challenges. And Minnesotans have always led the way. Our state has sent strong, progressive leaders to Washington—from Hubert Humphrey to Walter Mondale to Paul Wellstone, and now to Amy Klobuchar. Minnesota's public servants might not always look and sound like typical politicians, but they stand by their principles and lead by their values. That's the kind of leader I think we need more of these days, and that's the kind of Senator I'll be." There's no mention of liberal on the page. I'm just looking for the most accurate descriptor and am not wed to progressive. Feel free to revert it if you feel more strongly than I do about it. Cheers! Ossified 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We should use whatever he describes himself as in reliable sources. If his official bio describes himself as progressive, then we should go with that. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know that the issue is important, but Gamaliel's comment above isn't the way things work. People can describe themselves however they want, and many people who are liberal and conservative effort to avoid those labels even though there is a lengthy history behind each, and are common political science and philosophical terms. We can't describe people the way they want to be described, but the way they are. Otherwise, we end up a mouthpiece for them, and we are here looking at things objectively (at least, that's the aim). --David Shankbone 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And yet you above advocate describing him as a liberal because he said he was. Regardless, I believe that people should be described how they describe themselves, and then we can quote dissenting views (if any) from reliable sources later in the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I said I wasn't making that argument. I disagree in principle with your opinion. It would be problematic to say "Rush Limbaugh is a self-described moderate, but in reality...." An encyclopedia calls a spade a spade. But if you really need to see a quote on this issue in particular, here's an interview where he's asked this question: http://www.radioink.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=204288&PT=industryqa --David Shankbone 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Self-identifications that don't pass the laugh test, such as your example, shouldn't be included. If you give me or any reasonable person a compelling reason to challenge a self-identification, then we'll go along with it. What is the reason in this case? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm just saying, it can be difficult to start arguing for self-identification in some cases, and not others and reasoning like this often leads to the "Wikipedia is biased in some cases but not in others..." argument. Either way, I'm not arguing for a change - he's a liberal, and he wants to be called that regardless, per the link I provided to an interview with him, entitled, "I'm a liberal, dammit!" --David Shankbone 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm generally in favor of self-identification because I feel that people should be allowed to self-identify, it avoids edit wars over labels, and it avoids the problem of opponents using labels and semantics as a political tool. Sure, there is the issue of allowing some self-identifications and not others, but that's what reliable sources are for. If reliable sources say the KKK is a hate group and not a civil rights group, then we can ignore the self-identification. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
            • You both make good points and I think that this can be a beneficial dialogue. On the one hand, I think that the article David cites clearly indicates that Franken self-identified as a liberal rather than a progressive when given the specific choice. I certainly understand his reasoning at the time. On the other hand, that article was written in 2004 and his web site is more recent than that. Let me try to broaden this a bit. As I see it, there was a concerted effort by conservatives to muddy the brands 'Democratic' and 'liberal'. We needn't concern ourselves with the reasons or measures of their success. At the time, however, there were many left-leaning people who embraced the label 'liberal' in defiance while there were others who began to self-describe as 'progressive' so as to avoid having to deal with the conservatives' efforts to smear the label. Over time, however, I think that the differences between 'liberal' and 'progressive' which were recently almost exclusively semantic have become more concrete with 'liberal' being more closely associated with the DLC-oriented centrist wing of the left and 'progressive' being a more activist, 'back to the roots of 20th century liberal aspirations' type group. Here are a few examples that I hope will help illustrate how I perceive things currently: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden - liberal vs. Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Edwards - progressive. Again, my perception only. Your mileage may vary. If I had to choose, however, I think I would consider Franken more a progressive than a liberal, assuming you accept that there are now some definable differences between the two. Ossified 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Your distinction, while interesting, sounds an awful lot like original thought to me. So...be less original? Croctotheface 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Absolutely original thought. That's why I referred to it as 'my perception' and have it on the talk page. My opinion is that there are now concrete, definable differences between those that self-identify as liberal and those that self-identify as progressive. Essentially, it's a process, not an event. It may yet be too early in the process for there to be wide understanding or acceptance of that process, hence I was testing the waters to see if the other editors of this page see what I see. If so, then perhaps we are far enough along in that process to use the labels to differentiate left-leaning folk. If those differences aren't there, or no one (other than me) sees them, then it's a moot point whether to label Franken a liberal or a progressive. I will, however, take your advice and be less original in the future ;) Ossified 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • While I appreciate your thought process, I don't think this is appropriate place to "test" personal theories; after all, you did make the change in the mainspace. And to a person who quite proudly proclaims the label "liberal". --David Shankbone 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Well, all I can offer in my defense are the following: (1) As I mentioned, if the two terms were recently synonyms, but are coming to connote different 'flavors' of liberalism, then that is a process and not an event. In that case, a 'testing of the waters' is the only way to determine that the process has proceded beyond a tipping point. (2) There is ample evidence on the web of people who perceive that there are differences between a 'liberal' and a 'progressive' and are trying to elucidate exactly what those differences are. I found some interesting, although not definitive reading by Googling "liberal vs. progressive'. (3) I have no agenda here. As I said before I'm pretty agnostic. My interest was in using what I perceived to be Franken's own preference. At the time, I was unaware of the article you cited. (4) I changed the mainspace only after visiting Franken's site which does repeatedly mention 'progressive' and not 'liberal'. (5) Once you reverted my change, I haven't made any effort to change it back. I believe that I truly have exhibited good faith here and if I have made any errors, I assure that they are due only to newbie exuberance. It is my belief that there is an emerging consensus that there is a difference between progressives and liberals, although that is not to say that they don't have many, if not most beliefs in common. At some point in the not too distant future, I think that political labels applied to liberal people in Wikipedia (not necessarily Al Franken, though!) will have to be revisited to address this emerging divergence. Cheers! Ossified 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More Mbrodkorb

This editor, whose edits have all involved anti-Franken POV, sought to change the article to say that Franken supports "cutting off funding for the troops". In fact, in the interview, Franken said that Democrats should "make the President cut off funding for the troops" by refusing to sign a funding bill that does not include timetables. The article is actually inaccurate as it is, and I'm going to change it. Croctotheface 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support this. I replaced his edit with the verbatim quote from the cited video. Ossified 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Croc, Oss - not even an issue, IMO. --David Shankbone 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Oss, I have to insist that we should provide context for the quote. Mbrodkorb wants to focus on the notion of "cutting off...the troops" because his only purpose for editing Wikipedia is to make it more critical of Al Franken. In fact, Franken was discussing a strategy for ending the war whereby the Democrats in Congress would take a stand and force Bush to either submit to timetables or veto the bill that would appropriate funds for the troops and thereby refuse to fund them. Listen to the interview, and I think you'll agree that just having the "cut the funds" quote without explaining the overall position doesn't provide the necessary context. Croctotheface 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm sensitive to "cut off funding for the troops". There is no question that you add valid context. If there is a way to do that while retaining "make the president cut off funding for the troops", then I think you've nailed it. Ossified 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I was and continue to be challenged by the accuracy of "context" provided. I feel the more accurate of the two changes is the verbatim quote from the cited video. Context is open to POV. --MBrodkorb 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting someone without context is POV by definition. Do you think that the contextual information I provided misstates Franken's opinion? If so, how? Croctotheface 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The question asked by the interviewer of Franken was what is Democrats strategy come September regarding Iraq. Franken answered with the Democrats should make the president "cut off funding for the troops." Franken didn't say anything about vetoes, nor was the question about vetoes. I find the framing of this quote in its current form as "[r]egarding the prospect of vetoes, Franken said" to be completely inaccurate. I feel the more accurate of the two changes is the verbatim quote from the cited video. How do we resolve this issue? I strongly believe the "context" provided is undocumented and slanted.--MBrodkorb 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The context is about timetables and the President not signing a bill with a timetable for withdrawal. When asked about what the Democrats should do in September (after Petreus's report) he says "Make him cut off funding for the troops" and then says, referring to the President not signing bills with timetables for withdrawal, "Make [Bush] say 'okay, I'm cutting off funding because I won't agree to a timetable'" --David Shankbone 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the pro-Franken POV lanuguage that is being inserted into this article. The latest example is the framing of Franken's answer to question about what should be the Democrats strategy come September regarding Iraq. Franken answered with the Democrats should make the president "cut off funding for the troops." Franken didn't say anything about vetoes, nor was the question about vetoes. I find the framing of this quote in its current form as "[r]egarding the prospect of vetoes, Franken said" to be completely inaccurate.--MBrodkorb 12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep pretending that the conversation somehow ended after Franken said the word "troops". I took the time, because I'm an idiot, to transcribe the exchange, which happens at about 3:30 of the video:

Marshall: What to the Democrats do come September?

Franken: I think you make the president cut off funding for the troops.  I mean, I think that...

Marshall: There are definitely a lot of Democrats who are not willing to bite that bullet, so to speak.

Franken: Well, I think, by then, they will be.  I think they heard from their constituents, from the people 
who elected them in '06.  I think that the Democrats got nervous that they were Gingrich and he was
Clinton, if this were in terms of early '96, and I think it was the opposite.  I think he was Gingrich,
and we were  Clinton.  I think we've gotta make him say, "OK, I'm cutting off funding because I won't 
agree to a timetable."

"won't agree to a timetable" refers to Bush's refusal to agree to a timetable, which took the form of a veto. Franken describes the strategy that I described in the mainspace: Democrats should insist on a timetable, and if Bush continues to insist that funding bills lack a timetable, there will be an impasse, like with Gingrich and the government shutdown. As such, Bush will be in the position of having to defend his position, which resulted in a lack of funding for the troops. By contrast, your version omits this explanation in favor of what you consider the most "damaging" quote. Recall that your initial edits said that Franken advocated taking the affirmative act, on a personal level, of "cutting off funding for the troops", which is clearly not what he is saying. We can remove the reference to vetoes--in fact, I'll do that now--and it won't change the substance of what the section says. Croctotheface 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mdbrodkorb and MNCampaign Report

• MBrodkorb has zero credibility to me, because all of his edits have been to this article and to Norm Coleman (changing that article to make Coleman sound more appealing). Further, I believe that Franken's stance is as characterized by User:Croctotheface. To change the characterization with political motivation is contrary to Wikipedia principles.--Appraiser 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The quote refered in th article now is even less accurate. Franken did not say in the interview that "I think we've gotta make [Bush] say, 'OK, I'm cutting off funding because I won't agree to a timetable.'" Yet, this is in quotes in the article. It is not a direct quote from Franken. His direct quote is "I think you make the president cut off funding for the troops." Why are you creating a Franken quote that he never said? --MBrodkorb 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• "When did you stop beating your wife, Senator?" This is a loaded non sequitur -- see comment below. Repeated apologies for novice wiki-skills MNCampaignReport 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• This leaves me to believe that Mbrodkorb is just here to lie, or that he didn't actually watch the tape. It clearly says that; I watched the tape, as did the rest of us. Apparently you didn't, or are just here to deceive. --David Shankbone 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I listened again and heard a similar phrase from Franken, but emphasis given in this article is wrong. I'm concerned this is an attempt to add pro-Franken POVs to this article which is contrary to Wikipedia principles.--MBrodkorb 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very nice job, Croc. Thank you for taking the time to be an 'idiot'. Your current edit is absolutely NPOV and accurately conveys the message that Franken was trying impart. I appreciate your sticking with it! Ossified 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. It is very NPOV. --David Shankbone 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies for my novice skills at wiki editing -- HOWEVER -- Those outside the Minnesota political scene should be aware that MBrodkorb is the author of websites called, respectively, Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Blogs for Norm! (Coleman). While the facts and quotes MBrodkorb asserts may, in their own right, be true, they are often taken in grossly different contexts than they were meant. In addition, Mr. Brodkorb has a long history of working with and for Republican party units and campaigns, and has publicly committed to organizing bloggers who support Norm Coleman's reelection bid.

The fact that his entire user history is confined to Al Franken's and Norm Coleman's wikipedia pages is not a mistake, nor should it be seen as mere happenstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNCampaignReport (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "MNCampaignReport" is the name of a liberal/Democratic Minnesota blog who's author worked for Democratic candidates. While failing to disclose their political affiliations, this person is correct on three points: I added facts and quotes to Franken's Wikipedia page that are "in their own right, true...", I run blogs called Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Blogs for Norm!, and I am a Republican. Will it now be required that the other editors and contributors of Franken's Wikiepdia page disclose their political affiliations?--MBrodkorb 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Wikipedia, but in my mind, political affiliation is not relevant, but someone's intentions can be called into question if they appear to be interested in pushing their personal opinions into articles. Croctotheface 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Will it now be required that the other editors and contributors of Franken's Wikiepdia page disclose their political affiliations?" ..... For those of us who are directly involved in that race, whether from a media perspective or from that of a political activist, I think MBrodkorb has hit on a good idea. However, note the continued cherry-picking of contextual information ("HA -- SEE? MNCAMPAIGNREPORT SAYS THE THINGS I POSTED WERE TRUE" even though I specifically mentioned the fact that MBrodkorb severely maligned their contexts). Also note that MBrodkorb has not responded to the fact that he has in the past worked as a consultant for Republican candidates for high elected office.

But yes, if you're going to make inflammatory edits to political figures' pages, I think a little pre-disclosure WOULD be a good thing. But thanks for "outing" my political leanings despite the fact that I have done nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNCampaignReport (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It difficult to follow this discussion because "MNCampaignReport" is not signing their comments. It appears that Wikipedia is adding "MNCampaignReport" to the unsigned comments left by someone logging in as "MNCampaignReport".--MBrodkorb 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest to "MNCampaignReport" that if you're going to make inflammatory edits targeting contributors to Wikipedia pages, a little pre-disclosure WOULD be a good thing. The blogger who runs "MNCampaignReport" in Minnesota has worked for Democratic candidates and I have worked for Republican candidates. We both are partisans.--MBrodkorb 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both editors edits need to be watched carefully. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and neither editor should bicker on here. This article is to discuss edits. Mdbrodkorb, your objections to the troop funding issue is noted and no more needs to be said. Your objections were unanimously overruled by all other editors. --David Shankbone 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies for not signing my edits -- all edits related to this page have, in fact, been me, and not someone else logging in as me. I yield to DavidShankBone's conclusion. MNCampaignReport 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for siging your posts "MNCampaignReport" as this will help with communication between contributors. While I may privately disagree with some small minor aspects of the edits on Franken's page regarding the troop funding issue, dramatic improvements have been made and I'm proud of the edits and suggestions that I made that ended up in the final version. I fully support the community aspect of Wikipedia. The editors have made a decision regarding the final wording of the troop funding issue on Franken's page and I support their right to make that decision. I greatly appreciate the extra-effort taken by the editors to re-examine the wording. This discussion page has been most helpful.--MBrodkorb 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE CRITICISM SECTION?

When one takes into account the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O' Reilly and Glenn Beck ALL have quite large "Criticism of" sections, it is a grave mockery of Wikipedia's claim of neutrality that Al Franken doesn not have a similar section. He is, as an author and talk show host, very much the equal of his conservative counterparts in fame and publicity, and therefore deserves the same treatment his conservative counterparts get.

Or is this just another case of Wikipedias famous far-left bias?

-Troy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.160.75 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article most certainly does address notable criticism that has been leveled against Franken. The fact that there is less of it for him than for Limbaugh and the others might say more about Limbaugh than it does about WP editors. Croctotheface (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested the IP address of this anonymous editor is Atlanta, Georgia. This may just be a coincidence, but this is also the location of CNN headquarters. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is written as Jimbo prefers with the criticism woven throughout the article. Criticism sections become troll magnets and are easy depositories for any trivial disagreement or news story. Weaving it in makes it easier to recognize what is important and what is just fluff. --PTR (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"| image = Al Franken in Chanhassen.jpg "

While I had been searching f/ something else, I had found this reference to an image; but, I do not see it. Please do help.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The O'Reilly/Levittown thing

I just want to point people to the section in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. There may be a valid criticism of Franken here, though I question whether it's really significant enough to mention here. However, that criticism is more that Franken overstated the degree to which O'Reilly was stretching the truth. It's pretty clear that O'Reilly was trying to create a more "hardscrabble" image of his childhood than actually existed; he went to private school, and he would've gone to the "Westbury" high school if he didn't attend a private Catholic school instead. This goes on and on, really. The section in that article makes some of the thornier parts clear. There could be a valid criticism of Franken for saying in his book that O'Reilly's "Westbury section of Levittown" reference was "a crazy lie", as that was a term that people who lived where O'Reilly did may have used. If we want to include this, we could, but it seems kind of trifling to me. Croctotheface (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Smalley detail

That O'Reilly calls Franken "Stuart Smalley" and does not use his name is wholly irrelevant to a biography of Al Franken. It says absolutely nothing about his life. It's just a trivia item, and it should be removed. Croctotheface (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree at all. A person's enemies or nemeses, and how they talk about that person, are certainly relevant. That O'Reilly's name itself did not appear in this article at all strikes me as very odd, and perhaps a sanitizing that is inappropriate. I think this feud must be mentioned here, even though more detail is appropriately found in a sub article - and the sourced Smalley comment captures the fact that the feud was ongoing and relentless, without giving it too much weight by lengthy explanation. The relationship between these two individuals is not at all irrelevant to a bio of Franken.I understand that he may wish to move on from it - and I might not blame him for that as he is involved now in what has become a serious electoral possibility - but that shouldn't affect how we write this article. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That there's a feud is a relevant detail for Franken's bio. The "Stuart Smalley" thing is just trivia. I have no idea about what your references to "sanitizing" or "electoral possibilites" are supposed to mean. Croctotheface (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a fuller reply is warranted here: "how they talk about that person" is by no means relevant by definition. Would you support adding every name that Franken or Keith Olbermann has used to refer to O'Reilly in the Bill O'Reilly biography? To the "ongoing and relentless" part, "ongoing" is a matter of fact, and we can deal with that by describing the feud as "ongoing". That it was "relentless" is opinion, and attempting to use some piece of trivia to lead readers to that opinion violates our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. However, even setting all that aside, I don't think that particular detail is illustrative of anything except that there was a feud, and my version says that there was a feud anyway. The detail you demand that we include has no relevance to Franken's life. It's just trivia and does not belong here. Croctotheface (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

politician ???

Does he qualify as a politician yet (as the first paragraph implies)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.25.215 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, what exactly makes him a politician at this point. I would imagine you need to win a campaign first. vlado4 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He certainly fits the definition Wikipedia gives at politician. Croctotheface (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxes?

As Al Franken is a guy who wants to raise taxes, isn't it notable that he has issues paying taxes? [5][6][7] 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for general discussion of the topic. Croctotheface (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax evasion

It should be noted that the tax issue did not arise out of thin air. Franken did not admit to avoiding or owing any taxes until the issue was raised by his political opponents. There is more to the story than is being cited on this article, and the impetus behind his revalation of tax issues should be disclosed. Biccat (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add a short phrase attributing the reports, that's probably OK, but you seem to have a pretty strong point of view on this issue, and it's important to keep make sure you write any changes to the article from a neutral POV. Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a mention that it was brought up by a blogger and that he eventually paid off his debt. It looks fairly NPOV as I read it. Could use some cleaning up to make the section flow better. Biccat (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you added was not already discussed sufficiently in the section. And I´m not sure how anybody could possibly describe "defending himself by claiming that he had received bad advice from his accountant" as NPOV.-Hal Raglan (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourced material states "Franken previously paid a $25,000 fine to the state of New York after learning his corporation was out of compliance with that state's workers compensation laws." but makes no mention of how he learned that he owed money. Another source states "New York officials have made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the matter since April 2005 but have gotten no reply." It was only after the issue was raised on a Conservative blog "[n]ews of Franken's penalty was reported Tuesday in the Minnesota Democrats Exposed website run by Republican blogger Michael Brodkorb" that Franken became aware of the issue. Yet his accountant (Wlodinguer Erk & Chanzis) is listed as the address for service of process on his corporate record (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/) and a tax lien was filed against his corporation in 1997. Therefore, his accountant had knowledge of the defeciency and, absent malfeasance on the part of the accountant, he had knowledge of the lien (see NY state law on this topic).

I suppose all of this information could be included in the article. But the underlying element that I was trying to include was that Al Franken did not become aware of the issue until it became a news story. "Politically motivated" might be the proper term. Wilfully omitting these facts clearly constitutes NPOV. Biccat (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for Al Franken?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers (and contributors here), but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to have a link back to this article. I don't see what value it would add to link it from here. Croctotheface (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The site violates WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is this page lacking a criticism section? Why is it just the big conservative (or those seen as conservative) pundits and commentators that get lengthy controversy and criticism pages, but those with an obvious "playing in far left field" agenda get no criticism? This needs to be fixed. I personally think [BLP violation removed], but you guys can chime in, too.PokeHomsar (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have cited and notable criticism then why don't you add it? In the meanwhile, what you "personally think" is neither notable or relevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for opinions regarding the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read this Talk page completely, you will see that there was a detailed explanation quite a while back saying that, in line with current Wikipedia preferences, the criticisms have been retained (that is, they're still in the article) but have been interwoven with sections about that aspect of his life. For example, there's a section about his 2008 Senate campaign that includes controversies that arose after his campaign began, such as back taxes in various states, complaints about a 2000 Playboy article, and other material of the sort one would find in a "criticism" or "controversy" discussion. It's still in there, just not in its own section. Lawikitejana (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph on the Playboy article into section on the 2008 Senate campaign. It came up as part of the campaign, and wouldn't have otherwise been notable. Crumley (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Article name

The article name should clearly be Al Franken according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known."--Appraiser (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)