![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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)
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? — Music Maker 22:05, 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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
I wonder why we need to name his non-notable brother? Chivista 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sources citing that Franken did plagiarize:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Looks like we have a malfeasor. Chivista 15:00, 25 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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)
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? — Music Maker 22:05, 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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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).
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)
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)
I wonder why we need to name his non-notable brother? Chivista 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sources citing that Franken did plagiarize:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Looks like we have a malfeasor. Chivista 15:00, 25 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)