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 |
I checked the source regarding his educational attainment and it makes no mention of a bachelor of arts degree. It simply states that he graduated cum laude from Harvard. We have no idea when type of degree he earned, so any reference to a "bachelor of arts degree" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.177.17 ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I'd forgotten about this episode where Franken guest stars as "a corrupt local politician" according to the channel guide.. many years before actually running. Hilarious, and more importantly relevant. How many politicians pretend to be politicians first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 ( talk) 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats the insinuation about "however with the help of people like George Soros, extensive efforts are being taken to perform another recount hoping for Franken's victory" in the entry section?
Does this mean, Wikipedia is stating, that George Soros has influence on the official recount? I will remove the sentence until any senseful explanation for the phrase comes up. Fairfis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.158.61 ( talk) 09:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we keep recount running totals here or does in make more sense just to leave them at United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008? My edit of an earlier addition of recount results was reverted based on recentism and original research. The recentism I am inclined to agree with, but I am not sure where the original research came in. I think it was all in my reference, though it may have been supported in other references that I was reading. Crumley ( talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
More than enough "reliable" sources to create a criticism page and section. Tell me if I need to find any more. http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183:ydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID:11&query=al+franken&op=Go&form_token=3142e4e9aa86d8b674055c5867c9141d&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form Fru23 ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK... assume good faith. Fru23 ( talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, if there is a particular form of criticism you actually want to discuss here, please feel free to present your case for including it. If you are just out to make a point, then you may want to reevaluate whether you want to spend your time with a collaborative project like WIkipedia. Croctotheface ( talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru23 ( talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Only if it's on topic. Fru23 ( talk) 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, do you want to collaborate to improve the encyclopedia, or do you want to try to "prove" some kind of "bias"? If your goal here is not to make Wikipedia better (and I'm having trouble finding evidence that it is) then I will again suggest that you may prefer to spend your time doing something else. Beyond that, you seem to believe that there is no degree of editorial discretion that goes on as far as selecting criticism. If that were so, then the Bill O'Reilly article would be hundreds of pages long. Just because there is an item over there that you believe is not adequately sourced, it doesn't somehow mean that you should come here and try to kick up a ruckus. It could very well be that if you laid out a persuasive case about, say, the Hornbeck issue, it would be removed from the O'Reilly article. You haven't done that. You've just deleted material, insulted other editors, and generally refused to cooperate at all. Again, this is a collaborative project, and I don't think you're going to find it very rewarding here if you continue to operate with a "me against the world" attitude. Croctotheface ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though he was blocked he brought up some good points. I am for adding the sources. JcLiner ( talk) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. JcLiner ( talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the recent changes: shortening the the health care sentence that way makes it appear that "immediate coverage for every child" is defining the previous clause. The prior version makes Franken's position clear. For Social Security/pensions, it's hardly meaningless to talk about "preserving" Social Security in light of efforts to privatize it, and it's hardly meaningless to talk about protecting pensions when so many companies are in danger of not paying them out. There is no source cited anywhere where Franken says he favors raising tax rates on oil companies. Croctotheface ( talk) 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of BRD, but I think my main mistake here was that I didn't post anything on this page first furthering the intent of my edits, failing to provide reverters a place to comment on how they viewed my edits.
That aside, I'm afraid I have to rather vehemently disagree that we should use his language. Provided that this article had a lengthy section on his views that included criticisms of his views, then directly quoting his language at times would be appropriate - but simply copying such short and biased language isn't terribly balanced. The Norm Coleman article should not have a line stating that one of his views is "to protect the American family," as such language is rather biased in favor of the positions it's covering, in this case likely opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and the like. Politicians naturally phrase things to fit their worldview, but an article covering their beliefs shouldn't be subject to such shadings. If this article is to include anything on the issue, it should just be to the effect of "Franken opposes any effort to privatize Social Security," and perhaps a development of his more complicated pension views (his site has nothing to the effect of "protecting pensions," but does contain an alternative pension idea of his called a 401(u) that might be worth mention). This isn't phrasing things the way his opponents would, they would be more likely to use language along the lines of "keeping social security out of your hands." Privatization is not innately bad or good, it plainly states intent that is not subject to bias.
I want opinions on this. The canvassing board will declare him the winner today - at that point, should this page refer to him as a Senator? Or should it wait until Coleman concedes or all legal challenges are dealt with? I don't really know at what point he should be considered the Senator as far as this page is concerned. -- Mr Beale ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Once the Minnesota Secretary of State and/or canvassing board official declare him the winner of the election and it is reported by reliable sources. DCmacnut <> 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And now that the courts have rejected the challenge I believe we would change it to "pending a challenge to the results by the Coleman campaign". Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Junior Senator elect? That should be Senator elect, folks. GoodDay ( talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say hold off on saying "senator elect" until the election certificate is actually issued, as reported by reliable sources, of course. Jonathunder ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what the eventual outcome is, I believe that because he has become the certified winner, he would by definition, be the "Senator-elect", but when Bush was the certified winner in 2000 after he was certified, very few called him the "President-elect" until Gore finally conceded! Maybe the same should be in play here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.62.100.100 (
talk) 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean, reference #1 in from a clearly biasedly written editorial that I would deem as not reliable. And there are plenly more reliable sources, this, for one: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-against-coleman-2/?hp 207.237.33.133 ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of vandalism going on here today -- can we limit the ability to edit the page until these legal issues are resolved? I agree that we should list Franken as Senator-Elect, as he has been certified. Beyond that, I think we need to protect this page, as well as Coleman's, from further abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.113.43 ( talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Being such a "notorious" clip of his (I've never seen it myself) we should have a link to it. I googled it like crazy in all sorts of versions of the phrasing and I couldn't come up with a thing. If its so notorious why isn't it anywhere online? Cs302b ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As of 11:30pm (Minnesota time) the race is still too close to call, 42% to 42%. Can someone please remove the wording that he is a US Senator until it's OFFICIAL. Rosie, Queen of Corona ( talk) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
^Jokes on you man. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
144.89.121.176 (
talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several rounds of certification in this election. It is true that Franken does not yet have an election certificate - that will happen no sooner than January 12. But the canvassing board has already certified two sets of numbers for this election. The pre-recount numbers on November 17 and the post-recount on January 5. So though the canvassing board said they were not declaring a winner or issuing an election certificate, they certified the numerical results of the election on January 5. Crumley ( talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
should link to United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.145 ( talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Minnesota Secretary of State has not certified the results, so he is not technically a senator elect. He was not seated in the U.S. Senate Today. Norm Coleman is taking this to court, so until the legal battles are over, he isn't elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.27.2 ( talk) 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The current lede says he is "certified as having the most votes" in the Minnesota Senate election. And what does it mean when you have the most votes in that race? It means you're the Senator-Elect. The "certified" does the job of making the statement equivocal, of indicating that things could possibly change. I'm changing it in the lead; if you disagree, make your case. Leoniceno ( talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
'Tis true, Franken is not Senator or Senator-elect. We shouldn't have anything at the infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) So we could say, there is a Senator. But, we just don't know his identity (yet). GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs need to be reformatted. The last sentence in para 1 should be deleted or moved to para 2, as it makes no sense out of context. Para 1 should mention Franken's current status. Gerntrash ( talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Should state their status as Natural born because of the US Constitutional requirement. LaidOff ( talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Franken has not served in or held a public office, nor has he been elected to any office, thus he does not qualify as a politician. We should not be describing Franken as Senator-elect. That particular 'election' hasn't been settled yet (nobody's been certified the winner, yet). GoodDay ( talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Upcoming election?
How about upcoming in negative-seven months?
Is there an update we can do to THAT infobox? Cs302b ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I jsut reverted some edits that had info about Franken's criticism of Alan Colmes. One of the sentences was altered slightly from an [ article from fair.org]. The article was referenced later. I just removed the paragraph on Colmes because I don't find Colmes or the criticism of him to be noteworthy enough to warrant an entire paragraph in this article. Crumley ( talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"He then became a political commentator, writer of numerous best-selling books, and host of a nationally syndicated radio show on Air America Radio."
We list six books by Franken in the article. "Six" is not "numerous". Additionally, I'm guessing that not every one of the books listed made the best-seller lists, though I could be wrong. Amazon.com shows Franken as co-author of some additional books, as well as a retrospective about Saturday Night Live, etc.
I think that we should re-word the "numerous best-sellers" reference to be more accurate and less
WP:WEASEL.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the "Early Life" section it currently reads, "He attended Harvard College and graduated cum laude in 1973 with a bachelor of arts degree in general studies.[16]." Following the cited link, I don't find any reference to his degree, just the mention of him graduating cum laude.
However, this cite says his degree was in Political Science, which I think is an important distinction. http://www.answers.com/topic/al-franken. Also, from this additional cite http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20060228b1.asp, "he holds a degree from Harvard in political science and served as a 2003 fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government". Thanks for considering the update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayna61 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh - the bot beat me to it. I tried to go back to edit and add my signature with the tildes and it wouldn't take the edit. Thanks bot! Shayna61 ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, changed. Next time feel free to do it yourself. Or did the semi-protection stop you? Crumley ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Yup, the semi-protection stopped me. Thanks so much for your assistance! Shayna61 ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm unclear what was "controversial" about his role in the Howard Dean heckler incident. The article doesn't mention anything controversial. Should this be deleted, moved to a separate section, expanded? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Coleman Rests Case In Minnesota Election Lawsuit http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014281420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.165.179 ( talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "The canvassing board certified Franken's winning margin on January 5, 2009, officially completing the recount." is biased and clearly undermined by both of the sources cited for it, one of which states that Coleman's lawsuit "will prevent Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, under state law, from officially certifying Franken's election until the legal process has run its course." It's unclear how the board's certification 'officially completes the recount'; nothing in either source says or implies this. It should be removed under NPOV policy. 145.116.9.200 ( talk) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The saving it section is listed under controversy, but there is no mention of a controversy, no mention of criticisms. As it appears now, the section is about Franken writing two letters. Having the section appear under "controversy" seems misleading and violates NPOV. BBiiis08 ( talk) 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, consider changing the word "favour" to "favor". Afterall this is an article about a US Senate candidate not a British candidate. Hunnydaisy ( talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me, has Democrat, Al Franken won the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008? I am desperate to know, as I wanted him to win. He will be a brilliant Junior Senator from Minnesota, and a proud member of the United States Senate.
Darren Monaghan, 7 April, 2009, 21:31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
since de facto means "in practice," and de jure means "by law," shouldn't Franken be considered the de jure senator-elect? considering the three-judge panel declared Franken the winner, I believe that Franken would be the senator-elect by law, though not in practice, since the state has not issued an election certificate yet. 68.191.151.151 ( talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)gs 15 Apr 2009
I'm confused by this sentence: "The California Franchise Tax Board reported that the same corporation owed more than $4,743.40 in taxes, fines, and associated penalties..." How can it be "more than" such a specific amount? I mean, this sentence has the amount reported down to the PENNY, and then claims that it's "more than" that? What the hell does that even mean? It seems to me that the writer is trying to use hyperbole here, and that makes him/her suspect. And by the way, $4700 is not that much money when it comes to a company; it's chicken feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.232.199 ( talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is fact go look at the Senate Procedure! BLuE DOg Tn 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Blue Dog TN is offering irrelevant looking citations and hectoring us, "here's the proof!" Unh unh, "dog", you do the work, the work of quoting from articles about a different Senate race three years ago, or your stupid appeal to a 1984 pamphlet that consists mostly of excerpts from Senate deliberations dating back to the 1800s! You show us explicitly the wording that supports your claims.
There seems to be a fetishistic focus on the term "term". The reality is that Al Franken will assume office on a particular date AFTER the one expected according to procedures provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The filling of this particular seat has turned out to be extraordinary. That is what counts, not the abstract regular term of office. A person is not a real U.S. Senator until they are sworn in by the U.S. Senate. Here's some specifics from an interview given to MinnPost.com.
Until Franken can be sworn in at the Capitol, he can also take the oath of office from a local judge, according to Betty Koed, an assistant historian in the U.S. Senate. Franken would then have an official budget and would be able to start hiring staff, Koed said. But, he would not be able to vote or assume other official legislative duties until he was sworn in before the Senate in open session.
Get that: "not voting or assuming other official duties". Franken has not yet assumed the official duties of a U.S. Senator. His "term" will be begin when he's sworn in. Hurmata ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole issue of term depends on when he "qualified" as a senator. Franken's was elected to the term starting Jan 3, 2009, which means that term is up in 2015. That is when his term started, pursuant to the signed election certificate. However, that does not mean his seniority date automatically goes to January 3. He technically only qualified as a senator upon signing of that certificate (today) so his seniority date will likely be either today or whenever his credientials are presented in the Senate next week. We will need official Senate confirmation of that. Some examples of term start ≠ seniority date:
The same is true for Franken. He did not qualify as a senator until the certificate of election was signed. Confusing, yes, but protracted election contests seldom are cut and dry. DCmacnut <> 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And now for the facts: He's 100th in seniority.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Jesse Ventura is not a conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.125.207 ( talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody just specified it will be July 6. Silly. Doesn't acknowledge that a storm or other unforeseen circumstances could delay the reconvening of the Senate for a day or two. Geez, we have too many people trying to make a mark in a WP article and as a result they are making fatuous edits. Hurmata ( talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I admit to a heavily liberal bias. That said, this sentence: "The show's apparent aim was to counter the dominance of conservative syndicated radio commentators that Franken believed strayed from the truth with impunity, and to affect the U.S. political atmosphere" in the section on Franken's stint on Air America is a little...uh...couldn't we say this with a bit less righteous indignation? After all, as Franken proved, "fair and balanced" isn't copyrighted. I suggest (may I?): "The stated goal of the show was to provide the public airwaves with more progressive views to counter what Franken perceived to be the dominance of conservative syndicated commentary on the radio." Or something better-written than that. That sort of thing. Any objections? NaySay ( talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be done! 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I had removed the details on the election contest from the lede, the article is on Al Franken and not (just) on his Senate election. Certainly, this contest is still relevant, but it should not occupy half of the introduction in an encyclopaedic article, which must stand "for eternity". Eventually, the contested election will be an episode and the details can still be found in the main text anyway. My changes have been reverted by good faith; now 50% of the lede is again on the disputed election. To avoid unnecessary oscillations, I would like to hear other opinions on this and come to some consensus before changing in back. BjoernZ ( talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean "lead"? If not, what is a "lede"? WMMartin ( talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
One very minor point (therefore not using {{ editsemiprotected}}), I'd change the formatting of the name from Alan Stuart "Al" Franken to Alan Stuart "Al" Franken because the bolded quotation marks look a bit awkward. 84.44.250.100 ( talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to make this even more politically charged than it already is, but shouldn't this article at least mention the fact that Franken's swearing in brings the Democrats to a (theoretically) filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Every news report I've heard on the story points this out. - dcljr ( talk) 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In January 2004, Franken tackled or simply removed a heckler associated with Lyndon LaRouche, whose movement is well-known for heckling. Franklen broke his own glasses in the scuffle. The heckler didn't press charges, but it was widely reported and conservative commentators snickered over it. Franken even wrote a letter to the editor a year later to state that the fellow hadn't been knocked to the ground because he was caught by others. A blogger noticed that there were varyibng accounts of the event. [1] Franken starred in (and probably wrote) "Saturday Night Live: "Lyndon LaRouche Theatre" - April 19, 1986", playing a gay Henry Kissinger. He appeared as LaRouche himself in a Weekend Update episode in Oct. 22, 1988. (There's a poor copy on Youtube and other sites.) I wouldn't want to make too much of this, but we should probably at least mention the heckling incident. Will Beback talk 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Help is most welcome!
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010
Biggus Dictus.
(
talk) 03:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Franken played the role of a corrupt politician in Season 2, episode 6 of 3rd Rock from the Sun. Hilarious! :) I don't see a section with a list of his appearances in TV shows during his former acting career. I thought it should be noted somewhere... if only in the discussion page.... AugustinMa ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? Is "about" and "approximately" as close as we can get? Either it's 6, 10, and 4, or it's not. Can someone confirm the numbers and remove the ambiguity from the introduction to the article? If there's no way to determine how many movies and shows he starred in or how many books are actually classified as best-sellers, then the numbers should be removed in favor of generic terms like "multiple" or "several". Rszrama ( talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Franken's bill is important and should be included. If someone watches this page and has the time to do it. Otherwise, I will get to it when I have a chance. http://minnesotaindependent.com/55223/franken-sponsors-bill-condemning-ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill -- DCX ( talk) 10:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
While Senators are addressed as "The Honorable" in correspondence (i.e., "The Hon. Al Franken"), it is not standard Wikipedia style to include that honorific in a senator's infobox (see: Chuck Grassley, Tom Harkin). Mrfeek ( talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no objections to Hal Raglan's recent edit, although I do not believe it is fair to describe my revert of his previous edit as "change/censor[ing]". However, the paragraph in question formerly mentioned Jesse Ventura. (In the earlier edit Raglan—by inserting "conservative" where he did—implied that Ventura is a conservative, which isn't true; thus my revert.) Raglan appropriately deleted Ventura as the governor didn't fit the point Raglan was making about Franken's viewpoint on conservative commentators' reactions to the Wellstone memorial service. It seems to me, however, that going into such detail here (as opposed to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath), without mentioning that the non-conservative governor of Minnesota agreed with the commentators' views and acted accordingly, mildly risks WP:UNDUE. I suggest tightening the text by reducing the detail. YLee ( talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just added some more info on the allegations of felon voting in the 2008 election, but I am not sure that if it should be featured here. I think that it might fit better on the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 page or possibly the Mark Ritchie page. Franken himself is not likely to get involved with this story, though it appears that Dan Severson is going to try to use it against Ritchie. Crumley ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why, in section 5.2 "Tenure," it mentions Sen. Franken "presiding" over the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He was the most junior member of the committee back then. In what definition of the word could that be considered presiding?. Maybe the term applies to every committee member who participated and I'd just never heard it used like that, but to me, it was Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary chairman, who presided over those confirmation hearings. Yuriel ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections to Hal Raglan's recent edit, although I do not believe it is fair to describe my revert of his previous edit as "change/censor[ing]". However, the paragraph in question formerly mentioned Jesse Ventura. (In the earlier edit Raglan—by inserting "conservative" where he did—implied that Ventura is a conservative, which isn't true; thus my revert.) Raglan appropriately deleted Ventura as the governor didn't fit the point Raglan was making about Franken's viewpoint on conservative commentators' reactions to the Wellstone memorial service. It seems to me, however, that going into such detail here (as opposed to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath), without mentioning that the non-conservative governor of Minnesota agreed with the commentators' views and acted accordingly, mildly risks WP:UNDUE. I suggest tightening the text by reducing the detail. YLee ( talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just added some more info on the allegations of felon voting in the 2008 election, but I am not sure that if it should be featured here. I think that it might fit better on the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 page or possibly the Mark Ritchie page. Franken himself is not likely to get involved with this story, though it appears that Dan Severson is going to try to use it against Ritchie. Crumley ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why, in section 5.2 "Tenure," it mentions Sen. Franken "presiding" over the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He was the most junior member of the committee back then. In what definition of the word could that be considered presiding?. Maybe the term applies to every committee member who participated and I'd just never heard it used like that, but to me, it was Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary chairman, who presided over those confirmation hearings. Yuriel ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
um, should there not be some mention of the fact that he is a supporter of PIPA? 107.3.62.19 ( talk) 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, thank you very much for taking up this review. My only question is I see you have listed the quickfails, and marked off the ones it passes, but not Q6. Is this because the article has close paraphrasing or copyright violations, or you have just not gotten around to checking? Thanks again, Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 00:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of the above have been fixed.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Stopping for the day and will return later this afternoon or evening. So far this is not looking good. Beliefnet.com could be argued to be RS however, its really just a blog and not in a newsworthy sense.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding to Amadscientist's review: the lead needs a rewrite. The first paragraph, especially the first sentence, should mention both his political and entertainment careers in a broad summary style without going into too much detail. See WP:MOSINTRO. Then the second (and probably third, given the length of the article) paragraphs should go into more detail about his television/film/books, the election results, etc. — Designate ( talk) 01:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I followed the article link for saying he was sworn in using the same Bible as Paul Wellstone...the article doesn't say anything about...in any case both were/are Jewish, would they have used a Bible anyways? Historian932 ( talk) 03:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Curious on everyone's thoughts about the lede sentence. I see that above, in the Review section, it's been suggested the first sentence include both his political and entertainment career. I added "and comedian" in the sentence but that was reverted because he isn't at present entertaining, so "is" isn't grammatically correct, the edit comments stated. I checked Sean Duffy, Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all former celebrities/entertainers that went into politics, and their lede sentences cover both sides of their careers, whether they're currently in politics or no longer. Is there a rule or consensus about what opening sentences ought to look like in these cases of politicians who had another life before politics? If we were writing a news article, we probably wouldn't say "is" but we're writing encyclopedia articles so I think including both makes more sense. Shatterpoint05 ( talk) 16:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(Reproduced below.) What does the rightmost column, labelled as "±%", mean? In the "election box" template, it seems to have something to do with % change. Change relative to what? Earlier polls or vote counts, and if so which ones? Totally unclear to me. Maybe we should omit the column? -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 09:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Democratic (DFL) | Al Franken | 1,212,629 | 41.994% | −5.35% | |
Republican | Norm Coleman | 1,212,317 | 41.983% | −7.55% | |
Independence | Dean Barkley | 437,505 | 15.151% | +13.15% | |
Libertarian | Charles Aldrich | 13,923 | 0.482% | N/A | |
Constitution | James Niemackl | 8,907 | 0.308% | +0.209% | |
Write-ins | 2,365 | 0.082% | |||
Margin of victory | 312 | 0.011% | |||
Turnout | 2,887,646 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al Franken. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al Franken. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The article currently has Al born in both New York and Miami. Must be some humor in there somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.40.35 ( talk) 05:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems odd to quote a Time article stating Franken was running for office since the late 70's. Considering he majored in "government" and wrote about following a presidential campaign earlier than that, in his Rush is fat book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 ( talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ww3.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1062When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone keeps messing with this page, and keeping adding his most recent book is a bestseller on the New York Times FICTION bestseller list. I'll be keeping a eye on this page to make sure it's not messed up. Also, a lock might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofid122 ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Admitted to accepting campaign donation from Ty Cobb (attorney) in discussing conflict of interest, loyalties in the context of President Trump's recent appointment of communications director. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Melanie Morgan has just alleged that Franken stalked and harassed her in 2000. Request that the information be added to the article. CorduroyCap ( talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On November 16, 2017, sports commentator Leeann Tweeden asserted that during a USO tour in 2006, Franken groped her while she was sleeping and forcibly kissed her. A photograph of Franken allegedly groping her was taken in the process.[55][56] In response Franken said, "I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann... As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it."[57] Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Patricia Murray have both come out in support of an ethics committee investigation into the accusations.[58]
Unnecessary comma: USO tour in 2006[,] Franken groped her
Actions occurred separately: forcibly kissed her [during a performance] Cajual ( talk) 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Partly done I removed the comma, but I believe the sources say the kiss was backstage, not during a performance. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
File:Al Franken groping Leeann Tweeden.jpg
This is one of the rare instances in which a public domain image actually exists of the alleged sexual assault in question. I've uploaded the photo
here. I request that it be added to the article.
CorduroyCap (
talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is quite unacceptable to have the story and the photo blocked. Franken has acknowledged the incident, and this is receiving wide circulation in many top newspapers along with various cable news channels. Dogru144 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Treat Franken exactly, precisely the same way that Moore is being treated. Instantly. Failing to do so exhibits blatant left-wing bias by the ruling Wikipedia groupthink. It is unbelievable that Wikipedians would be so shamelessly biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans. Let's confront and defeat this left-wing bias immediately. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia - not a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith ( talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
References #111 and #112 of this article contain a cite error. -- Sleyece ( talk) 21:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section, Abby Honold is misspelled as Hornold in the second mentioning of her name. Devinplatt ( talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I can go either way on describing the allegations as those of "misconduct" vs. "assault," but I will note that Sometimes the sky is blue's statement that "the accuser did not use the word "assault", and no WP:RS has either" is demonstrably false. Tweeden absolutely did call Franken's actions "sexual assault," and plenty of sources have used the same language. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" as a legal term requires the perpetrator to act in way that is motivated by the sexual desire of the perpetrator. Unwanted genital contact is not the criteria. It's why fondling of testicles by a pedophile is a form of sexual assault but kicking the pedophile in the testicles during a fight is not sexual assault. Both are unwanted contact with their genitals but the difference is whether the actor was doing it for their own sexual gratification. Franken has not stated his intention other than an attempt at humor but he acknowledged that regardless of his intention, it was clear that it was maltreatment of Tweeden.. "Maltreatment of Leeann Tweeden" is a heading title that I believe is NPOV and accurate. The section should then use the terms "groping" and "unwanted kissing" attributed to Tweeden (and not disputed). Also, Franked has stated he took the picture, not an unnamed "someone." Any language in Wikipedia's voice that diminishes Tweedan's account should be removed. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
“I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse,” he said.[7]. What else did you dispute as everything I wrote is factually accurate? Please undo your revert that removed Tweeden's quote. It's the most direct and succinct characterization of her experience. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”should be in the article as a quote. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”There is no other way to invent a team of abusers. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what was in my head when I took that picturehas more authority that your anecdotal story and junior detective work. You're refuting his words based on what? He's the only one named as involved, he took responsibility and is the only conscious person. I'll also note for your junior detectiveness that he is not belted in and the others are asleep. Doesn't quite match your made up flight scenario. -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Franken was also photographed appearing to grope her breast..., so the content does not take a stand on who it was that actually shot the picture one way or the other. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Which sources describe this as sexual assault? Volunteer Marek 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Non neutral language in section heading purged by me, see full comment in the thread below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) A woman named Lindsay Menz has alleged that Franken grabbed her butt while they were posing for a photo together at the Minnesota State fair in 2010. This may be more troublesome for Franken since if true, it occurred after he became a member of the Senate. [8] Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the end of the introduction: Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden claimed in November 2017 that she was sexually assaulted by Franken twice in 2006. Dmurvihill ( talk) 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay here you go. This should be added to the end of the introduction (lede section):
Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden reported in November 2017 that Franken sexually assaulted her twice in 2006.[4] [5]
I added sources, and the absence of sources was the only objection offered. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 17:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Scroll up, and stop pretending that we don't have consensus. Dmurvihill proposed this edit without sources and I added the sources. That's two of us. Also read the comments by Corduroycap, Dogru144, Sleyece, AzureCitizen and in particular, Grayfell, Corky, and DHeyward. In opposition there's you, plus (possibly) have VSmith and Dr. Fleischmann. Possibly three. So supporting it I have two for certain plus, possibly, seven more. You have one for certain plus, possibly, two more. Are you going to insist that I need to go through the process of calling for an RFC and counting votes for 30 days? Or can you see which way the wind is blowing? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”If it warrants a statement in the lead, I would call it "mistreatment" or "maltreatment." Franken disputes there was anything sexual about his conduct so it would be hard to say it in WP voice. -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”However, since she said "forcibly kissed me [and] grabbed my breasts," the lede should include -- if not the words "sexual assault" -- then a paraphrase, as close as good English grammar will allow to her own words that she used to describe the incident: "forcibly kissed her and grabbed her breasts." Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Two More Women Accuse Sen. Al Franken Of Inappropriate Touching -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996. “The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post."-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the biggest changes with the MeToo wave is that non-apologies and virtue signalling are insufficient excuses for unacceptable behaviour.
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 |
I checked the source regarding his educational attainment and it makes no mention of a bachelor of arts degree. It simply states that he graduated cum laude from Harvard. We have no idea when type of degree he earned, so any reference to a "bachelor of arts degree" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.177.17 ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I'd forgotten about this episode where Franken guest stars as "a corrupt local politician" according to the channel guide.. many years before actually running. Hilarious, and more importantly relevant. How many politicians pretend to be politicians first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 ( talk) 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats the insinuation about "however with the help of people like George Soros, extensive efforts are being taken to perform another recount hoping for Franken's victory" in the entry section?
Does this mean, Wikipedia is stating, that George Soros has influence on the official recount? I will remove the sentence until any senseful explanation for the phrase comes up. Fairfis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.158.61 ( talk) 09:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we keep recount running totals here or does in make more sense just to leave them at United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008? My edit of an earlier addition of recount results was reverted based on recentism and original research. The recentism I am inclined to agree with, but I am not sure where the original research came in. I think it was all in my reference, though it may have been supported in other references that I was reading. Crumley ( talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
More than enough "reliable" sources to create a criticism page and section. Tell me if I need to find any more. http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183:ydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID:11&query=al+franken&op=Go&form_token=3142e4e9aa86d8b674055c5867c9141d&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form Fru23 ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK... assume good faith. Fru23 ( talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, if there is a particular form of criticism you actually want to discuss here, please feel free to present your case for including it. If you are just out to make a point, then you may want to reevaluate whether you want to spend your time with a collaborative project like WIkipedia. Croctotheface ( talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru23 ( talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Only if it's on topic. Fru23 ( talk) 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, do you want to collaborate to improve the encyclopedia, or do you want to try to "prove" some kind of "bias"? If your goal here is not to make Wikipedia better (and I'm having trouble finding evidence that it is) then I will again suggest that you may prefer to spend your time doing something else. Beyond that, you seem to believe that there is no degree of editorial discretion that goes on as far as selecting criticism. If that were so, then the Bill O'Reilly article would be hundreds of pages long. Just because there is an item over there that you believe is not adequately sourced, it doesn't somehow mean that you should come here and try to kick up a ruckus. It could very well be that if you laid out a persuasive case about, say, the Hornbeck issue, it would be removed from the O'Reilly article. You haven't done that. You've just deleted material, insulted other editors, and generally refused to cooperate at all. Again, this is a collaborative project, and I don't think you're going to find it very rewarding here if you continue to operate with a "me against the world" attitude. Croctotheface ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though he was blocked he brought up some good points. I am for adding the sources. JcLiner ( talk) 20:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. JcLiner ( talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the recent changes: shortening the the health care sentence that way makes it appear that "immediate coverage for every child" is defining the previous clause. The prior version makes Franken's position clear. For Social Security/pensions, it's hardly meaningless to talk about "preserving" Social Security in light of efforts to privatize it, and it's hardly meaningless to talk about protecting pensions when so many companies are in danger of not paying them out. There is no source cited anywhere where Franken says he favors raising tax rates on oil companies. Croctotheface ( talk) 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of BRD, but I think my main mistake here was that I didn't post anything on this page first furthering the intent of my edits, failing to provide reverters a place to comment on how they viewed my edits.
That aside, I'm afraid I have to rather vehemently disagree that we should use his language. Provided that this article had a lengthy section on his views that included criticisms of his views, then directly quoting his language at times would be appropriate - but simply copying such short and biased language isn't terribly balanced. The Norm Coleman article should not have a line stating that one of his views is "to protect the American family," as such language is rather biased in favor of the positions it's covering, in this case likely opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and the like. Politicians naturally phrase things to fit their worldview, but an article covering their beliefs shouldn't be subject to such shadings. If this article is to include anything on the issue, it should just be to the effect of "Franken opposes any effort to privatize Social Security," and perhaps a development of his more complicated pension views (his site has nothing to the effect of "protecting pensions," but does contain an alternative pension idea of his called a 401(u) that might be worth mention). This isn't phrasing things the way his opponents would, they would be more likely to use language along the lines of "keeping social security out of your hands." Privatization is not innately bad or good, it plainly states intent that is not subject to bias.
I want opinions on this. The canvassing board will declare him the winner today - at that point, should this page refer to him as a Senator? Or should it wait until Coleman concedes or all legal challenges are dealt with? I don't really know at what point he should be considered the Senator as far as this page is concerned. -- Mr Beale ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Once the Minnesota Secretary of State and/or canvassing board official declare him the winner of the election and it is reported by reliable sources. DCmacnut <> 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And now that the courts have rejected the challenge I believe we would change it to "pending a challenge to the results by the Coleman campaign". Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Junior Senator elect? That should be Senator elect, folks. GoodDay ( talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say hold off on saying "senator elect" until the election certificate is actually issued, as reported by reliable sources, of course. Jonathunder ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what the eventual outcome is, I believe that because he has become the certified winner, he would by definition, be the "Senator-elect", but when Bush was the certified winner in 2000 after he was certified, very few called him the "President-elect" until Gore finally conceded! Maybe the same should be in play here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.62.100.100 (
talk) 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean, reference #1 in from a clearly biasedly written editorial that I would deem as not reliable. And there are plenly more reliable sources, this, for one: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-against-coleman-2/?hp 207.237.33.133 ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of vandalism going on here today -- can we limit the ability to edit the page until these legal issues are resolved? I agree that we should list Franken as Senator-Elect, as he has been certified. Beyond that, I think we need to protect this page, as well as Coleman's, from further abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.113.43 ( talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Being such a "notorious" clip of his (I've never seen it myself) we should have a link to it. I googled it like crazy in all sorts of versions of the phrasing and I couldn't come up with a thing. If its so notorious why isn't it anywhere online? Cs302b ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As of 11:30pm (Minnesota time) the race is still too close to call, 42% to 42%. Can someone please remove the wording that he is a US Senator until it's OFFICIAL. Rosie, Queen of Corona ( talk) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
^Jokes on you man. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
144.89.121.176 (
talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several rounds of certification in this election. It is true that Franken does not yet have an election certificate - that will happen no sooner than January 12. But the canvassing board has already certified two sets of numbers for this election. The pre-recount numbers on November 17 and the post-recount on January 5. So though the canvassing board said they were not declaring a winner or issuing an election certificate, they certified the numerical results of the election on January 5. Crumley ( talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
should link to United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.145 ( talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Minnesota Secretary of State has not certified the results, so he is not technically a senator elect. He was not seated in the U.S. Senate Today. Norm Coleman is taking this to court, so until the legal battles are over, he isn't elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.27.2 ( talk) 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The current lede says he is "certified as having the most votes" in the Minnesota Senate election. And what does it mean when you have the most votes in that race? It means you're the Senator-Elect. The "certified" does the job of making the statement equivocal, of indicating that things could possibly change. I'm changing it in the lead; if you disagree, make your case. Leoniceno ( talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
'Tis true, Franken is not Senator or Senator-elect. We shouldn't have anything at the infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) So we could say, there is a Senator. But, we just don't know his identity (yet). GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs need to be reformatted. The last sentence in para 1 should be deleted or moved to para 2, as it makes no sense out of context. Para 1 should mention Franken's current status. Gerntrash ( talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Should state their status as Natural born because of the US Constitutional requirement. LaidOff ( talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Franken has not served in or held a public office, nor has he been elected to any office, thus he does not qualify as a politician. We should not be describing Franken as Senator-elect. That particular 'election' hasn't been settled yet (nobody's been certified the winner, yet). GoodDay ( talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Upcoming election?
How about upcoming in negative-seven months?
Is there an update we can do to THAT infobox? Cs302b ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I jsut reverted some edits that had info about Franken's criticism of Alan Colmes. One of the sentences was altered slightly from an [ article from fair.org]. The article was referenced later. I just removed the paragraph on Colmes because I don't find Colmes or the criticism of him to be noteworthy enough to warrant an entire paragraph in this article. Crumley ( talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"He then became a political commentator, writer of numerous best-selling books, and host of a nationally syndicated radio show on Air America Radio."
We list six books by Franken in the article. "Six" is not "numerous". Additionally, I'm guessing that not every one of the books listed made the best-seller lists, though I could be wrong. Amazon.com shows Franken as co-author of some additional books, as well as a retrospective about Saturday Night Live, etc.
I think that we should re-word the "numerous best-sellers" reference to be more accurate and less
WP:WEASEL.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the "Early Life" section it currently reads, "He attended Harvard College and graduated cum laude in 1973 with a bachelor of arts degree in general studies.[16]." Following the cited link, I don't find any reference to his degree, just the mention of him graduating cum laude.
However, this cite says his degree was in Political Science, which I think is an important distinction. http://www.answers.com/topic/al-franken. Also, from this additional cite http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20060228b1.asp, "he holds a degree from Harvard in political science and served as a 2003 fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government". Thanks for considering the update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayna61 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh - the bot beat me to it. I tried to go back to edit and add my signature with the tildes and it wouldn't take the edit. Thanks bot! Shayna61 ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, changed. Next time feel free to do it yourself. Or did the semi-protection stop you? Crumley ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Yup, the semi-protection stopped me. Thanks so much for your assistance! Shayna61 ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm unclear what was "controversial" about his role in the Howard Dean heckler incident. The article doesn't mention anything controversial. Should this be deleted, moved to a separate section, expanded? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Coleman Rests Case In Minnesota Election Lawsuit http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014281420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.165.179 ( talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "The canvassing board certified Franken's winning margin on January 5, 2009, officially completing the recount." is biased and clearly undermined by both of the sources cited for it, one of which states that Coleman's lawsuit "will prevent Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, under state law, from officially certifying Franken's election until the legal process has run its course." It's unclear how the board's certification 'officially completes the recount'; nothing in either source says or implies this. It should be removed under NPOV policy. 145.116.9.200 ( talk) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The saving it section is listed under controversy, but there is no mention of a controversy, no mention of criticisms. As it appears now, the section is about Franken writing two letters. Having the section appear under "controversy" seems misleading and violates NPOV. BBiiis08 ( talk) 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, consider changing the word "favour" to "favor". Afterall this is an article about a US Senate candidate not a British candidate. Hunnydaisy ( talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me, has Democrat, Al Franken won the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008? I am desperate to know, as I wanted him to win. He will be a brilliant Junior Senator from Minnesota, and a proud member of the United States Senate.
Darren Monaghan, 7 April, 2009, 21:31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
since de facto means "in practice," and de jure means "by law," shouldn't Franken be considered the de jure senator-elect? considering the three-judge panel declared Franken the winner, I believe that Franken would be the senator-elect by law, though not in practice, since the state has not issued an election certificate yet. 68.191.151.151 ( talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)gs 15 Apr 2009
I'm confused by this sentence: "The California Franchise Tax Board reported that the same corporation owed more than $4,743.40 in taxes, fines, and associated penalties..." How can it be "more than" such a specific amount? I mean, this sentence has the amount reported down to the PENNY, and then claims that it's "more than" that? What the hell does that even mean? It seems to me that the writer is trying to use hyperbole here, and that makes him/her suspect. And by the way, $4700 is not that much money when it comes to a company; it's chicken feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.232.199 ( talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is fact go look at the Senate Procedure! BLuE DOg Tn 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Blue Dog TN is offering irrelevant looking citations and hectoring us, "here's the proof!" Unh unh, "dog", you do the work, the work of quoting from articles about a different Senate race three years ago, or your stupid appeal to a 1984 pamphlet that consists mostly of excerpts from Senate deliberations dating back to the 1800s! You show us explicitly the wording that supports your claims.
There seems to be a fetishistic focus on the term "term". The reality is that Al Franken will assume office on a particular date AFTER the one expected according to procedures provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The filling of this particular seat has turned out to be extraordinary. That is what counts, not the abstract regular term of office. A person is not a real U.S. Senator until they are sworn in by the U.S. Senate. Here's some specifics from an interview given to MinnPost.com.
Until Franken can be sworn in at the Capitol, he can also take the oath of office from a local judge, according to Betty Koed, an assistant historian in the U.S. Senate. Franken would then have an official budget and would be able to start hiring staff, Koed said. But, he would not be able to vote or assume other official legislative duties until he was sworn in before the Senate in open session.
Get that: "not voting or assuming other official duties". Franken has not yet assumed the official duties of a U.S. Senator. His "term" will be begin when he's sworn in. Hurmata ( talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole issue of term depends on when he "qualified" as a senator. Franken's was elected to the term starting Jan 3, 2009, which means that term is up in 2015. That is when his term started, pursuant to the signed election certificate. However, that does not mean his seniority date automatically goes to January 3. He technically only qualified as a senator upon signing of that certificate (today) so his seniority date will likely be either today or whenever his credientials are presented in the Senate next week. We will need official Senate confirmation of that. Some examples of term start ≠ seniority date:
The same is true for Franken. He did not qualify as a senator until the certificate of election was signed. Confusing, yes, but protracted election contests seldom are cut and dry. DCmacnut <> 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And now for the facts: He's 100th in seniority.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Jesse Ventura is not a conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.125.207 ( talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody just specified it will be July 6. Silly. Doesn't acknowledge that a storm or other unforeseen circumstances could delay the reconvening of the Senate for a day or two. Geez, we have too many people trying to make a mark in a WP article and as a result they are making fatuous edits. Hurmata ( talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I admit to a heavily liberal bias. That said, this sentence: "The show's apparent aim was to counter the dominance of conservative syndicated radio commentators that Franken believed strayed from the truth with impunity, and to affect the U.S. political atmosphere" in the section on Franken's stint on Air America is a little...uh...couldn't we say this with a bit less righteous indignation? After all, as Franken proved, "fair and balanced" isn't copyrighted. I suggest (may I?): "The stated goal of the show was to provide the public airwaves with more progressive views to counter what Franken perceived to be the dominance of conservative syndicated commentary on the radio." Or something better-written than that. That sort of thing. Any objections? NaySay ( talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be done! 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I had removed the details on the election contest from the lede, the article is on Al Franken and not (just) on his Senate election. Certainly, this contest is still relevant, but it should not occupy half of the introduction in an encyclopaedic article, which must stand "for eternity". Eventually, the contested election will be an episode and the details can still be found in the main text anyway. My changes have been reverted by good faith; now 50% of the lede is again on the disputed election. To avoid unnecessary oscillations, I would like to hear other opinions on this and come to some consensus before changing in back. BjoernZ ( talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean "lead"? If not, what is a "lede"? WMMartin ( talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
One very minor point (therefore not using {{ editsemiprotected}}), I'd change the formatting of the name from Alan Stuart "Al" Franken to Alan Stuart "Al" Franken because the bolded quotation marks look a bit awkward. 84.44.250.100 ( talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to make this even more politically charged than it already is, but shouldn't this article at least mention the fact that Franken's swearing in brings the Democrats to a (theoretically) filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Every news report I've heard on the story points this out. - dcljr ( talk) 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In January 2004, Franken tackled or simply removed a heckler associated with Lyndon LaRouche, whose movement is well-known for heckling. Franklen broke his own glasses in the scuffle. The heckler didn't press charges, but it was widely reported and conservative commentators snickered over it. Franken even wrote a letter to the editor a year later to state that the fellow hadn't been knocked to the ground because he was caught by others. A blogger noticed that there were varyibng accounts of the event. [1] Franken starred in (and probably wrote) "Saturday Night Live: "Lyndon LaRouche Theatre" - April 19, 1986", playing a gay Henry Kissinger. He appeared as LaRouche himself in a Weekend Update episode in Oct. 22, 1988. (There's a poor copy on Youtube and other sites.) I wouldn't want to make too much of this, but we should probably at least mention the heckling incident. Will Beback talk 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Help is most welcome!
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010
Biggus Dictus.
(
talk) 03:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Franken played the role of a corrupt politician in Season 2, episode 6 of 3rd Rock from the Sun. Hilarious! :) I don't see a section with a list of his appearances in TV shows during his former acting career. I thought it should be noted somewhere... if only in the discussion page.... AugustinMa ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? Is "about" and "approximately" as close as we can get? Either it's 6, 10, and 4, or it's not. Can someone confirm the numbers and remove the ambiguity from the introduction to the article? If there's no way to determine how many movies and shows he starred in or how many books are actually classified as best-sellers, then the numbers should be removed in favor of generic terms like "multiple" or "several". Rszrama ( talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Franken's bill is important and should be included. If someone watches this page and has the time to do it. Otherwise, I will get to it when I have a chance. http://minnesotaindependent.com/55223/franken-sponsors-bill-condemning-ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill -- DCX ( talk) 10:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
While Senators are addressed as "The Honorable" in correspondence (i.e., "The Hon. Al Franken"), it is not standard Wikipedia style to include that honorific in a senator's infobox (see: Chuck Grassley, Tom Harkin). Mrfeek ( talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no objections to Hal Raglan's recent edit, although I do not believe it is fair to describe my revert of his previous edit as "change/censor[ing]". However, the paragraph in question formerly mentioned Jesse Ventura. (In the earlier edit Raglan—by inserting "conservative" where he did—implied that Ventura is a conservative, which isn't true; thus my revert.) Raglan appropriately deleted Ventura as the governor didn't fit the point Raglan was making about Franken's viewpoint on conservative commentators' reactions to the Wellstone memorial service. It seems to me, however, that going into such detail here (as opposed to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath), without mentioning that the non-conservative governor of Minnesota agreed with the commentators' views and acted accordingly, mildly risks WP:UNDUE. I suggest tightening the text by reducing the detail. YLee ( talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just added some more info on the allegations of felon voting in the 2008 election, but I am not sure that if it should be featured here. I think that it might fit better on the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 page or possibly the Mark Ritchie page. Franken himself is not likely to get involved with this story, though it appears that Dan Severson is going to try to use it against Ritchie. Crumley ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why, in section 5.2 "Tenure," it mentions Sen. Franken "presiding" over the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He was the most junior member of the committee back then. In what definition of the word could that be considered presiding?. Maybe the term applies to every committee member who participated and I'd just never heard it used like that, but to me, it was Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary chairman, who presided over those confirmation hearings. Yuriel ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections to Hal Raglan's recent edit, although I do not believe it is fair to describe my revert of his previous edit as "change/censor[ing]". However, the paragraph in question formerly mentioned Jesse Ventura. (In the earlier edit Raglan—by inserting "conservative" where he did—implied that Ventura is a conservative, which isn't true; thus my revert.) Raglan appropriately deleted Ventura as the governor didn't fit the point Raglan was making about Franken's viewpoint on conservative commentators' reactions to the Wellstone memorial service. It seems to me, however, that going into such detail here (as opposed to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath), without mentioning that the non-conservative governor of Minnesota agreed with the commentators' views and acted accordingly, mildly risks WP:UNDUE. I suggest tightening the text by reducing the detail. YLee ( talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just added some more info on the allegations of felon voting in the 2008 election, but I am not sure that if it should be featured here. I think that it might fit better on the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 page or possibly the Mark Ritchie page. Franken himself is not likely to get involved with this story, though it appears that Dan Severson is going to try to use it against Ritchie. Crumley ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why, in section 5.2 "Tenure," it mentions Sen. Franken "presiding" over the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He was the most junior member of the committee back then. In what definition of the word could that be considered presiding?. Maybe the term applies to every committee member who participated and I'd just never heard it used like that, but to me, it was Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary chairman, who presided over those confirmation hearings. Yuriel ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
um, should there not be some mention of the fact that he is a supporter of PIPA? 107.3.62.19 ( talk) 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, thank you very much for taking up this review. My only question is I see you have listed the quickfails, and marked off the ones it passes, but not Q6. Is this because the article has close paraphrasing or copyright violations, or you have just not gotten around to checking? Thanks again, Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 00:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of the above have been fixed.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Stopping for the day and will return later this afternoon or evening. So far this is not looking good. Beliefnet.com could be argued to be RS however, its really just a blog and not in a newsworthy sense.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding to Amadscientist's review: the lead needs a rewrite. The first paragraph, especially the first sentence, should mention both his political and entertainment careers in a broad summary style without going into too much detail. See WP:MOSINTRO. Then the second (and probably third, given the length of the article) paragraphs should go into more detail about his television/film/books, the election results, etc. — Designate ( talk) 01:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I followed the article link for saying he was sworn in using the same Bible as Paul Wellstone...the article doesn't say anything about...in any case both were/are Jewish, would they have used a Bible anyways? Historian932 ( talk) 03:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Curious on everyone's thoughts about the lede sentence. I see that above, in the Review section, it's been suggested the first sentence include both his political and entertainment career. I added "and comedian" in the sentence but that was reverted because he isn't at present entertaining, so "is" isn't grammatically correct, the edit comments stated. I checked Sean Duffy, Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all former celebrities/entertainers that went into politics, and their lede sentences cover both sides of their careers, whether they're currently in politics or no longer. Is there a rule or consensus about what opening sentences ought to look like in these cases of politicians who had another life before politics? If we were writing a news article, we probably wouldn't say "is" but we're writing encyclopedia articles so I think including both makes more sense. Shatterpoint05 ( talk) 16:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(Reproduced below.) What does the rightmost column, labelled as "±%", mean? In the "election box" template, it seems to have something to do with % change. Change relative to what? Earlier polls or vote counts, and if so which ones? Totally unclear to me. Maybe we should omit the column? -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 09:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Democratic (DFL) | Al Franken | 1,212,629 | 41.994% | −5.35% | |
Republican | Norm Coleman | 1,212,317 | 41.983% | −7.55% | |
Independence | Dean Barkley | 437,505 | 15.151% | +13.15% | |
Libertarian | Charles Aldrich | 13,923 | 0.482% | N/A | |
Constitution | James Niemackl | 8,907 | 0.308% | +0.209% | |
Write-ins | 2,365 | 0.082% | |||
Margin of victory | 312 | 0.011% | |||
Turnout | 2,887,646 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al Franken. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al Franken. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The article currently has Al born in both New York and Miami. Must be some humor in there somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.40.35 ( talk) 05:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems odd to quote a Time article stating Franken was running for office since the late 70's. Considering he majored in "government" and wrote about following a presidential campaign earlier than that, in his Rush is fat book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 ( talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ww3.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1062When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone keeps messing with this page, and keeping adding his most recent book is a bestseller on the New York Times FICTION bestseller list. I'll be keeping a eye on this page to make sure it's not messed up. Also, a lock might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofid122 ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Admitted to accepting campaign donation from Ty Cobb (attorney) in discussing conflict of interest, loyalties in the context of President Trump's recent appointment of communications director. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Franken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Melanie Morgan has just alleged that Franken stalked and harassed her in 2000. Request that the information be added to the article. CorduroyCap ( talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On November 16, 2017, sports commentator Leeann Tweeden asserted that during a USO tour in 2006, Franken groped her while she was sleeping and forcibly kissed her. A photograph of Franken allegedly groping her was taken in the process.[55][56] In response Franken said, "I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann... As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it."[57] Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Patricia Murray have both come out in support of an ethics committee investigation into the accusations.[58]
Unnecessary comma: USO tour in 2006[,] Franken groped her
Actions occurred separately: forcibly kissed her [during a performance] Cajual ( talk) 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Partly done I removed the comma, but I believe the sources say the kiss was backstage, not during a performance. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
File:Al Franken groping Leeann Tweeden.jpg
This is one of the rare instances in which a public domain image actually exists of the alleged sexual assault in question. I've uploaded the photo
here. I request that it be added to the article.
CorduroyCap (
talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is quite unacceptable to have the story and the photo blocked. Franken has acknowledged the incident, and this is receiving wide circulation in many top newspapers along with various cable news channels. Dogru144 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Treat Franken exactly, precisely the same way that Moore is being treated. Instantly. Failing to do so exhibits blatant left-wing bias by the ruling Wikipedia groupthink. It is unbelievable that Wikipedians would be so shamelessly biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans. Let's confront and defeat this left-wing bias immediately. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia - not a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith ( talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
References #111 and #112 of this article contain a cite error. -- Sleyece ( talk) 21:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section, Abby Honold is misspelled as Hornold in the second mentioning of her name. Devinplatt ( talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I can go either way on describing the allegations as those of "misconduct" vs. "assault," but I will note that Sometimes the sky is blue's statement that "the accuser did not use the word "assault", and no WP:RS has either" is demonstrably false. Tweeden absolutely did call Franken's actions "sexual assault," and plenty of sources have used the same language. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" as a legal term requires the perpetrator to act in way that is motivated by the sexual desire of the perpetrator. Unwanted genital contact is not the criteria. It's why fondling of testicles by a pedophile is a form of sexual assault but kicking the pedophile in the testicles during a fight is not sexual assault. Both are unwanted contact with their genitals but the difference is whether the actor was doing it for their own sexual gratification. Franken has not stated his intention other than an attempt at humor but he acknowledged that regardless of his intention, it was clear that it was maltreatment of Tweeden.. "Maltreatment of Leeann Tweeden" is a heading title that I believe is NPOV and accurate. The section should then use the terms "groping" and "unwanted kissing" attributed to Tweeden (and not disputed). Also, Franked has stated he took the picture, not an unnamed "someone." Any language in Wikipedia's voice that diminishes Tweedan's account should be removed. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
“I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse,” he said.[7]. What else did you dispute as everything I wrote is factually accurate? Please undo your revert that removed Tweeden's quote. It's the most direct and succinct characterization of her experience. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”should be in the article as a quote. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”There is no other way to invent a team of abusers. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what was in my head when I took that picturehas more authority that your anecdotal story and junior detective work. You're refuting his words based on what? He's the only one named as involved, he took responsibility and is the only conscious person. I'll also note for your junior detectiveness that he is not belted in and the others are asleep. Doesn't quite match your made up flight scenario. -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Franken was also photographed appearing to grope her breast..., so the content does not take a stand on who it was that actually shot the picture one way or the other. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Which sources describe this as sexual assault? Volunteer Marek 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Non neutral language in section heading purged by me, see full comment in the thread below NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) A woman named Lindsay Menz has alleged that Franken grabbed her butt while they were posing for a photo together at the Minnesota State fair in 2010. This may be more troublesome for Franken since if true, it occurred after he became a member of the Senate. [8] Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Al Franken has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the end of the introduction: Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden claimed in November 2017 that she was sexually assaulted by Franken twice in 2006. Dmurvihill ( talk) 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay here you go. This should be added to the end of the introduction (lede section):
Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden reported in November 2017 that Franken sexually assaulted her twice in 2006.[4] [5]
I added sources, and the absence of sources was the only objection offered. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 17:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Scroll up, and stop pretending that we don't have consensus. Dmurvihill proposed this edit without sources and I added the sources. That's two of us. Also read the comments by Corduroycap, Dogru144, Sleyece, AzureCitizen and in particular, Grayfell, Corky, and DHeyward. In opposition there's you, plus (possibly) have VSmith and Dr. Fleischmann. Possibly three. So supporting it I have two for certain plus, possibly, seven more. You have one for certain plus, possibly, two more. Are you going to insist that I need to go through the process of calling for an RFC and counting votes for 30 days? Or can you see which way the wind is blowing? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”If it warrants a statement in the lead, I would call it "mistreatment" or "maltreatment." Franken disputes there was anything sexual about his conduct so it would be hard to say it in WP voice. -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.”However, since she said "forcibly kissed me [and] grabbed my breasts," the lede should include -- if not the words "sexual assault" -- then a paraphrase, as close as good English grammar will allow to her own words that she used to describe the incident: "forcibly kissed her and grabbed her breasts." Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Two More Women Accuse Sen. Al Franken Of Inappropriate Touching -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996. “The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post."-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the biggest changes with the MeToo wave is that non-apologies and virtue signalling are insufficient excuses for unacceptable behaviour.