Talk:Al Franken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article Al Franken has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 8, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 8, 2009.

Resignation section[edit]

I am new to this page, and seeing all the edit warring, I hesitated to make an edit without discussing it here first. At the end of the "Allegation of misconduct" section, is it necessary to still include the sentence, "Franken announced that he would make a statement on December 7."? Yes, it was news at the time (yesterday), but it has been trumped by his actual resignation statement. I propose we strike that sentence, as it is now old news and outdated, and move the sentence preceding it to the "Senate resignation" section, so that it reads:

Senate resignation

On December 6, more than two dozen Democratic Senators called on Franken to resign. Franken announced the following day that he would be resigning his Senate seat "in the coming weeks".[130] Kerdooskis (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That he announced a statement isn't notable, the statement is. I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I just added a few small objective details to the misconduct section. Then I saw all this discussion. The things I inserted were dates, sources, and pertinent quotes from the accusers. It's nothing controversial, so I hope you'll keep the changes. These are things that I wanted to find out when I came here, but I had to go looking for them on my own. So I did the type of minimal editing that I normally do.Ramseyman (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I came back and found that for the last two accusers, the objective details that I had added were inadvertently deleted when that portion of the section was reorganized by someone. I have briefly re-entered the identities of the accusers and the gist of their accusations, without going into any details or arguments. In light of all the wrangling here about whether the allegations are "sexual" or not, and "assault" or not, it seems quite important to have at least this basic data included in the article, for factual reference. I hope everyone can agree on at least that much. Ramseyman (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Second shoe to drop[edit]

The article seems weird at this point. It has this sentence in the lede: "After Franken was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women in November 2017, he announced his intention to resign from the Senate on December 7th, 2017." And then literally not another word about the issue in the rest of the page. A reader not familiar with recent events will be left wondering when the second shoe is going to drop.Ebw343 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all in the "Allegations of misconduct and Senate resignation" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, my bad, I searched the page for the word "sex" thinking that "sexual" would be used. Sorry.Ebw343 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
We're not allowed to use the word "sexual" to describe his misconduct. He's a Democrat. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologetics and minimization of alleged sexual harassment[edit]

I was surprised to see the lengths that Wikipedia writers/editors have gone to make Franken's forced kissing and groping of multiple women seem like a series of innocent misunderstandings. They were not, and all of the women involved were clear on this point. These were adults, professionals and mature women, and in the view of the women affected, there was precious little room for misinterpretation of Franken's actions. Most of the more pointed comments from the women themselves have been excised from this article, and the section regarding his forced kissing and groping does not accurately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Frankly, the way the section currently reads, it's unclear why any of the women complained in the first place, why Franken apologized, why the senate ethics committee is investigating, and why he has resigned. 2601:CB:8001:280E:E573:8A02:1AA9:AE67 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If so, that reflects what is known about these events. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO it describes the alleged actions in enough detail for readers to draw their own conclusions, and if they feel they need more context or details, they can always follow the links. — Narsil (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just realized the section header was BLP-noncompliant. Fixed. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)