Talk:Al Franken/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bachelor of Arts?

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)

Third Rock from the Sun

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)

People like George Soros?

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)

Sounds like the editor might have meant that Soros is helping by bankrolling the legal aspect of the recount, which doesn't necessarily mean he influences the outcome per se. However, if the item was not sourced, then it's okay to deleted it, I think. Soros is often an inflamatory figure, and so there should be some verification before making a claim he's aiding Franken. I've found several sources that say Franken is receiving funding from groups affiliated with Soros's moveon.org, but no reliable sources that say the money is coming directly from Soros (except for more weasel-words like "from billionaires like George Soros"..."like" could very well mean people similar to, but not including, Soros). If someone has a good source, I welcome them to include it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate Run Recount Running totals

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)

This isn't Wikinews. I think we should leave the day-to-day fluctuations out and let people get those from another source. Croctotheface (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sources

Resolved

 – Poster has been indef-blocked as being part of a Fox in Socks farm

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)

The above editor is just trying to play the WP:POINT game, since his AFD of the O'Reilly criticism article is doomed to the dumpster again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK... assume good faith. Fru23 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrate some. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

?..Fru23 (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heed the advice of others, and work with others to seek consensus, rather than engaging in edit wars, which will get you nowhere except blocked again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what I will be blocked for? All I did was supply a link to a list of reliable sources and ask were in the article a criticism section should go. You can not argue that the sources are unreliable, this has already been decided elsewhere.Fru23 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, a form a disruptive editing, is where I'd place my chips. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already been blocked twice for edit-warring, in the space of 30 days since he first edited here. "At's-a pretty good work, eh boss?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 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)

• http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/10/17/al-franken-angrily-rushes-senator-coleman-after-debate-media-cam
• http://newsbusters.org/node/2424
• http://newsbusters.org/node/4745
• http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/22/media-skipping-over-al-frankens-acidulous-mockery-christians

Fru23 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's a comedian. You're criticizing him for the qualify of his jokes. Good idea. Let's have a criticism section on every comedian, listing jokes that reliable sources say aren't funny. Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Im all for that, but right now I am working on this. If newsbusters says it is notable, then it deserves mention in this article. Fru23 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's transcribe everything they say, as it's all notable. That shouldn't take up too much room here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Only if it's on topic. Fru23 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic being the target of their attack, right? Good luck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear he shot an elephant in his pajamas. PhGustaf (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless different rules apply to different peoples bios, Yes if they criticize him it is notable because they are notable. Please tell me where in the article the criticism section can go. PhGustaf can you provide a source, if so feel free to add it. Fru23 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for owning up to the WP:POINT game that you're playing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What, This has already been decided on other articles, mentioning that is WP:POINT?Fru23 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What, exactly, has been "decided on other articles"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 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)

Criticism sources

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)

You mean you have made many good points? Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of being a sock of fru23 with no evidence.JcLiner (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note. JcLiner is a confirmed sock of fru23 and has been blocked. Please disregard the disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Political views section

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 added my other comments to the existing POV section, but I suppose a new section doesn't hurt... anyway, I'm not terribly particular to the health care sentence, I changed it in an attempt to make it a bit clearer but to be honest I was never completely satisfied with my revised version. I think an expanded section on Social Security is merited, but the lone sentence that was formerly there was too vague; no politician is campaigning on behalf of not protecting Social Security and I see it as loaded language to suggest that recent privatization efforts inherently seek to destroy it. It is worth nothing that he opposes privatization efforts, but should that be mentioned it should be stated plainly. The bit about oil could probably use the same treatment, a good three sentences on his positions to taxes and how Franken's views have changed over time would be merited, especially in light of how much the price has fluctuated. Overall I wouldn't mind seeing this section expanded to a couple of paragraphs with more thorough description of his positions, but it would be best to establish a framework for POV first.

Ben (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (PST)

If you want to try rewriting the sections, that's obviously fine. However, what was there before is clearly superior to the version you added. Although no intelligent politician would campaign on ending Social Security, there are plenty who have favored policies that would achieve that end. Putting Social Security funds into the stock market in a privatization plan, especially in light of what's happened to similar private funds invested in the stock market over the past few months...what I said hardly used "loaded language." The bottom line here is that your edits removed some relevant information, as you now seem to acknowledge, and described other elements of Franken's policies the way his political opponents would want to. Considering that we are describing FRANKEN'S opinions and all the sources cited are either his campaign website or quote him directly, there is no neutrality problem with using the language that he uses.

As far as the changes to the article, if you're serious about discussion, you should be willing to be reverted for the purpose of beginning discussion. See WP:BRD. Instead, you made a change you clearly expected would be controversial and then preemptively told other editors not to revert you. However, when they did, you just reverted back. If you're in favor of discussion first, then, per BRD, accept that you may be reverted after a bold change, leave the version that had been in the article, and try to sway the consensus toward accepting your version as better. Croctotheface (talk) 15:25, 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.

Ben (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2008 (PST)

First off, I think that it would be helpful to anyone else reading this discussion for you to use indents to preserve the thread. On the merits, I'm not saying that we should adopt all of Franken's language, but your "raise taxes" edits went all the way the other way and used precisely the language that a political opponent would use. If you want to rewrite the Social Security bit to be more detailed, that would be fine. You just deleted it. The article is better with some reference to his Social Security position than with none. The health care sentence, as I explained before, is much better the way it currently is than the way you had it, which made it seem like "coverage for all children" was somehow defining the prior clause about transitioning to universal coverage. I'd be fine with expanding the issues section, but your edits so far have done the opposite. Croctotheface (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to perfer proper line spacing instead of indents, but whatever floats your boat. I'll stand by that the Social Security line is too vague to have any true value, but I suppose I can just replace it with substance and hope you'll agree that it's neutral enough. The health care sentence I don't really care about, I'm not terribly fond of it as it stands as "provision" makes it seem that he's reluctantly supporting a transition so long as children are taken care of first, whereas he's a full-fledged supporter of such a transition and happens to believe that any such transition should begin with the full coverage of children.

It does say right on his site that he's a supporter of windfall taxes on oil companies, did you have any problems with the version a few day back that stated his support for cut to subsidies and the creation of a windfall tax? Just by going off his site, something like this might be a tad better - "Franken formerly supported a small raise in federal gasoline taxes for infrastructure improvements, but now opposes any such increase due to increases in gasoline prices. However, he dismisses any gas tax holiday as a 'gimmick' that would fail to reduce gasoline prices. Franken also supports ending any gasoline subsidies and the institution of a windfall profits tax on oil companies."

Ben (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (PST)

I think you'll find that I would be rather receptive to attempts to rewrite or expend the section in a neutral way. At the very least, I would be willing to collaborate and tweak your changes if I don't like them. So far, my issues have been that you removed text without replacing it with anything, and that you described some of Franken's policies the way a political opponent would. Croctotheface (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When Should We Indicate That He is a "Senator" or a "Senator-Elect?"

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)

Use the reliable sources as your guide, and that would probably be both the Star-Tribune and Pioneer Press websites. Especially, if the conservative-leaning Pioneer Press calls him the new Senator, then it should be safe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I would also say that he isn't a Senator till he is sworn in, so that may take a little longer. But depending on how the events of today are construed, he may be Senator-Elect after today. Crumley (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Senator-elect", yes, once it's considered official. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that once the certification is issued, he is Senator-elect. Even if it is a "conditional" certification pending a lawsuit by Coleman, any Coleman lawsuit would be to contest the results of the election. In either case, Senator-elect would be the proper term. I'm not sure if that certification is from the canvassing board or the Secretary of State. Per Bugs, we'll let the reliable sources decide.DCmacnut<> 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This sort-of parellels the Roland Burris situation. Burris' appointment may be challenged, but he's still the Senator-designate, until the courts and/or the Senate decide otherwise. And once Minnesota officially decides Franken is the Senator-elect, then that's what he is, until the courts and/or the Senate decide otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Franken to be declared Senate victor in Minnesota When should we change it then? -- 82.24.37.103 (talk) 16:06, 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)

In short, when "to be declared" becomes "is declared". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Whether or not the certification fails to stick is a moot point. Upon certification, Franken becomes the Senator-elect. Once seated by the US Senate, he becomes the Senator. With that in mind, if the courts over turn the certification before he is seated, then he would cease to be the Senator-elect, but we do not need to address that unless it happens. Since it does not look as if he will be seated prior to a decision(s) by the court it may be worth amending the phrase after the Senate is seated on Tuesday (tomorrow) "Senator-elect pending court decisions upholding the election". It certainly looks as though it will get messy for at least the next few days. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, basically handling it the same way as the Burris appointment, which also says Senator-designate pending outcome of legal issues, or at least it did at one point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 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)

Have I got this right? Franken will be sworn in as Senator (Jan 6). GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. It appears he will be certified as the winner of the election today (January 5). The new Senate will be seated tomorrow (January 6). However, it is possible Franken will not be seated tomorrow because Minnesota law allows one week for candidates to challenge the certified results of an election, which Coleman has indicated he will do. I'm not certain that this prevents the Senate from actually seating Franken, but it appears that Senate Republicans will filibuster any attempt to seat Franken prior to the challenge running its course... I think. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's officially Senator-elect now, then it could say Senator-elect, and should stay that way until the GOP lets him in the door, at which time he will be Senator Al Franken. If you can believe that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess it should also include some sort of indication that electoral victory proves that he is good enough, he is smart enough, and, gosh darn it, people like him. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

42 percent do, anyway. I see the article now says Senator-elect. That's probably safe, although he won't likely be allowed to take his seat until the suits are settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Junior Senator elect? That should be Senator elect, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see somebody has already corrected it. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 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)

The semi-weaselly way that the article states it right now, as being certified the winner, is probably best for the time being. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It now says "certified as having the most votes". This does sound as if it were written by a lawyer, but it's inarguably true. Just let it sit for a few days and enjoy the ride. PhGustaf (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we add a better reference?

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)

Noted. I changed it to This source from The Hill. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we lock down this page temporarily?

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)

I think the locking of the Coleman article was a little too much. I understand the locking of this article as the edits are getting out of hand. There was no vandalism on the Coleman article, therefore locking it was unwarrented. Davidpdx (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidpdx raised a good point, so I undid Coleman, but left this article semi-protected. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A limo for a lame-o

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)

Not a U.S. Senator yet... Please remove this...

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)

Certification

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)

Election box

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)

I agree with this as well, as should Franken not yet be given the title of "Senator-Elect". Until the certification is signed by the SoS and governor the election is not finalized. This has been stated in several MSM articles that I have read. The info box needs to be reverted back to whatever it was before the election. In fairness, the article on Coleman has been changed to show that he is no longer a senator and that his term has expired. Davidpdx (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Really a 'Senator Elect'

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)

I don't think the world will end if we just let this matter rest for a week or so. PhGustaf (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think leaving the line "certified as having the most votes" is fine, but the sucession boxes on both articles need to remain TBD. The race is undecided officially until the SoS and governor sign the certification. This has been stated in a number of main stream media articles. As long as there is a court challange, the certification can not be signed. Davidpdx (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just Senate candidate

'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)

A week? According the the Pioneer Press, it could be months before this is decided, unless Coleman heeds fellow Republican Arne Carlson and calls it off - which is unlikely. What else has Coleman got to do? I don't think it's appropriate to call him "Senator-elect", since the media don't seem to be doing that. Meanwhile, I wonder if this qualifies as a "vacancy", since Coleman has already cleaned out his Senate office for the time being. Maybe Pawlenty will put someone there as a place-holder. The logical choice would be Barkley, the guy who was appointed in 2002 for a couple of months, and who screwed this process in 2008. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely a vacancy at the moment. Coleman is out of office, and no Senator was sworn in to the seat yesterday. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's up to the Senate to determine whether they consider it a "vacancy" or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Coleman's term expired January 3 & nobody's replaced him. If that's not a vacant seat, what is? GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be semantically a vacancy, but whether it's legally and constitutionally a vacancy is not up to wikipedia to decide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya mean, it's not a Constitutional vacancy, 'cause that particalar Senate term hasn't started yet (i.e. nobody was elected yet). GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that's what I'm getting at. But the Senate and/or the state of Minnesota have to decide if they consider this to be a vacancy or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Constitution states that when vacancies arise, the Governor is supposed to temporarily fill the vacancy. Has anyone notified Pawlenty that there's a vacancy and/or has he in any way indicated that he will fill such vacancy? In fact, Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." Now, the problem is that there has already been an election. If you construe this to include the possibility until the most recent election is certified, then it would work. But there isn't going to be another election. So someone needs to look for some sources that state what, if anything, Pawlenty intends to do about this. If he intends to do nothing, then it's reasonable to conclude that the lawmakers do not consider this situation to be a "vacancy", constitutionally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 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)

"To Be Determined", as the election is essentially still going on. In short, there isn't a new Senator yet, but the office may not legally be considered "vacant" yet. What do the Senate and Pawlenty have to say about this "vacancy" question, if anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

Jeepers, this situation could last for months. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Strib article indicates it could take another 2 months. There is also nothing in the article to suggest that either the Senate or the Governor consider this a vacancy legally, but that they are merely waiting for the results of the election to be certified - whenever that may be. Something was said about Klobuchar doing "double duty" as Minnesota's only Senator at present. Nowhere, from what I've seen, is there any hint of some kind of temporary replacement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to wait. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Googling around, I see that Coleman's number has been stricken from the Senate phone book and that the Democrats are mumbling about seating Franken anyway. Nothing fit for article inclusion yet, but stay tuned. PhGustaf (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox say something about his essentially Senator-Elect status? All the media acknowledge that the he soundly won the recount.Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Format Suggestion

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)

All US elected politicians

Should state their status as Natural born because of the US Constitutional requirement. LaidOff (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This requirement only applies to the President of the United States - no other federal offices requires the person to be natural born. Rillian (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Every pol dreams of the Prez-cy LaidOff (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

As it stands right now, the state board in charge has declared Franken the winner. Coleman is still challenging in court. SirChuckB (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but until the certification is signed by the SoS and the Governor, the election is not offical. Thus, we need to let things play out in court. I know people want to jump ahead of the process, but there IS a process. Until that process is finished, the election is not finished. We need to leave the info boxes alone until that happens. Davidpdx (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is only the eighth time people have had this discussion on this page... keep going! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 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)

Criticism of Colmes

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)

"Numerous best-selling books"

"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)

Yep, 6 isn't "numerous", more like "several", so I changed it accordingly. According to the article 5 of his books are best sellers. From the info on amazon the other books that he is listed as an author on, he wrote a chapter, foreword or introduction for. I don't know that we need to add those to his bibliography, and there is no sign that they were best sellers, anyway. Crumley (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Franken's Education

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)

"Controversies"

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)

Yes, have boldly done this. MikeHobday (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure deleting it was the proper response, rather than placing it somewhere else in the article? It is still a notable event that Franken is not afraid to discuss and was properly sourced and widely reported. Atlantabravz (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Election Over??

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)

Bias in article introduction

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)

I think the problem here is simply semantics. This election has had several phases. It started with the campaign. Then ballots were cast on election day. Then the initial count occurred and was finalized by the canvassing board a few weeks later, in the middle of November. Then the recount overseen by the canvassing board occurred. Once the canvassing board certified their results on January 5, the recount was over. Norm Coleman's has challenged the results of the recount, leading to the (presumably) last part of the election - the election contest. The recount is over now, and the election contest continues. Those statements are not in dispute by either Franken or Coleman's camps and are not in anyway biased. They are also reflected in both references, though perhaps not stated quite so clearly. Take a look at the election contest section of the article on this campaign for more details.Crumley (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Savin' it" section

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)

Any objection to removing this over BLP concerns? BBiiis08 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep the material as I cannot find any critical stories, and it was seemingly Franken's own acknowledgement/apology that caused it to receive any news at all. Methinks that Al might have been trying to generate some publicity for his book (as was hinted at by the article on The Smoking Gun). Atlantabravz (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it per the discussion. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Franken won the Senate election yet?

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)

Unless are the services I can find are slow, it ain't over yet. Today's recount increased Franken's lead from 225 to 312, but Coleman is expected to appeal any decision for Franken. I reverted somene's claim on the page that it was a done deal. PhGustaf (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a description of that decision, but without any claim that the race is over. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As of today, June 11, 2009, Franken is the winner. An online article about a court judgment forcing Coleman to pay more than $95,000 of Franken's court costs states, "[The ruling] results from the two-month trial that ended with Coleman 312 votes short of Franken." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_re_us/us_minnesota_senate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.232.199 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Franken is certainly the winner so far, and probably will be ultimately, but the case is now in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court. If that court rules against Coleman, as expected, Coleman can (and quite possibly will) try to get the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case. Krakatoa (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court would theoretically have no jurisdiction in the matter, but that doesn't necessarily stop them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is Kate Smith when we need her so much? PhGustaf (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone to that great hockey rink in the sky. Wearing a pair of wings. Probably an industrial strength pair of wings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement on Franken's blog KL. Excqtable (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Minnesota single-Senator model could have some ripple effects. Future headline: "Senate announces layoffs: Each state now to have only one Senator." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

de facto vs. de jure

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

The legal processes haven't concluded yet, so I don't think it would be accurate (yet) to characterize him as the de jure senator-elect. Soon, I hope. Krakatoa (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too complicated to be de jure and too true to law to be de facto. It should say that he is the winner of the disputed election. That way, it shows that he has been declared the winner (true) but that all sides have not reconciled to this fact, and that fighting over whether he is the rightful winner continues.

Until he is OK'd to go to D.C. and take his Senate seat, he is not the Senator-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tax Issues Section Biased?

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)

Al Franken is 94th in seniority and is now a Senator effective date Jan 3 2009!

This is fact go look at the Senate Procedure! _BLuE^DOgTn 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Citation needed.) The seniority start date will be established by the Senate at some point, probably quite soon. Let's wait for that. Jonathunder (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, he can now safely be called Senator-Elect (see lengthy discussion on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008BjoernZ (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is Senator elect. Let's not jump the gun and seat him before the Senate does, however, or take it on ourselves to decide his seniority before it is formalized. Jonathunder (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, he is a senator-elect right now, I'll give up on that darn aspect, but when he actually becomes a senator it is not going to be on that date! Take a look at these links
http://senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/termofasenator.pdf
http://senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/senateelectionlawguidebook.pdf !

He will be technically a senator as of January 3, 2009 because according to senate rules if you are elected in November it is on that effective date the term begins by the constitution of the United States, and therefore having seniority of 94th between Hagan and Merkely! I just don't want the wrong assumed office date of July whatever to be put on his page because it would not be legit. Can you see my argument! _BLuE^DOgTn 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon Swearing-In, Al Franken would be assumed to have taken office on January 3, 2009 not in July! _BLuE^DOgTn 00:41, 1 July 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:

• Huey Long. He was elected to a six-year term, but was still governor of Louisiana when elected. He did not qualify as a Senator until his term as governor finished (Long refused to resign), so his term is listing as starting nearly 2 years after he was first elected.

No bearing because he did not accept the position, which he had the chance to do, and this means nothing because Al Franken did not refuse to be seated he was denied!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rush D. Holt, Sr.. Elected to a six-year term at age 29. Courts had ruled that you can be elected senator before turning the constitutionally-mandated age of 30, but you cannot serve as a senator until you turn 30. Holt waited until after his 30th birthday to take office, and his term is listed as starting at that time.

Again does not apply because Al Franken was old enough to take office, which the constitution said his term started January 3, 2009. This was about age and nothing else!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• John Cornyn. Appointed during the 107th Congress, but his seniority date is effective starting in the 108th Congress, based on Senate rules committee restrictions regarding senators being appointed early specifically to gain advantageous office space.

John Cornyn does not matter because he was appointed, and actually this makes the case for Al Franken being given seniority effective date January 3, 2009 because that is the constitutionally deemable date!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Roland Burris. Appointed December 31 (when his term started), but his seniority is effective January 12 when his credentials were presented and deemed acceptable. Not the best example, but the most recent one where the seniority date is much later than the term start date.

First of all, Roland Burris is a rather sad example because he was appointed by a disgraced governor. This means appointed not elected, so by the links I provide it is by oath for appointed not for elected because elected mean January 3, 2009. Further, this would go for past and future elections as well that drag into a recount procedure!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I believe that I shot down all of these examples, which means someone here must get in contact with the Secretary of the Senate next Monday for an inquiry! PEACE OUT!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. There's no question that Al Franken's term is effective as of January 3. That's in the Constitution. However, that does not mean his seniority will be effective as of that date. On January 3, no one had qualified as senator. No one took the oath of office as required by Senate rule. Therefore, Al Franken is senator-elect until he takes the oath in open Senate session. His seniority will begin effective with when he "takes office," not when his term starts. His situation is no different than other senators-elect who voluntarily delayed taking their seats after election. Al Franken's delay was involuntary due to the election contest. Term start does not = seniority date.DCmacnut<> 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

---

And now for the facts: He's 100th in seniority.

• Huls, Carl (July 7, 2009). "And Here's Senator Franken". New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2009.
• Bakst, Brian (July 7, 2009). "Minnesota Lacks Senate Seniority". Time Magazine. Retrieved July 8, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Ventura, and Several Other Conservative Commentators???

Jesse Ventura is not a conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.125.207 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

*Other* faulty edits regarding when his Senate term will start

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)

Somewhat slanted tone in "Radio Show" paragraph

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)

Alan Stewart Franken Redirect?

This needs to be done!98.240.44.215 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how likely it is that someone will search for him under his full legal name, Alan Stuart Franken, let alone under the misspelling Alan Stewart Franken, but I've made both of them redirects. JamesMLane t c 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Details on election contents in intro

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)

I think the better way to correct this would be to expand that part of the lede which deals with his pre-Senate life. While the article has a little trouble with recentism, I don't think it's bad enough to warrant removal of material at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "lead"? If not, what is a "lede"? WMMartin (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

American (mis-)spelling, see lead (news). BjoernZ (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the election contest portion of the lead should be condensed and abbreviated a bit more, with its full content remaining in main body of the article itself for posterity. Currently, the section reads like this:

In 2008 Franken ran as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidate for U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. He was declared the winner of that contested race, but Coleman appealed the outcome. On June 30, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Franken's victory and declared that he was entitled to be certified as the election winner. Coleman thereupon conceded the election to Franken. Franken was sworn in to the Senate on Tuesday, July 7, 2009.

How about reducing it from five sentence to two sentences, simplified but containing the same important points, like this:

In 2008 Franken ran for U.S. Senate and narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Norm Coleman after an automatic recount. Coleman appealed the outcome but conceded the election after the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Franken's victory on June 30, 2009, whereupon Franken was sworn in to the Senate on July 7, 2009. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Go for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, thanks. BjoernZ (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Name in lede

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)

On your monitor, perhaps. But there's no "non-cosmetic" reason to justify doing such a thing. - dcljr (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Balance of power

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 fact, the related Main-Page {{In the news}} item on July 7–8 mentioned it, as well. I realize there's another article that's more relevant for that info, but it seems that it is worth at least a mention here. - dcljr (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2004 heckler

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)

Is the Post a reliable source when it comes to Al Franken or anything for that matter? What is the consensus opinion on this? Could it be possible Franken was telling a joke to the post and they changed the context of his words? Is it possible the Post just made them up in jest? Do we have any more sources on the incident beyond that one blog link? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was reported by every news source, though it'd be hard to determine how much was original reporting and how much was copied or wire service text. See Google news.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New article: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010

Help is most welcome!Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010Biggus Dictus.
(talk) 03:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd Rock from the Sun

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)

About and approximately in reference to movies, TV shows, and books?

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)

The phrase several appeared until it was changed a few hours ago. If you think several if better, edit the article to change it back. If the numbers can be confirmed feel free to confirm them and add the sourcing.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried researching the books but found it very hard to confirm exactly which were bestsellers and which were not. I believe that Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Lies..., and The Truth (with Jokes) were bestsellers and that none of the others were, so, pending confirmation, the number of bestsellers should be 3. At any rate, I agree that "about 4" is pretty silly. Feeeshboy (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Why Not Me? and Oh the Things I Know both made the New York Times bestseller lists, so the number of books is 5. Feeeshboy (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For the movies and TV shows, I think "several" is appropriately vague, given that his roles in these projects vary greatly. The approximate numbers distract from the point. Detailed accounting for these aspects of his career can be handled elsewhere in the article. I will make these changes; if anyone objects to "several," I'd like to see why. Feeeshboy (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill condemning Uganda’s anti-homosexuality act

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)

The Honorable (Honorific)

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)

Menturing Ventura

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)

Felon voting story

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 quite agree that it should not be featured in this article because this information does not affect the recount, nor does it involve Franken in any way. This information is also featured in United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, which is where it belongs. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant to the "2008 U.S. Senate campaign" section and fits in with the other 3 paragraphs about the close vote. Drrll (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be quite picky, it's relevant to the election, not to Franken's campaign for election (which is the title of the section), which ended after the recount. Hence the same paragraph is featured in the page dealing with the election. The senate campaign is already the longest section of this article (without the paragraph in question), and to add a long paragraph about every debunked rumor that surfaced after Franken was sworn in would be too much information that strays too far from the subject. It's not the place of this article to have all the information about the Senate election; that's what the link to the main article on it is for. Of course, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Feeeshboy (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the section to the election article is a good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Presided"?

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)

It's not talking about the Committee; it's talking about the Senate's vote to confirm Sotomayor. Most of the time, relatively junior senators preside over the Senate, and he just happened to be in the Chair when the vote happened. -Rrius (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is correct and sourced appropriately in the article. Feeeshboy (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Menturing Ventura

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)

Felon voting story

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 quite agree that it should not be featured in this article because this information does not affect the recount, nor does it involve Franken in any way. This information is also featured in United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, which is where it belongs. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant to the "2008 U.S. Senate campaign" section and fits in with the other 3 paragraphs about the close vote. Drrll (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be quite picky, it's relevant to the election, not to Franken's campaign for election (which is the title of the section), which ended after the recount. Hence the same paragraph is featured in the page dealing with the election. The senate campaign is already the longest section of this article (without the paragraph in question), and to add a long paragraph about every debunked rumor that surfaced after Franken was sworn in would be too much information that strays too far from the subject. It's not the place of this article to have all the information about the Senate election; that's what the link to the main article on it is for. Of course, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Feeeshboy (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the section to the election article is a good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Presided"?

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)

It's not talking about the Committee; it's talking about the Senate's vote to confirm Sotomayor. Most of the time, relatively junior senators preside over the Senate, and he just happened to be in the Chair when the vote happened. -Rrius (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is correct and sourced appropriately in the article. Feeeshboy (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Support for PIPA

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)

Seeing how it was a bill that never became law, and Senators support and oppose hundreds of bills each month, I suppose it merits a sentance or two. Grammarxxx talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al Franken/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Check for quick fail criteria

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Y Has RS references.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Y appears neutrally written.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Y no cleanup tags.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Y No recent or ongoing edit wars or disputes.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Y Not a current event.
6. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations.

Comments

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)

This is a new QF criteria and I stopped because I believed it would have required a full review for just that, before I could move on the a GA review. So I asked at the GAN talkpage and was told the Q6 criteria would apply during the review if I discovered such (in other words I can move on but if I do find CR violation it would fail right there). Then I got wrapped up in other issues elswhere. So to answer your question: no, I did not find any copyright violations in my general overview of the article. Sorry for the delay.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   (1) Uhm...Beliefnet.com? I'm sorry but that is not RS. There are so many RS that could be used to source that information I just can't accept that.

(2) Jason Hoppin (April 20, 2009). "Coleman asks high court to look again at rejected votes" is a dead link.

(3) The ST Louis Park Historical Society is not RS.

(4) Filmreference.com is not RS.

(5) Ancestry of Al Franken". Christopher Challender Child is not RS.

• Fixed, replaced with testimony from fellow Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

• Ref 11 Shales, pp. 433–444. I don't see a bibliography section so this is not sufficient information to verify the claim/content. These types of short citations only work when using general referencing and needs to be added in the reference section. Since this appears to be the only citation using this style I suggest just changing it to a full citation. Even as a short citation it is missing the date.

• Ref 9 does show the proper source (title, year, ect), if there's a better way I can improve this please tell me, but I've added another source.

OK, I understand what you did here. As I understand it, the two citations are the same source but different pages. The short citation style is reserved for a single source with the authors listed alphabetically at the end or the reference section, which you have not done. You are using the short citation style incorrectly here (and even if you were, it still requires the date with the authors name to clarify or the title of the book). As I said, that style is for use with general references, but you are not using it as such. It is simply the same reference on a different page. You are required to provide the same information of author, title and/or date with each use in this manner. (Note: This is also supposed to be separated in notes with the general reference in the reference section when using the short citation. I would also note the lack of ISBN numbers but that is not going to effect GA)

I've removed the short citation and kept the long ones, if something's still wrong I'd really appreciate some help.

• The USO official website can't be used to source the information about the award. While it is the official website it should only be used to cite such information on themselves, such as Franken's official site being used. These are not considered RS. It basicly a primary source in this manner and needs additional sourcing.

• Done.

• Reference 14 is too weak to cite as fact, all the information it is being used for alone. It is a single public domain interview of the figure and only his on point of view. It should be attributed to Franken himself: "Franken spoke to 'Interviewer A' about..." I would also only cite up to the point "..chapter accusing O'Reilly of lying" if citing that with the interview alone. But I suggest further reliable sources for the claim about the Fox lawsuit and if possible all of the claim could be supported with better sourcing.

• I've changed the section to focus on the lawsuit instead of the books contents.

Not enough was changed. The use of only a Franken interview with only his point of view is not a RS for staing facts. If you do not wish wish to change the source, change the information to clearly state this is all contrived from Franken himself or it is still very weak as sourcing goes.

I've removed the interview and replaced it with news articles.

Y All of the above have been fixed.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Moving on. There is an entire chunk in the "Political activism prior to election" section that is based on a Huffington Post article by Franken (ref 26). I have some problems with this section. First, Franken himself is not independent from the source. He is the source. This is a statement of opinion and because it involves opinion of others it really should be from a secondary source. Because the qualified ( "Franken wrote..." ) mention from Franken's book depends on the other passages, it to is a bit innapropriate. The subject of the article is Franken not these other figures. I feel this entire section has no place in this article and I would not be able to list GA with its inclusion. Y I have removed this per our BLP policy as containing contentious claims about others per WP:BLPREMOVE. For this particular article it is poorly sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref 31, IMDB is not RS. It also does not support the claim directly but is simply a link to the rating the site gives to the film along with credits. We need a secondary souce that states this.

• Fixed.

Refs 54 and 55 are government documents and website schedules. They are primary sources and cannot be used to source facts. These are good to retain as primary sources but need additional sources that directly support the claims.

• Fixed.

Ref 61 is actually a press release written by Franken's press secretary and printed in its entirety in the Grand Forks AFB website. It is not independent of the subject. This needs a more reliable secondary source.

• Fixed.

Ref 64 appears to have a run time error. Not sure if this is a broken link or just not available. Suggest checking this yourself to see what happens when you click it. If you see no errors, nothing need be done. If you also see this, please remove the link and replace it with more information to verify the source.

• Fixed.

Ref 72, Rasmussen Reports is raw data from a poll. It is a primary source and requires secondary sourcing.

• Fixed.

Ref 77, The Uptake.com, Not RS.

• Ref 80 does not support the claim. This is simply her bio page at Huff Post. Nothing links her to Franken. It is sufficient for her information as written but needs additional sourcing from a secondary source demonstrating that she is indeed Franken's daughter YFixed.

Ref 8, "Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live" requires a page number.

The "Saturday Night Live" section has large portions that are unreferenced.

• I've requested the book from my library, should have these two fixed in the next couple days. Ive added the page # and added references.

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Perhaps the most thoroughly documented images I have seen during a GA review. Excellent.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Now, here we have some issues.

(1) The Ramstein Air Base image is well captioned (and even better now)...but has absolutely no relevance to the prose or text in the entire article. No issue. My mistake. There is a reference in the text going back to activity strarting in 1999. Image has relevance.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• What's the issue with this? It is a picture of him entertaining apart of the USO.

(2) Same issue with the 2009 image if the subject at Rochester, Minnesota in the "Political activism prior to election" section. No relevance to any text in article. Also lacks a decent caption.

(3) In the "US SENATE" section we have two images that do not look that different and I can see no apparent reason to have both. The "Franken campaigning for U.S. Senate" is the better of the two. I would prefer there be some image of the subject before his politcal career. This may require a fairuse image. Since there are free images available of the subject this may not pass non free content guidelines so it won't count against the article, but would be nice if there was some way to get something in there (just my own preference)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Removed and rearranged photos.
• It would be nice if the images were staggered but won't effect a GA listing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer comments

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)

A bit sick today. Logged on to leave a massage and deal with some issues. Be back to this in the next day or so. Apologies.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Been a bit busy but should be able to wrap this up in the coming days. Good work by the User:Grammarxxx.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

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)

Citation for same Bible as Wellstone?

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)

Excellent point...but he was sworn in with a bible. See this reference and photo. I will look further.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That didn't take long. .--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede sentence

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)

I think a good first sentence would be: "Al Franken is an American comedic actor and politician who currently serves as the junior United States Senator from Minnesota." He's been a famous comedian for almost 40 years, and a politician for 6. We could also potentially add radio host and author into the first sentence. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's critical to have the exact phrase "junior United States Senator from Minnesota in 2009" in the first sentence. It could be summarized a little bit to allow room for a better summary of his career before getting more detailed. How about something like "Al Franken is an American entertainer and politician who, after several decades as a comedic actor and writer, became a prominent political activist and was elected to the U.S. Senate. Currently the junior U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Franken rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s as a writer and performer on Saturday Night Live" etc. etc. —Designate (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. It gives a more comprehensive overview of his notability, rather than just starting with what he's doing right now. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Electoral History table, 2008 election

(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)

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Election

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

I came here to wonder the same thing. It doesn't seem to reference anything and I can only take a guess it's related to the previous election in 2002, however, in that election the incumbant, Paul Wellstone, was killed in an airplane crash just before the election, so the +/- would make even less sense since it could hardly be called a "normal" election. I'd vote to take the +/- out since there is no reference to what the +/- is referencing.2601:444:C000:53D6:5836:2DE1:18E8:5922 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/07/1988777.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090909192002/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/26315908/vp/32699075 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32699075

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012885-503544.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709192649/http://www.newsweekinteractive.com/2010/07/05/al-franken-gets-serious.html? to http://www.newsweekinteractive.com/2010/07/05/al-franken-gets-serious.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Birth Date

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/23FRAN.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127055939/http://www.alfranken.com/pages/higher_education/ to http://www.alfranken.com/pages/higher_education/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127024558/http://www.alfranken.com/pages/gas_prices/ to http://www.alfranken.com/pages/gas_prices/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114022710/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=53663 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=53663
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523143444/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/al_franken_minnesota.html?nav=rss_blog to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/al_franken_minnesota.html?nav=rss_blog
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219051351/http://minnesotaindependent.com/40260/franken-veteran-dog-bill-defense to http://minnesotaindependent.com/40260/franken-veteran-dog-bill-defense
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909004839/http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least-1-liberal-friend-left-sen-al-franken-20130611 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least-1-liberal-friend-left-sen-al-franken-20130611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627152136/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/minns-franken-hardly-gop-target-defeat to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/minns-franken-hardly-gop-target-defeat

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

TIME quote

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909192002/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32699075 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32699075

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1607252%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/23FRAN.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ww3.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?p=1062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226082736/http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409 to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twincities.com/ci_12187779
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226082736/http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409 to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigstory.ap.org/article/minns-franken-hardly-gop-target-defeat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031062018/http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/u-s-sen-al-franken-will-receive-stewart-b-mckinney-award-tonight/ to http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/u-s-sen-al-franken-will-receive-stewart-b-mckinney-award-tonight/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone To Look Out For

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)

OK - error corrected, I've modified the blurb to state "non-fiction" and the ref now is to the non-fiction best seller list. That said, I don't really think the bit belongs in the lead section. May shift it. Vsmith (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN Appearances, 2017, July 23 2017, with Jake Tapper

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120032829/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races=%27%27 to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races=%27%27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

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)

And Mitch McConnell just requested an ethics investigation. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And two Democratic senators have joined in requesting an ethics investigation: Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Patricia Murray have both come out in support of an ethics committee investigation into the accusations.NBC News: "Sen. Al Franken accused of forcibly kissing, groping L.A. radio news anchor Leeann Tweeden" by Dartunorro Clark. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And Chuck Schumer just joined in requesting an ethics probe. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done In my view this illustrates how the information is recentism. I'd prefer to wait a little longer so that we can fairly summarize the various reactions, which are coming in just now. It would be undue to have a laundry list of each and every senator who has requested an ethics investigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We can say that senators called for an investigation, perhaps, but we don't need to list them all out. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

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)

Big problem here. The article currently says "Franken forcibly kissed her without her consent", but the woman herself in her article on KABC website says "He repeated that actors really need to rehearse everything and that we must practice the kiss. I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me." . We can argue all day about how coerced her consent may have been, but that is not the same as forcibly and without consent. Different wording is called for here. KH172.76.140.54 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't say Franken forcibly kissed her without her consent. It says she wrote he forcibly kissed her without her consent, which is exactly what she wrote, word for word. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of the alleged sexual assault

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)

LOL at an "alleged" photograph of the sexual assault — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.183.248 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

[2] Mr. Franken asked for the photo to be taken and then posed for it, smiling (see photo at right). So, how is this an "egregious BLP violation" to have it in the article? CorduroyCap (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging IronGargoyle who removed it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I've nominated the image for deletion because of unclear copyright status. No opinion about inclusion (if re-uploaded as fair use).  Sandstein  21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue of protection for BLP in this case is not solely of Sen. Franken. The image portrays the victim of an alleged sexual assault in the midst of said assault. There is absolutely no way this belongs on Wikipedia (I also agree wholeheartedly on the image's unclear copyright status). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I oppose inclusion of the photo on BLP grounds. It seems inflammatory and undue to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• The photo would not be proportional to the current coverage of the incident. Per WP:NOTNEWS I think we should wait a bit and see how reliable sources cover this. As for BLP, my understanding is that Tweeden herself published the photo specifically to draw attention to Franken's actions and to prompt other people to come forward. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I mostly just do copy editing on Wikipedia, that and taking down obvious vandalism, because life's too short. But describing the photo as Franken "reaching" is some serious crap and whoever wrote that and is enforcing it against edits should feel bad. If you're going to mischaracterize the photo at least also show it. I'm not going to edit anything, but I wanted to say something because you're being horrible. Burnsbert (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Inherent POV in blocking reporting of Tweeden groping incident

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)

The groping photo is pertinent as it clearly demonstrates that he was guilty of said accusation.Dogru144 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is trying to block the story, and the photo is already being addressed in another discussion above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Franken#Sexual assault allegations. Suggesting the story is being "blocked" is fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 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)

Franken and Moore are different people with different accusations. Your bringing up Moore here at all is a wonderful case of whataboutism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The cases are not identical, but they are very similar. Invoking "whataboutism" as a defense could be seen as an attempt to ensure that similar subject matter, on different sides of the aisle (Republican vs. Democrat), will not be subject to comparison. Comparison is necessary, however, to ensure that we are treating the two political parties even handedly. This is not "whataboutism." This is "Wikipedianism." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you're describing false equivalency. Wikipedia isn't cable news, where one Democrat faces off against one Republican on every issue. Comparison is inappropriate, including when you compared Franken to Dennis Hastert, a convicted felon. (Franken isn't.) – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about "equivalency." I said that they're similar. There's a difference between "similar" and "equivalent." There is a larger cultural context here. A large number of prominent, powerful men, in politics and the media, have been accused of various forms of sexual misconduct in the past few months. Some have called it the "Weinstein effect." When the accusers against Weinstein came forward, it encouraged accusers against other powerful men to come forward, and it also prompted The Washington Post to pursue allegations against Moore and publish that story. Gay men such as George Takei and Kevin Spacey have been accused; this isn't limited to heterosexuals. It also cuts across racial and political lines. All must be treated fairly and with an even hand, so this comparison is appropriate. It is this refusal to compare them that is inappropriate. Pretending that there isn't such a cultural context, and pretending there aren't similar cases worthy of comparison, raises a lot of questions about Wikipedia bias. I grow weary of these rationalizations for left-wing partisan bias at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're saying we should treat Republicans and Democrats in an equivalent fashion, but that's not how it works here. Every case is its own. I grow weary of debating with people who throw out unsubstantiated claims of "left-wing partisan bias" just because we don't treat a Democrat who does something bad in the exact same way as a Republican who does something worse. See WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Both are only accused. Therefore, here at Wikipedia we're not allowed to say that either one of them actually did it (i.e. "does something bad ... does something worse"). Furthermore, the allegations against Moore are 40 years old and he's been in public office for about 35 of those years. One would think, entirely apart from questions about a statute of limitations, that his accusers would have come forward a long time ago if they were telling the truth. I consider the two cases roughly equivalent for these reasons. Then of course, there's the whole feminist attitude about how society should have absolutely zero tolerance for any type of sexual misconduct, whether the victims are 100 14-year-olds or one middle-aged prostitute. So that also suggests they should be treated the same. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"You consider" - a key qualifier there. Somehow I don't think that most folks share the same perspective, both on and off Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, as to "One would think, entirely apart from questions about a statute of limitations, that his accusers would have come forward a long time ago if they were telling the truth": the Roy Moore accuser I just saw in a press conference recounted that Moore (allegedly) told her "I'm the district attorney. If you tell anyone about this, noone will believe you". Women who are abused by powerful men feel that they can't come forward because those men would destroy them. So no, it's not surprising that it would take a woman 30, 40 years to come forward. It's not surprising that many women never come forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:WEIGHT is still the best answer here. The "Left Wing Bias" argument is WP:NON here. Both of these individuals did something potentially illegal, but they haven't been charged or convicted. The best we can do is present the evidence that is notable so far. I think that there is a strong case for including the photograph apparently groping his accuser in the article (especially if that photograph is submitted as evidence before the Senate Ethics Committee). -- Sleyece (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the results of an RFC on this issue. The dominant culture here is clearly left-wing. But it's also feminist, meaning that they're both accused, therefore both should be treated the same, period. Unfortunately, I think partisan bias would eventually trump everything, as it did during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when Gloria Steinem wrote an NYT op-ed defending him -- and engaging in both slut shaming and age shaming in the process. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That might be interesting, but please remember here that our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to test for anyone's suspicions of bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"The dominant culture here is clearly left-wing" is clearly not WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow, Left and Right wing voices both tend to claim that articles of opposing political figures get special attention. No matter the ideology, the reasoning is WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - not a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed -- Sleyece (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cite Error

References #111 and #112 of this article contain a cite error. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Fixed (see this edit). Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That fix actually seemed to have created a different error - I reverted the edit before noticing the former cite error. I'm working on sorting this out right now. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Got em. My apologies for not checking the talk page first - I thought I was seeing a regular old "messed up tags" cite error, but should have looked deeper since this is such a hot topic. Anyway, errors are sorted. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

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)

Done Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Misconduct vs assault

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)

Since sources, and commons sense, support the term "assault", and "misconduct" is vague and almost euphemistic, the more direct term should be used as a point of neutrality. Assault it not a subjective term in this case. Tweeden has used the term, and this was alleged forced unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature. Misconduct could be anything, from unsolicited photos, to cat-calls, to a consensual affair. It's too broad to be sufficiently informative. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I would support "Sexual harassment allegations" as that fits most of the sources I've seen. "Assault" is a legal term. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's better than "misconduct", I suppose. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, "sexual harassment" is also a legal term, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Groping is considered an assault. I favor assault to be used here, regardless of whether or not the accuser mentioned it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The photo is of him miming, mimicking, and pretending at a short distance with a theme of groping. That is rude and disrespectful, but not assault. physical contact is required for that word to be used. SH172.76.140.54 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This interpretation is not supported by reliable sources. Many of them use the term assault, but almost all of them that I have seen describe the photo as alleged "groping", not "pretending to grope" or "miming groping".[3][4][5][6] If you have a source that says this was pretend, let's see it, but that will not automatically cancel-out those which describe this as groping. Grayfell (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Last I checked, IP, "forcibly kissing..." is physical contact which is sexual assault... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:24, 17 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)

Wow, I don't think there's a single sentence in there I agree with. No need to pick it all apart. So Franken said he took the photo, do you have a link for that please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:You mean the exact quote from Franken in the most prominent source? “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)

I didn't interpret that quote as him admitting actually snapping the photo, but I can see how one might. Thanks for pointing me to that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Exactly how do you interpret "when I took that picture" as anything but saying he took the picture? Why attribute it to someone else? Taking a picture of a vulnerable person and sharing it with them or others is a form of control. No third party has been named or come forward. Why deflect blame away from Franken when he has readily said he took the picture? If you think it's ambiguous, I proposed just using the quote from Tweeden to describe how she felt. We quote Franken but then use all sorts of statements to diminish Tweeden. “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)

In the photograph, both of Franken's hands are clearly visible, so it's obvious that he isn't the one pressing the shutter button on the camera. When Franken said "I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture," he didn't mean that he himself personally "took" the picture in the sense that we think of photographers taking pictures by pointing and shooting the camera. Instead, he meant that he "took" the picture in the sense that he was "in" the picture, from the stand point of participating and "taking part in" the photograph. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that cameras have timers, right? A person other than Franken would be complicit in this act yet no one else has been named or even alluded. We have Franken's statement and no other. Personally, the only RS way to state "someone" is to quote Tweeden “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)

You're suggesting that Franken somehow got a camera stabilized into the right position on an in-flight military transport, framed up just right, and staged the picture himself using a timer? I traveled around the OIF theater on aircraft like that on more than one deployment and find the suggestion very far fetched. Actually encountered Tweeden at one point at Camp Udairi (now Buehring) in late 2003 very briefly with Rebecca Romijn and her former husband; she was nice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the exact statement by Franken I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture has 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)

That picture was taken inside a C-17 (a cargo airplane that can accommodate up to 134 personnel seated in the hold) flying from Afghanistan to Los Angeles, hence it's doubtful that there wouldn't be any other passengers present or conscious (plus there would have had to been at least one crew chief in the cargo hold with them). "Detectiveness" is not a real word either. However, if you wish to keep asserting that it really was Franken somehow taking this picture on his own using a timer and camera rig with nobody else on board, feel free. As it stands right now, the article reads 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)

A quick review includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Caller, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, Salon, Variety and The Minneapolis Post. A lot of different publications, both left-wing and conservative, mainstream and fringe, have described it as "sexual assault." How many are declining to describe it as sexual assault, Marek? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• We should use neither Both "sexual misconduct" and "sexual assault" have definitions in various compilations of criminal law. To my knowledge there is no formal investigation, much less charges, much less convictions, of specific crimes. So we should take it seriously but still adhere to our neutrality policy by calling the allegations ones of "inappropriate sexual conduct". Besides, Ms Tweeden can't know if Franken's hands made contact with her gear/clothing. The pic is ambiguous on that point and by her own words she was asleep. At another time he apparently badgered her about a kiss, and she finally said "fine (probably thinking 'let's get this over with'). She said he was rough and and tongued her. The badgering might have been harassment, but that too is a word defined in law. If I were Tweeden, I'd be super pissed and disgusted. (Actually I am disgusted and I wasn't there) But these facts are pretty murky for purposes of criminal conclusions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Second allegation

Non neutral language in section heading purged by me, see full comment in the thread belowNewsAndEventsGuy (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)

Senators should not be grabbing butts. Now that we have that out of the way, we have to be careful talking about Mrs. Menz' report. Per WP:NPOV we can not say this was a "sexual assault", nor for that matter should we give much weight to RSs that use that language. There are other RSs (CNN Example) that correctly point to the MN statute on point, which says touching a clothed butt doesn't even count for FIFTH degree sexual misconduct. On the other hand, maybe its fourth degree misconduct if he touched her with sexual intent. But Wikipedia editors are ill equipped to determine intent, so we can only say he's alleged of misconduct, and if he's ever investigated, or charged, or convicted, of "x" we can say that too. But until then we can't apply the names of crimes NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017

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)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrected semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

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.

I added sources, and the absence of sources was the only objection offered. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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 DON'T have consensus. Not to put it in the lede. And not to call it "sexual assault". Volunteer Marek  21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear - if this leads to Franken resigning from the Senate or something, then yes, then it can go into the lede (though not as "sexual assault" unless it can be demonstrated that that's how most sources describe it). But as of now, no. Volunteer Marek  21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of prominent men who were accused of sexual misconduct and did not resign, yet somehow, the allegations are described (in greater detail than I've suggested) in the lede section. For example, see Roy Moore and Clarence Thomas, both of whom are Republicans; Thomas, like Franken, had only one accuser. So why should this left-wing Democrat be treated any differently than Moore and Thomas? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In both these cases the coverage was much more extensive and the effects long lasting. Here it's unclear if there will actually be any long term effects. Tweeden accepted his apology. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think it should be called "sexual assault." Please reread my comment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

But you agree it should be in the lede? And do you have any objection to pinpoint accurate terms such as "groped her breasts" and "forcibly kissed her"? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, "sexual assault" requires the perpetrator have sexual gratification as a motive. Franken apologized for how Tweeden felt, not what he did. He stood by his "humor" motive. While that was a rather pathetic apology and he should have been skewered by feminists, he wasn't and he hasn't admitted to any type of motivation beyond trying to be funny. I think Tweeden should be quoted in the section because every editor is watering down her account. We let Franken mansplain his behavior with a quote and we should balance it with Tweeden's “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)

I completely agree that Tweeden should be quoted at length in the appropriate section about the sexual allegation: “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)

We actually avoid long block quotes. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That isn't a long block quote. It's two sentences. If you insist, I think we can take off the first one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic "he said/she said" case yet Wikipedia has managed to turn it into "he said/what men think she meant." It's lame. Quote Tweeden in the section that supposedly covers what she said. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a pretty straightforward application of WP:QUOTEFARM. In general we try to paraphrase quotes, unless they are ambiguous or there's encyclopedic value to the specific language being quoted. If you think you can adequately paraphrase Franken's quote, then by all means please go ahead and do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Two more women come forward (total of 4 accusers in continuing saga)

Two More Women Accuse Sen. Al Franken Of Inappropriate Touching --DHeyward (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

AP coverage --DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sen. Al Franken says he 'crossed a line' USAToday --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly surfaced pics show Al Franken grabbing Arianna Huffington’s breasts and butt --DHeyward (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

From that article: "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)

Which is why she was not one of the four listed accusers. That particular incident was reported by someone that witnessed it and was not comfortable with it. People make up their own minds and "serial groper" has been mentioned more than once as well as the "it was just a joke." --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 26 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.

Al Franken still hasn’t denied grabbing women --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)