Talk:Al Franken

Senate Run Update

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

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

Archive

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

Beating a dead horse?

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

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

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

Sean7phil 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well since you bring it up (and no one else seems to want to do it), I will spend the next few weeks researching criticisms of Al. Many can be found already in other wiki articles such as his involvement in the Air America Loan scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America-Gloria_Wise_loan_controversy I will also try and cross reference the criticism between O'reilly and Al as well since it is WELL documented. 2 Be Continued 66.31.222.89 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)peterp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parkay Butter Commercial?

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

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

Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism (?)

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

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

Franken for Senator

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

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

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

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

Bob Franken notable, bro Owen, not

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

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

Reversion by DavidShankBone

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controvery section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plagarism

Sources citing that Franken did plagiarize:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Article OR Campaign Literature?

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

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

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

Critics of Franken

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

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

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

vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phony quotes today 4-25-2007

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

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

Frankenlies.com - Spam by the creator of that site, Dave Pierre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franken's degree

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

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

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

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

POV

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

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

Frankenlies.com

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

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

Neutrality tag

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

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