Talk:Al Franken/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Revert war

This is getting pretty tired, I think it should stay the way it is now. The other gives an appearance of POV. If it happens again I'm going to put it into dispute. googuse 03:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have placed the page under a POV dispute and will request arbitration - the daily reverts by Josephf are tiring. googuse 06:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Googuse, I agree, it's getting tiresome. I've made a couple more edits to the section in question:

Removed: "As stated by Franken and the show organizers, a principal cause for Air America's formation was to defeat the re-election of George W. Bush as President of the United States."

If someone wants to keep this, please provide a source. -asx- 00:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Heres a source, It has a link to a transcript of Franken's interview on CBS : http://radio.about.com/b/a/084357.htm

Removed: "Franken said that he chose the title The O'Franken Factor in hopes that Bill O'Reilly, who hosts The O'Reilly Factor and The Radio Factor, would sue him. O'Reilly never took the bait, so . . ."

Again, this may or may not be true, but given that it appears to be designed to make Franken look bad, I have removed it as of questionable veracity. -asx- 00:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed: "Although the original goal failed to materialize and Bush was re-elected, Franken signed on with Air America for another two years."

This represents, as far as I can tell, the personal opinion of one contributor to Wikipedia. If it is indeed a fact, it should not be hard for the one contributor to post a citation. -asx- 00:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but this seems like a rather petty dispute. The Air America guys don't like O'Reilly and would love to annoy him, and they don't like Bush and they were unhappy Bush got elected but they haven't folded their tent and gone away. This doesn't make Franken look either good or bad, it just makes Franken look like a feisty player in the political-media arena, which is what he is. You could flip all this around to describe Limbaugh's reaction to Bill Clinton being reelected, and you have the same thing. So what's the big deal? Wasted Time R 01:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Mbstone wrote...

I deleted a phrase that began, "It is rumoured..." one, because we can do better than rumours (or rumors); and also, this article is about Franken, not the Fox pundit who is rumoured to have been behind Fox's ill-fated lawsuit.Mbstone 00:46, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Also, lots of people are described in Wikipedia as "funny" and/or "successful" and/or "famous." Maybe all three together is a little POV, but each of these terms is accurate as pertains to Franken, and perhaps the people who delete these characterizations are proving to everyone how absolutely humorless some fanatics of a certain right-wing-propaganda cable channel can sometimes be.Mbstone 00:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please do not remove material; instead, we try to add in other material to make the article follow Wikipedia:NPOV. If you have a problem with the current content, please feel free to discuss it here. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:07, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Thejackhmr this article needed some adjustment; it had some subjective lines that needed to be redacted in order to comply with Wikipedia:NPOV. Perhaps they could be reworded by the author and reinserted.

I've tried a compromise version; see what you think. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:22, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Thejackhmr Perfect... Just one setence removed; was oddly worded, quasi-subjective, unsubstantial and possibly redundant:

In an appearance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 2004, Franken claimed that Fox was either claiming rights to the phrase "fair and balanced" itself, or to ironical usage of it.

Looks fine to me, then. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:35, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Franken picture

Can we use a picture that's not an advertisment for his CD?

I put a much more awesome picture up instead of that stupid one.

Do we have permission to use this new picture? Gamaliel 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I researched the portrait's origin. It's a promotional shot, but it's supposed to be attributed to the photographer. I've updated both the image page and the article accordingly. — Lifeisunfair 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced the dimensions of the article version to 236x244 (¼ the original size, but still much larger than the previous photograph). Clicking on this image leads to the full-size (472x488) version. — Lifeisunfair 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism?

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, etc. all have a criticism section.

Agreed. Not having one is odd, considering Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have one. What about the Air America scandal about stealing money from a Boys & Girls Club?

I second that. Its bizarre... Every other article has a criticism section, especially with th conservative radio personalities. Sometimes, in the case of hannity, there is a criticism section just to state that he is 'controversial' or 'mean' ... I don't see why Franken shouldn't have this as well... Anything else reveals a clear bias. If no one else starts on, I will.

without a doubt... Start it!

You know what's even more odd than the lack of a criticism section? The way no one in this thread signs their freakin posts. Please use ~~~~ to sign. -Kasreyn 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed the clear bias as well. If Wikepedia wants to be taken seriously, there should be an even hand used. Wikepedia, the ball is in your court.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Gamaliel 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

...I admire your powers of WP:AGF. Someday, I hope to be able to be that trusting. But when I see someone come in here who has nothing to offer but vague imprecations of "bias", I smell a POV-pusher, not someone who should be encouraged to edit. Maybe I'm just a cynic, though. Kasreyn 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They've got a point. Other political personalities have criticism sections, why not Franken? The funny thing, nobody seems willing to find any and start such a section. Bjsiders 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of things on Wikipedia that no one has done yet. Gamaliel 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're reading that into it. The anon didn't mention the lack of criticism section. In fact, we don't know what the anon found objectionably biased about the article. For all we know, the anon was infuriated that the article didn't mention Franken's role in the Liberal Jewish Media conspiracy that takes orders from the UFO's around Jupiter*. This is why I said I admired Gamaliel's trust, but I need to see actual suggestions before there's even anything to discuss. Kasreyn 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

*_{for Wikipedians lacking a sense of humor, that was sarcasm}

Mention Jewish Heritage?

Franken is jewish... Should that maybe be mentioned in the article, or is that irrelevant? --Konstantin 5 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Judging from the way Franken brings it up in Liars, he would think it is.Billy P 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I hesitated to edit but then figured if my solution to this concern was incorrect, someone else could undo what I did. I concur that there needs to be some reference to his religious proclivities, as he's made it clear they are important to him. So I added "into a Jewish family" before "and grew up in St. Louis Park." I noticed in the Woody Allen entry and others, that's how it was tastefully included. I'd also included Al Franken's name in the category of Jewish American actors. Though it can be argued he's not the best of actors, he does belong in the same company with Gene Wilder, Gilda Radner and Woody Allen. Oh, and shouldn't the quotes be over at wikiquote.org or is there a reason why he doesn't have a wikiquote page? ZachsMind 22:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work! And I agree with you that the quotes should be over at wikiquotes... Maybe a new project should be started to transfer quotes from articles about people here to wikiquotes, since many articles about people have big numbers of quotes, often irrelevant to the rest of the content of the article. --Konstantin 11:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Al Franken Show and Guests

Michael Medved once stated that he asked Franken why he's never been invited on The Al Franken Show and was told the show didn't have guests, yet I know numerous liberals have been guests on the show (Bill Moyers being one of the more prominent names I can think of). What's the real deal regarding guests on The Al Franken Show?

Cryptico 10 July 2005

Franken has interviewed a number of conservatives, too, so whatever the issue with Medved, it's not because of a blanket refusal to interview conservatives. -asx- 05:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

POV Push?

In my opinion, it is not necessary to say, "When the original goal failed to materialize and Bush was re-elected, Franken expressed his deep disappointment and signed on with Air America for another two years." It is more neutral and succinct to simply say, "When Bush was re-elected, Franken signed on with Air America for another two years." Franken's disappointment with the election results is already obvious and is irrelevent in this sentence. Is someone reveling in Franken's disappointment? Is that the reason for including it? To my mind, including it is akin to saying, "Ha! You LOST!" -asx- 05:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Secondary education dispute

This article presently states that Franken is a 1969 graduate of The Blake School. Several external sources cite Fairfax High School as his alma mater, such as NNDB, fairfaxclassof61.com, and others. His profile on IMDb does not make mention of either, unfortunately. Hall Monitor 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you, and I know this firsthand, that he did go to Blake. As far as I can tell Franken never lived in California. You can also see here: [[1]]. Blake was a rival school to mine, and I've personally talked to Al about it. MicahMN | Talk 17:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Gloria Wise/AAR on Franken's page

I, and others, have removed a section that keeps seeming to come up on the Franken article detailing a scandal that Franken was not involved in at all. I don't even know how this is supposed to fit into the article, and keeping it in would almost be POV in that it implies that Franken did something wrong or was involved. That section belongs here: Gloria Wise/Air America Loan Controversy and not on Franken's page. MicahMN | Talk 17:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is the removal of the RELEVANT story regarding the Boys and Girls Club and Air America that is a POV.

Al Franken is, for most people, the face of Air America. He has been the point man for this scandal, and addressed the media about it quite recently http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&hs=xf1&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=franken+air+america+crook&btnG=Search+News

He also did by far the most number of interviews HYPING Air America when they first launched.

The two most relevant people to Air America are it's founder and Franken...and at least one of them is a crook - this according to Franken.

Now, it may be a bit premature to make any harsh judgments about Franken regarding this imbroglio, but he does receive a salary from Air America and the monies originally paid to him came from their seed fund, some of which was taking food out of the mouths of orphans and widows.

No one is disputing that. They're all just trying to blame it on Evan Cohen.

And to suggest, that this is "a scandal that Franken was not involved in at all" is laughable.

It's like saying O'Reilly had nothing to do with the lawsuit Fox filed against Franken's book.

So, the only FAIR thing to do is either remove that section from O'Reilly's entry or include the Gloria Wise scandal in Franken's.

And that's what I propose.

Big Daddy 03:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be POV, in my opinion, to include unsubstantiated accusations about Franken being involved in this scandal, or even implying it by making it a large part of this article. Franken did state that O'Reilly was the one pushing for Fox's lawsuit. If you can find someone noteworthy accusing Franken of being involved in the scandal or someone involved in the case stating that, then I think it would be more than fair to put it in the article. As it stands, there is nothing connecting him, and I think that it is more or less a POV attack on the man to imply association with a scandal he had nothing to do with. -- MicahMN | μ 04:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

" Franken did state that O'Reilly was the one pushing for Fox's lawsuit"

THAT is your justificaton??? Please.

I'm sorry but Al Franken is NOT a credible source of dispassionately objective information about Bill O'Reilly.

Except maybe in Wikipedia...

But, I'm not gonna fight you on this scandal. Smearing commentators is more the stock and trade of liberals (see Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly's articles for details.)

Sooner or later, more info will come out about Air America,, the Boys & Girls Club and Al Franken. I'm happy to wait for a more fuller unveiling of the truth... Big Daddy 14:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

USO sources

I'm wondering if there is a source to refute Franken's claim that Limbaugh and O'Reilly have never been on a USO tour to Iraq. An anonymous user said that Franken's statement was factually inaccurate, but I think there should be a source with such a claim. -- MicahMN | μ 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...Let me get this straight. In the Bill O'Reilly entry, O'Reilly is trashed by quotes from Al Franken.

And on the Al Franken entry, O'Reilly is...er...trashed by quotes from Al Franken!

I say we just get rid of the following paragraph. It's not funny in the least, even if it wasn't a lie and serves no purpose whatsoever except to take an unwarranted hit on two conservatives.

One of his more famous jokes goes: "Hey Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have never been to Iraq or done a USO tour", to which he would respond, "Oh honey, thats not fair; they have no talent." Factually, however, this has proven to be false, both have been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times. Big Daddy 03:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I took that STUPID, ridiculous and compltely unfunny cheap-shot-that-is-supposed-to-be-a-joke out.

Now, if I were a liberal editor, I could include some additional 'USO info' about Al Franken.

Like for example how Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and many others have observed that he literally 'cries on cue' when discussing the USO. In fact, in the infamous CBC interview, Coulter predicts that he will cry and at what point he will begin doing so...and Franken was kind of enough to prove Ann prophetic!

But I'm not a liberal who, under the auspices of 'just wanting to present facts' slimes and denigrates people in their encyclopedic entry.

I'm a conservative. Big Daddy 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your change. It either is or is not a famous joke, but it is certainly not getting removed because you don't like what other articles look like. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a cheap shot and is not funny nor 'famous.' The only funny thing Franken is famous for is Stuart Smalley. That's it. There's NOTHING ELSE..

I will be taking it out as it's a cheap insult and has nothing to do with Al Franken. If you want to put in there that Franken routinely cheap shots his enemies, that would be fine. But wikipedia is not gonna do his dirty work for him. At least not anymore... Big Daddy 07:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, it would appear that your edits are guided by your political beliefs first and foremost. --Chancemichaels 15:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Savin' It

Franken got in trouble for lying to the Attorney General of the United States (amongst others) in letters he wrote using Harvard letterhead stationery in an unauthorized fashion. He got reprimanded by Harvard. It was some prank about a fictional book he alleged he was writing about keeping your virginity. Kind of funny but backfired. I'll see if I can come up with something about this to insert as it goes to his truthfulness especially when he's busy calling everybody else in the world a liar. Big Daddy

You might try, I dunno, actually reading one of his books (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, I believe) where he discusses this, but then you run the risk of being exposed to contrary opinions and inconvenient facts. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Franken didn't "get in trouble for lying" to anyone. He used the stationery, of an organization that he was a member of, in an improper fashion to glean a response from public figure for a parody book. He was in no way "reprimanded" by Harvard. Franken cleared up the confusion on his own, writing a letter of apology to the AG. link to the actual letter and apology from The Smoking Gun. Do you homework before you attempt a smear. googuse 18:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the SmokingGun link, Googuse. After reading it, I have to disagree with you and agree with Big Daddy's general characterization of the episode. Franken claimed things he knew weren't true:

a) that he had received testimonials from conservative leaders whom he hadn't

b) that he was working on a book which really wasn't about what he claimed

Where I come from we call this lying.

Additionally, to say "He used the stationary...in an improper fashion..." is technically correct but ambiguous. In what improper fashion were they used? Were they burnt or used as toilet paper? No. With the appearance of Harvard's imprimatur, intentionally false statements were written on them and sent to a high ranking public official. Franken mentions the "awkward and difficult position" he has put Harvard in and asks that this [what he did] not be held against them, along with stating that the conservative leaders he lied about will receive his letter of apology as well.

The link doesn't mention whether he was reprimanded by Harvard or not. Lawyer2b 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I say that when it comes to satire, which this clearly was, there is a whole lot more leeway when it comes to "lying." -- MicahMN | μ 15:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this incident on his article page, anyway? I propose it should be -- that link to the SmokingGun included. Great stuff! -- Lawyer2b 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be. I also note that Franken, (along with liberals Jon Stewart and Bill Maher) want to be taken seriously for their political views (to the point of Franken mulling a Senatorial run) yet instantly hide behind the "I'm just a satirist, I'm just a comic" canard when their comments (or dishonest actions) get them in trouble.

Franken STOLE stationery and TRIED TO DECEIVE the attorney general of the United States. And he was SEVERELY reprimanded for it by Harvard. Or do you think Harvard didn't care? Big Daddy 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy: I'm a libertarian with much more conservative than liberal sympathies so trust me when I say I really don't like Franken. I'm sure an appropriate (NPOV) "Savin' It" entry will be added to his article, if by none other than you or me. While there is nothing more that I would like to see than what you wrote about it included, I really think you need sources and/or citations to back it up. I want liberals held to the same standard when editing Bill O'Reilly's, Ann Coulter's, et al's entries and I don't want controversial edits to come back and bite me in the ass. -- Lawyer2b 01:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. -- 69.121.133.154 19:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am an engineer w a BIG company. Some years ago a friend finished law school and requested a letter of recommendation to the Bar Association. I thought it would be nice to write the letter on the company letterhead to establish my own bona fides as a professional. However, I FIRST checked w the company lawyers. They agreed it was a nice idea, but forbid me from doing it. So I didn't. I used blank paper and included my job title and company (as suggested by the lawyers). Just because you are a member of an establishment does NOT permit you to arbitrarily use that relationship for personal or fraudulent advantage.

Mention Franken's Hatred of Thanksgiving?

It has been well documented in books and bios that Franken hates Thanksgiving. He is not even planning on taking a break from his radio show during Thanksgiving out of pure protest. Should we mention this? Answer: yes.

• What is your source for this? – ClockworkSoul 03:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What is your mom's source for this?

removed babyish copy-n-paste spam to reduce page size -Kasreyn 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything this asinine in a long time. Thanks for the chuck;e. --AStanhope 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why thank you. Just wanted to add a little humor to this dry, dry talk section (much like Franken's dry, dry talk radio show.)

Rhonda Franken

I removed the following entry today: His sister, Rhonda Franken, is in prison on four counts of murder. I can't find no news sources or, well, anything to support this. I searched pretty thoroughly, and can find nothing. – ClockworkSoul 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No hits on Lexis/Nexis, Google, or Google News. Gamaliel 23:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.205.8 (talk • contribs) .

Please see Wikipedia:Civility and feel free to provide links to or citations for any articles you may have found on these sites. Gamaliel 01:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, 69.133.205.8, in a previous mainspace edit you alleged that your source for this information was "a recent documentary". Do you recall the name of that documentary? When it was made? Did the documentary have any explicit or implicit bias? Who was the filmmaker? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A previous edit here by 69.133, which I deleted for being a nasty personal attack, mentioned something called ""Lying Liar?: The Life and Career of Al Franken", which also gets no google hits. Gamaliel 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

THAT IS A LIE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.10.221.252 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free provide a link to a google search which proves me wrong. Gamaliel 17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.205.8 (talk • contribs) .

So this is an encyclopedia. We have slightly higher evidence requirements than Fox News here. If you can't prove it, then stuff it. -Kasreyn 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox news is hardly a tabloid media outlet. The only people who assert so make clear their bias. Would you consider CBS a valid news source, despite the "Memogate" scandal? There is no reason to rule out Fox as a non-mainstream and acceptable source. Your POV is showing.216.39.146.25 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was simply drawing FOX's name out of a hat of similar organizations, it wasn't really germane to the subject. I could have as easily said, The Washington Times or the Voz de Aztlan or any other media organization with a clearly established bias and documented history of misinformation. FOX is simply better known, so people would be more likely to understand my point. You still haven't answered Gamaliel's request for sourcing, I note. So far, all I've seen is a lot of heated rhetoric and frantic attempts to change the subject or otherwise misdirect, and when these fail, sullen one-liners (compare "so?" to "shut up!")... actually, that reminds me a great deal of FOX news, now that I think of it. Are you slumming again, Bill?  ;) Kasreyn 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kas, I'm one of those who readily accedes Fox is biased conservatively...as much as the mainstream media is biased liberally. I think you are incorrect, however, if you assert that Fox News is not citable according to wikipedia standards. But isn't this moot? I don't think there was a story (Fox News or otherwise) about this matter, was there? Lawyer2b 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology to Attorney General and conservative leaders

Well, it seems there have been many edits to the little section I created. I thought I did a damn good job being NPOV when I created it, my dislike of Franken notwithstanding, so here are my suggestions:

1. Someone wrote, "The letter was written on letterhead from the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government where Franken was a Fellow at the time to work on the book." He was indeed a Fellow at the center but who can say what the scope of his Fellowship was? One could make a case that Franken's saying his biggest regret in sending the letter was that it was on the Center's stationary implies that he was not at the center for that purpose. Is there a source that says he was officially at the Shorenstein Center to work on the book? Please provide one or let's take out the part that says what he was working on as a Fellow.

2. Someone wrote, "Although most observers at the time clearly saw the prankish spirit in Franken's letter, some conservative critics professed outrage."

a. Please provide sources on what most observers thought or let's take it out.
b. "Professed" is often times used to mean "pretended". If that's how you meant it, please provide sources. If that's not how you meant it, let's change the wording so its not subject to interpretation. Lawyer2b 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few small changes to this section of the article, partially in an attempt to address some of the issues you have noted.Hal Raglan 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hal, your edit addressed my second point perfectly. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and take out the words "to work on the book" describing Franken's fellowship until someone provides some evidence. :-) Lawyer2b 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this section of the article is that, if one were to read only it, it would give the impression that the apology letter was serious. In reality, it is obvious in the tone of his book which includes both letters, that both the original letter, and the following apology letter were meant to be comical. --Daniel 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions, with supporting sources, that at least some of Franken's fans felt his original letter to the attorney general was not serious. If you have some non-original research that supports the idea the letter of apology was also insincere, by all means include it.  :-) Lawyer2b 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio Show Guests

Michael Medved stated on his radio show that he once asked to appear on Franken's radio show but was told it did not have guests. I do know liberal guest, such as Bill Moyers, have been on the show in the past. Does he not allow conservative guests? Franken has been on Medved's show several times. -- 24.130.117.205 03:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate for the Democratic party nomination

Has this been confirmed? The last I heard Franken was merely "seriously considering", but the article makes it seem like a given. Could someone provide a link to a source?Hal Raglan 00:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to oblige. See this USA Today article. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that 2004 article. But it clearly says that Franken is only 50/50 about running, and that he won't make a firm decision until "next year" (2005). I haven't read or seen anything recently that confirms he has made up his mind. I really don't think he should be referenced as a candidate in the 1st paragraph of the article until he has indicated he definitely will run. What do you think?Hal Raglan 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to an editorial in the Dec 6, 2005 Madison Capitol Times [2], Al Franken is still only considering making a run. Thats the most recent article I could find via Google. I found nothing stating that he was going to definitely run. Based on this, I think the sentence in the first paragraph proclaiming him a candidate should be removed. If anyone wants to reinstate the sentence, please provide a source of information. ThanksHal Raglan 00:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Selected Quotes" section

This is re: the recently added selected quotes section. I'm a little worried about these quotations because they frankly seem to aiming at playing "gotcha" with Franken and have an anti-Franken POV. Not only that, but Franken is a comedian, and a lot of what he says could be taken out of context to imply things that he didn't actually mean (like the McCain quote specifically). I also wonder if they shouldn't be moved to wikiquote if they were to be kept. I would support keeping them if they were key to some sort of controversy with him, but they just seem to be out to paint him in a bad light. Tell me what you think. -- MicahMN | μ 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things are wrong with these quotes. One, as MicahMN suggests, they definitely don't belong here and should be moved to wikiquotes. Two, they were specifically chosen and placed here strictly in an attempt to present an anti-Franken POV to the article. If the comments had been intended seriously I could understand why someone who hated Fraken would gleefully place them here as amazing revelations, but he's a comedian, and his job while performing as a comic is to elicit laughter. Sometimes this involves the use of material that could be seen as borderline offensive to some but such humorous comments should not be taken seriously and certainly should not be put here as "representative" of how Franken thinks. These quotes have no place in this article and should be removed.Hal Raglan 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hasty Pudding quote should be right out. One of the purposes of Hasty Pudding is a tounge-in-cheek roast of the recipient. Franken is only responding sarcastically, as expected. This quote along with the others appears to have been chosen out of POV pushing. Either some more balanced quotes should be chosen or this section should be removed. --malber 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty dishonest to have that John McCain joke presented as a straight-ahead quote. Franken told it as a joke, meant it as a joke and obviously, obviously doesn't actually think that prisoners of war are lazy. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing; you could do the same thing with PJ O'Rourke. I don't know how to move something to Wikiquotes. Does someone else? Jordoh 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept the deletion, and yes, I do dislike Al Franken... HOWEVER: Al Franken consistently blasts Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for their tongue-in-cheek remarks, and states that he wants to bring civility to public discourse. In fact, he often resorts to the kinds of TIC remarks many conservative firebrands do. This is inconsistent with his contention that he is a higher caliber social and political commentator. Does anyone here disagree? You know, David Horowitz's page is filled with partial quotes included to make him look racist and such. --Gerkinstock 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. (I stupidly noted "talk show consensus" instead of "talk page consensus" for my explanation of the edit summary.) The person who thought it was so important to insert these quotes in the article can figure out how to put them in wikiquotes.Hal Raglan 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerkin: As a libertarian with conservative values I really really dislike Franken and agree about his inconsistency/hypocrisy (I gave out 12 copies of Schweizer's book for Xmas, really) but let's not put quotes in an article just to do a hatchet job. I think a "quotes" section (whether it be Franken's or O'Reilly's) should give a good flavor of the article's subject, not just show their bad points. And I agree with Jordoh regarding the Hasty Pudding and McCain quotes...they're totally misleading. Franken is ridiculous enough without needing to quote him out of context. Lawyer2b 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer 2b, feel free to contribute to this page: Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

I agree with your contentions, but what was stopping Al Franken supporters from adding to the Quotes section? Clearly, most of the David Horowitz quotes were submitted by anti-Horowitz posters (up until recently, anyway), but that's no reason to delete them. Plus, there is the point that Franken says things in jest that are considered tasteless by some but then goes on to criticize conservatives who do the same. Also, was his statement on how to deal with terrorists taken out of context? It was a fairly long quote. --Gerkinstock 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think misleading quotes should be deleted, not "balanced" with non-misleading quotes. I haven't checked out Horowitz's article but I will, and given my experience with wiki's liberal systemic bias I will not be surprised to find many more quotes that make him look bad than not. If the quotes are misleading (e.g. because they were taken out of context) they should be deleted, just as the ones here were. re Franken being hypocritical in his criticism of conservatives, I think that's a perfect first entry for a "Criticism" section in his article. Make sure you've got outside sources that make this point, and not just yourself...this should not be hard to do, I would think. I don't know enough about the specific Franken quote to know if it was out of context or not, it just appeared the Hasty Pudding and McCain quotes were. Make a case here that it's not, and I'll join the fight for its inclusion. Lawyer2b 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Franken was being sarcastic regarding the McCain and Hasty Pudding comments. My point is that when Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh make similar comments, aimed at liberals and meant to be tongue-in-cheek, Al Franken has criticized them (he once commented that conservatives spread "filth, sleaze and bile through the media apparatus" and called Bernard Goldberg an "asshole" for writing the book 'Bias') and stated that he sees himself as elevating political discourse, saying, "My grandiose vision is to change the dialogue in this country," and that "we have to be civil to each other." This coming from a man whose most successful book was titled 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' and was followed by 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' You're right, though, those quotes would be better suited for a "Criticism" section than a quote section. The comment about torturing terrorsts, however, did not seem to be sarcastic at all. It was laced with humor, but he meant what he said. -- Gerkinstock 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Facetiousness is one of Franken's comedic talents. My reading of Franken's books is that he's trying to keep everyone guessing at all times whether he actually means everything he says. While it makes great comedy, it's some damned shaky ground to launch a political career from. In short, I believe Franken's choice of titles like "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" are themselves a satirical reference to the uncivil political culture he rails against. Sort of like "A Modest Proposal", whose author knew quite well the proposal was not modest. -Kasreyn 09:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, I certainly appreciate your point about Franken "keep[ing] everyone guessing . . . whether he actually means everything he says." As a person who by no means is a fan of Franken, I would be tempted to believe this strategy is not only deliberate but cowardly; if a given attack works, then Franken can come across as a hero (as in attacking Limbaugh in his first best seller), but if it falls flat (as with the Ashcroft incident), a retreat can be made under the banner of "Just a Satirist." I take that you may not agree, but I'm with you on the "shaky ground" comment as that duality of "I'm serious/no, I'm just a satirist" that I find in Franken simply is not sustainable in political life, where you have to stand (even when insincere about it, as some politicians can be) for some kind of position.

Getting back to the subtopic, though, I'm wondering why there is such wringing of hands about "selected quotes" being fair to Franken when no such anguish appears to be expended on, say, the Ann Coulter entry. There, someone has already added the "rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee" comment of less than a week ago. Are the quotes on the Coulter page fair to Coulter? That's a judgment for the individual reader, and I for one would say go ahead and keep even what might be argued as unfair there--just so long as the same standards are applied to political opposites of Coulter like Franken. The present state of the Franken article treats its subject with kid gloves compared with the present state of the Coulter article. I would prefer to see a balance in both: "This is who Franken or Coulter is, here is a summary of controversy and criticism, here is what his/her defenders have to say." But that seems elusive in such a politically-charged topic as this entry's is. --MollyTheCat 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Franken...on Franken's Apology

User:200.122.158.40: Your 13:03, February 6, 2006 edit summary states, "despite an earlier claim, Franken's letter says nothing about apologizing for lying". I disagree. In his letter of apology to Ashcroft, Franken wrote,

"None of the people mentioned in the original letter had sent me their abstinence stories. To them, I am sincerely sorry if I caused any discomfort. They, along with everyone who received my original letter, will receive this apology."

Franken states that none of the people, whom he said had sent him stories, really had. Where I come from, if you say someone did something they really didn't, we don't say you misled them...we say you lied about them. He then apologizes for any discomfort he caused. Did he mislead them in addition to lying about them? If so, that's not clear to me. Can you explain how he misled them? Lawyer2b 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, most of your edits in this article seem to be honest attempts at maintaining NPOV, despite your obvious dislike of Al Franken, so I'm surprised by your insistence on using the word "lie" here. Do you believe that all satirists and comedians should be held to the same standards as Franken? If so, do you believe all such comedians/satirists are liars? David Letterman and Jay Leno, for example, frequently utilize political humor as part of their opening monologues, much of which stretches the truth for humorous effect. People laugh, not because they are responding to what they believe to be mundane, unadulterated facts, but because they are able to recognize and appreciate satire and humorous exaggeration. Franken's letter, which from your comments I would have to assume you believe is completely devoid of humor, was clearly meant to be perceived as satire. You believe it failed miserably as such, or, perhaps, you don't truly believe it was meant as satire at all. That said, many of us find the contents of the letter, and the subsequent "controversy", quite amusing.

More seriously, do you truly feel that any of the recipients really believed that a letter from AL FRANKEN was intended seriously? Especially considering the subject matter? Per Franken himself, none of them responded to his request for information. This indicates to me that, if they even read the letter, they were easily able to see that attempts were being made to belittle their allegedly hypocritical stance on abstinence. I don't even believe that anyone was really misled, but in any case, "lie" is way too strong a word to use here. Hal Raglan 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hal: Thank you for the acknoweldgement re my honest attempts at maintaining NPOV, and also thank you for responding on the talk page. While I think it is neither here nor there, surprise! I not only totally understand Franken was being satirical, I think what he was trying to do was pretty funny -- probably because I also happen to think the idea of abstinence-only sex education is laughable. Franken's subsequent discomfiture simply made the entire episode an all-the-more-enjoyable two-fer.

I think your point is well made regarding talk show opening monologues. In trying to come up with something analogous to Franken's situation I imagined in my mind a hilarious hypothetical opening bit with Jay Leno making fun of Bush's malpropisms (strategery, etc.) by saying Bush said something he really hadn't. If somehow, Leno was made to apologize by NBC, would I expect him to say "I'm sorry I lied about the President"? No. That being said, Franken identifies and singles out and apologizes to those leaders about whom he said he had received material but in reality hadn't. How about we just identify them that way? Lawyer2b 07:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine and should easily satisfy both sides of the argument. Thanks.Hal Raglan 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The more I think about it the more I think I was wrong for wanting Franken's article to say he "lied". Thinking whether or not Franken lied about those persons probably hinges on whether you think as part of Franken's satire he intended (hoped?) Ashcroft might take him seriously. As you mentioned earlier, when talk show hosts do a satirical monologue, they're not expecting (nor trying to get) anybody in the audience to take what they're saying as truth and therefore, not "lying" about someone. Even though, in his letter of apology, Franken states "...I hope you will take my original letter with a measure of the humor with which it was intended," I believe Franken hoped Ashcroft might take it seriously enough to reply, providing more material to satire in the real book he was writing. That however, is entirely my POV and should not be reflected in Franken's article. This has turned into a great exercise in introspection. Thanks.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Lawyer2b 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion of content on Gloria Wise controversy

My edit was for the purpose of NPOV and reliability. Firstly, radioequalizer is very clearly a partisan site and does not qualify as a reliable source. I don't know about you, but when I see sophomoric clip art, whether it's Bush in Nazi regalia or Al Franken's head photoshopped onto a life preserver as the Good Ship Air America sinks, the words that instantly come to my mind are "reactionary tantrum", not "scholarly insight". Scandal rags aren't fit sources for Wikipedia.

Secondly, the section made no mention of Franken's own statements in his defense, which can be found at Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy. I'd say that if the controversy is to be added to this article, fine, but Franken's statements in his own defense should be added as well.

Kasreyn 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Openthreads

The section you added on the controversy looks OK to me. Thanks for taking the time. Kasreyn 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Coneheads

I removed the reference that he wrote the Coneheads movie, because imdb doesn't agree. Perhaps he wrote the skits on SNL, but he didn't write the movie. -- Zanimum 14:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Prankish Spirit"

Whether Franken's 'Savin' It' letter was "prankish" or "hypocritical" is entirely a matter of perspective. It is a clear POV violation to claim that there was an obvious "prankish spirit." Had Mr. Ashcroft replied and been subsequently humiliated by Franken, I doubt the "prankish spirit" would have been the standout feature of the ruse.

Also, removed the "liar" quote, as it was not terribly important and it's pretty clear that Franken did in fact lie prodigiously in composing the letter. That doesn't necessarily make someone a "liar" in general, but in regard to this episode, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrZin (talk • contribs).

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The linked Michelle Malkin editorial specifically accuses Franken of attempting to trick Ashcroft into revealing personal details which would then be used to humiliate him. Malkin believes Franken hoped Ashcroft might take him seriously. To her, Franken's letter was not like a "talk show monologue" (please see previous discussion a little higher on this page) but rather a lie (without quotes.) Lawyer2b 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Feud with Bill O'Reilly

I think subject's ongoing feud with Bill O'Reilly merits more explanation. As recounted in subject's Lies book, subject informed a Washington Post reporter that O'Reilly was falsely claiming that he had won a Peabody. Subject then engaged in a shouting match with O'Reilly at the American Booksellers' Association convention, which was broadcast by C-SPAN. The Fox lawsuit is mentioned in the article, as is Franken's statement that he named his radio show the O'Franken Factor "'to annoy and to bait' Bill O'Reilly to sue him again." (Is there a source for the implication that O'Reilly was behind the lawsuit?) Both men have commented on this feud since these events. Any thoughts? --JChap2007 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

This is Al Franken. I'm not sure how to use this edit page. But I'd like to correct a few errors. I didn't graduate in government. My degree is actually in General Studies (because I didn't write a thesis). My major was something called "Social Relations," which essentially is behavioral sciences.

I'm actually 5'8". I've won five Emmys. I've only had three #1 NY Times bestsellers. I met my wife at a mixer freshman year. She went to Simmons and I went to Harvard. But it wasn't a Harvard-Simmons mixer. It was a mixer thrown by a number of women's schools in Boston, I believe. I'm not entirely certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.204.70 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. No offense intended, but we get a lot of people claiming to be celebrities, so forgive me if what I say seems impolite or disrespectful. Editing Wikipedia is as simple as finding information with an outside, reliable source, checking to make sure it is notable to the subject matter, and inserting it with a writeup which is neutral in tone.

While there is no problem normally with people going ahead and making changes as soon as they see the need, it is generally seen as unacceptable for a person to edit an article about themselves. So, assuming you really are Al Franken, I'd advise against making major changes. People are much more likely to jump all over you for perceived neutrality issues if you are the article's subject. It might be safer to go over proposed changes on the talk page to avoid any appearance of bias. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NB: It's been some time since this exchange, but on a whim I did a whois on 24.94.204.70, and the IP is in Virginia, not Minnesota, New York, or anywhere else one might expect Mr. Franken to get online from. Of course, for all I know he was visiting Virginia... Kasreyn 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I am curious about this section. I don't think anyone is going to be in their car on a road trip to Disney World and say, "Guess who was on the March 15, 2006 episode of the Colbert Report?" and after a few potholes in Pennsylvania's roads: "It was Al Franken!" I think this section is for things like "CNN's Bob Franken is Al's second cousin" (or whatever is meant by 'distant'). Things that make you go, 'Ahhh.' Dan 21:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Distant" is the proper use, because its the use Franken himself made. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/29/asb.00.html

Tussling with Protestors

Wasn't there an incident where Mr. Franken got into a physical altercation with a loudmouth protestor at some rally or speech? For Governer Dean, I believe? Has that been discussed as a possible addition to the page, or is it just not noteworthy enough of an event? Bjsiders 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's notable! My God, I totally forgot about that! I hate Franken and am ashamed that I haven't made sure whatever the incident was hasn't been mentioned already. Thanks for the tip. I'm on it like white on rice...stink on an ape...a hobo on a ham sandwich. Lawyer2b 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job, User:Bjsiders!! :-) Lawyer2b 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this incident blongs in the article, but if enough people seem to think it is notable, fine. I would just say that trying to include any or all possibly negative actions of an individual just because you "hate" them is a sure way to create an article with a strongly slanted point of view. TommyP 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put it. It wasn't really controversial, it died down pretty quickly. But it was pretty unusual and noteworthy. Bjsiders 11:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I don't hate Franken or carry any particular grief against him, I actually came to his page looking for facts about that particular incident and I was shocked that it hadn't been mentioned. It seemed pretty notable at the time, especially given the "new media" response to it, so I wondered if it had been added and later removed, or if people just didn't think it was that big of a deal here. Bjsiders 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This was indeed a controversy, albeit one so short-lived that I had completely forgotten about it until you added the info to the article. At the time, some conservative editorialists and bloggers were outraged that Franken was not immediately arrested for assaulting the poor man, and in their reporting of the incident conveniently left out details about the heckler shoving and elbowing various people, including Franken. According to the news source I added, immediately after Franken tackled him, the heckler took advantage of a commotion being caused by another heckler (apparently working in cahoots with the first one) to get up and rush to a balcony where he proceeded to scream at Dean from the balcony's railing; he didn't stop until the theater manager threatened to call the police. I've added some details to the section, all taken from the sourced article, because the way it was originally worded made it seem like Franken simply walked up to a man who was exercising his right to free speech and slammed him to the ground. Franken's detractors tried to paint it that way but the article tells a different story--Hal Raglan 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, this was the first I heard that the man elbowed Franken first, although I did know that his glasses were broken. I saw it as a "final insult" moment, like when Neo kicks that Agent's glasses in the Matrix and you're like, "oh man, now he's called down the thunder." Thanks for all the details and substance, it's a worthy addition to a solid article. Bjsiders 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Like AL Franken, I was on my highschool wrestling team. From Franken's and other people's accounts, I know that Franken did a standard wrestling takedown on the guy. When done properly, a wrestling takedown does not hurt a person. When you have been a wrestler you remember these things for the rest of your life. I can see myself taking down a roudy person who elbows me in the face. It is not a secret that Franken was a wrestler and anyone with either experience or a brain and a little research skill knows what a takedown is. Yet people still insist on referring to it as a tackle. I have updated the article apropriatly.--Dr who1975 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop taking out things anti-Franken

Someone has reverted the addition of Frankenlies.com's rebuttal to Anonymous Blogger's pathetic rebuttal to Frankenlies.com. I can only conclude that this is because it does quite an effective job of exposing the weakness behind the blogger's analysis. The rebuttal notes on that on several occasions, the blogger seems to simply muddy up an issue with a lot of jargon and nongermane facts to lull the reader into believing his argument is valid. Please stop taking this link off.

There were two links to Frankenlies.com. A redundant link was removed. There's no reason to have more than one link to the same site.--Hal Raglan 05:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the problem by including in the text of the first link a mention of the response to the blogger's rebuttal.

Judd Nelson? and Archiving

In editing #Radio Show I changed 'Judd Nelson' to 'Judd Legum', who appears to be the subject of the sentence "When introducing Judd [whomever] (also a director of the Center for American Progress)..." . If I'm mistaken, forgive me, but I can't find any outside reference to the former being a research director of that organization. Also, with some 29 comments cluttering this talk page (the first written over a year ago), perhaps it's time the older ones were WP:ARCHIVE'd. — VoxLuna ^(talk)  08:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

God Spoke?

The article says this: "Franken has documentary scheduled for a September 2006 release titled Al Franken: God Spoke." I'm pretty sure the movie is only about Al Franken, I don't think he had anything to do with producing, editing, or releasing it. I'm not 100% certain but I think the only thing he had to do with it was letting people follow him around with cameras. So I think the article should say, "A documentary about Al Franken is scheduled for a September 2006 release titled Al Franken: God Spoke." Qw3rty 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

IMdB would suggest you are correct. JChap2007 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When did he drop the Jr.?

Franken was once known as Al Franken, Jr., which ought to be mentioned in the article. He announced he was dropping the "Jr." on an SNL broadcast in the late 1980s or early 1990s. As I am less familiar with his biography than other contributors to this article, I'd be happy if someone else can add this info.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that. However, the sufix "jr" is normally dropped when the senior of the two passes on. Perhaps his father has died?Rsm99833 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, don't think so. This was ages ago and he was quite jovial about it.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Al's father was named Joe, and his brother is Joe, Jr. Lamont A Cranston 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did Franken's discussion forum go?

It used to be here, I know it still exists. In the External Links section Alfrankenweb.com has been removed. Looks like someone just tried to add it back in but again it was removed. The Alfrankenweb.com discussion forum is the ONLY one linked directly on The Al Franken Show website yet it isn't deemed worthy at Wikipedia? What gives? Why is a factless site such as frankenlies.com ok to be linked and other fan sites but not THE fan discussion forum that is again linked on Al's own AAR show site.

Something is a foul at Wikipedia, that's too bad I used to depend on it for accurate and timely information. But I guess someone has an agenda.

Rush Limbaugh & substance abuse

Give me one good reason why this is inappropriate for this article. Longshot1980 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What does it add? Why is it there? It is POV to say "perceived hypocrisy" when, in fact, it is just hypocrisy. Franken never lambasted drug users the way Limbaugh did. What is the point for its inclusion? --DavidShankBone 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm on the record of stating how much I hate Franken('s politics) but I don't see any "controversy" (or hypocrisy, for that matter) in what User:Longshot1980 added to the article. If I may throw the question back at User:Longshot1980, can you explain how what Franken did was controversial? Lawyer2b 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can the article mention his fued with Limpbagh and then compare drug abuse? Or is the issue unverified assertions? Chivista 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with Lawyer2b on this issue--by the way, kudos to you for efforting to keep politics out of this--because I don't know think they have a "feud" ala Fox and Franken. There first needs to be reliable sources, which that paragraph does not have. Second, Franken was pointing out Limbaugh's hypocrisy because Limbaugh *lambasted* people who suffer from drug addiction so many times, that for him to have one himself was very hypocritical (not "perceived" hypocrisy). Franken admitting he had used drugs, and then lambasting Limbaugh for his "hypocrisy" (not drug addiction) are separate things, and that paragraph conflates the two. Had Franken himself lambasted drug users, then he would be a hypocrite also; but he hasn't. If anything, that paragraph just highlights Limbaugh's hypocrisy and Franken pointing it out. It's just not appropriate. And this isn't a pro-Franken thing; I've added to the controversies of Pete Doherty, even though he is one of my favorite musicians, whose lyrics have had an affect on my own life. It's just that the paragraph is sloppy and note cited properly. What do you think? --DavidShankBone 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken has "feuded" with Rush Limbaugh for many years. Why else did he name a book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot"? It all goes back to Rush Limbaugh's "views" when he had a syndicated tv show & his radio presence was bigger. Limbaugh used it to just spout things that were controversial to try to get his name in the news.

Its pretty simple. One solitary rant from an anti-Franken blog does not constitute a controversy. Franken is one of many individuals who have pointed out Rush's undeniable hypocrisy on this issue.--Hal Raglan 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently added Neutral POV tag

User:Jackbirdsong just added a "neutrality violation" tag, but it was unclear to me from it and his edit summary what exactly was the passage(s) he found objectionable. Lawyer2b 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure there are some sentences that should be reworked or removed, but it's difficult to be truly neutral on any topic, let alone a political one. A quick glance at the text didn't reveal anything I found particularly troubling. Specifics would be appreciated, otherwise I wouldn't be opposed to simply removing the tag. Croctotheface 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not immediately placing my rationale for the tag in talk, as I was consulting with some other users for objectivity on the subject. My concern is with the 'controversy section', as these are not preferred in BLP's and tend to promote trolls. All of the mentioned controversies, excepting maybe 'Radio show', could easily be placed in the main article under more appropriate categories. the Fox News and Ashcroft info could go under 'Writer and performer', and 'the takedown', IMHO, is just silly and could be placed anywhere, as this is clearly not a genuine controversy. Feel free to let me know what your thoughts are, and I will wait for a general concensus before making any moves here. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with reworking the article along those lines, though I don't think that the presence of a "controversy section" is by definition a POV issue. I would agree that information in this section features more prominently than it should, and a title like "The Takedown" is unencyclopedic, though I don't know that it really espouses a point of view. Croctotheface 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think adding a "neutrality violation" tag was not necessary to effect your desired change but, be that as it may, I'm the original author of the whole "Savin' It" piece and I see no problem with it (and the other things in the controversy section for that matter) being distributed throughout the article so long as none of it is actually removed. Lawyer2b 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

It is my contention to simply move the info without any major deletions, however at least one line in the "savin it" piece: "some conservative critics claimed there was no obvious satirical intent in his actions and charged the comedian with being a hypocrite who lied in order to make fun of the concept of abstinence-only sex education programs [15]" is referenced by a purely editorial blog, which is not an acceptable ref for info on a BLP. This line is pure POV anyhow, and does not add any new or relevant factual info to the subject. Other than this one minor sentence, I see no other real problems.--Jackbirdsong 08:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to you for applying the standard fairly and removing the blog reference from Franken's fans in the same section. Lawyer2b 02:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I found and removed one more purely POV, blog-referenced sentence: "Conservative bloggers criticized Franken; they said that he physically assaulted somebody for expressing free speech.[14]". Blogs are absolutely not valid refs for a BLP article.--Jackbirdsong 08:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)