# Talk:Al Franken

Franken obviously desired public service because he became a high-level public servant.   Thus, his bio should include the steps he took to avoid the Vietnam draft and remain in college during the war.   His biography depicts him as physically fit (a wrestler) and cognitively capable (scholastic aptitude test scores given), so what did this aspiring public servant do about his opportunity to serve the public in the biggest war of his lifetime?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 

An IP editor removed text quoted from the Jane Mayer New Yorker article in sources and disparaged her reporting. I note that her Wikipedia article notes nine awards conferred and that she was a finalist for a tenth. Activist (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The "substantial inaccuracies" documented in Jane Mayer's 2019 New Yorker article are important and should be summarized in their own paragraph. --Greg Lovern (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like there may be some back and forth edit warring over the inclusion of the words inhuman (not really a word) and rightly in the second paragraph of the introduction on the sexual misconduct accusation against sen. franken. Thankfully both words have been removed and just want to a blurb about why I think they shouldn't be included, inhuman is a weird way to frame sexual misconduct as it adds another unnecessary descriptor onto action that are already wrong and rightly assumes that fraken has been convicted of what is being alleged, which he has not. like it or not all of the accusations right now are just that and wikipedia shouldn't take a stand on whether they are right or not. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I feel like this line which I had added, "pretending to grope (or possibly actually groping)"[1] accurately reflects the sum of the RS. "Pretending to grope" alone[2] is not what most RS say, but the full quote covers everything. 

"A photo shows Al Franken touching Leeann Tweeden’s chest. Many media reports still say he ‘allegedly’ groped her." Washington Post[3]
She had, unlike so many other victims of harassment, hard evidence. This was not a case of her word against his, he said against she said; Tweeden had, via that photo of Franken groping and grinning, the receipts. "Al Franken, That Photo, and Trusting the Women", Atlantic[4]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If Al Franken had been a Republican politician, would there be any debate as to whether he touched versus groping?   This semantic discussion seems like a vain effort at exculpation given his liberal credentials.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 

Per the Post source you offer, that source also says that that is not the opinion of most news reports.  Re the Atlantic, you can as easily find another Atlantic article saying that his hands were "hovering over her".  Let's not get into an argument in this Franken bio about whether or not his hands actually touched her or not.  Unless you want to pull in numerous sources that give their own version of what happened.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gandydancer:, yes, we can find many sources saying many things.  I'm trying to find language that accurately sums it up with proper weight.  From the WaPo source: "Merrill Perlman, a former New York Times copy desk director, explained why she would advise against a flat-out declaration that Franken groped Tweeden:
Since it's a still [image], we don't know what he did before or after. So the safest thing is to say he touched her chest. We can't assume that Franken squeezed her chest, or moved his hands in a groping movement, or touched her in this one movement and withdrew his hands. "Groping" implies action. The safest and most accurate course is to say that the photo clearly shows him touching her chest with his hands cupped (while mugging for the camera, maybe). That's descriptive of the photo and avoids any journalistic assumption of what the action was.
Many sources say he "touched her chest".  The Mayer story says, without quotes, Tweeden "said that it wasn’t until she returned home and received a CD of images from the tour photographer that she saw the image of Franken pretending to grope her while she slept."  Maybe we could say he was photographed pretending to grope her breasts while appearing to touch her chest. What do you think? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
According to the skit done on the show he said he was a doctor and would need to "examine" her breasts.  It was funny and unfortunately Franken continued with his having fun while she slept, and she did not find it to be funny at all.  She felt she was being mocked.  She deserved an apology and Franken admitted he was wrong and apologized. Again, more sources than not say he held his hands over her breasts rather than to say he placed them on her breasts.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is that from a source or your opinion?  We would need to evaluate whether more sources said he held his hands over her breasts or actually touched her chest.  I'm thinking: On the flight back from the tour, Franken was also photographed pretending to grope her breasts by reaching out to touch her chest while she... It sounds like we may be at an impasse, so we may need a third opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think reaching out to touch her chest is perfect because it doesn't necessarily mean that he touched her, but would be accurate if he did. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and that might be why they used that language. And although I understand the dedication to reporting what RS said to characterize it, I don't understand why you're doing this when the picture doesn't positively show him making contact, he says he didn't make contact, and she doesn't know if he made contact. Not only does it not show groping, but there are no allegations he groped her during the shoot because nopony remembers that happening. So even if RS say "groped", if the RS never reference who is making that determination or how they came to that conclusion, and it clearly isn't indicated by the photo, is it really appropriate to use the characterization? TricksterWolf (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess I'm asking if simply using our eyes and noting the distinct lack of any allegation of groping counts as "original research", especially considering that some RS are clearly trying to equivocate on a determination. TricksterWolf (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For a comedian, I think that Franken is an extremely sensitive human being. It appears to me that he pretended to grope her breasts solely for the purpose of the photo, or he would have been looking at her breasts instead of the camera. It was just a goof. I would note also that Tweeden engaged in this skit long before Franken ever did. It's in the repertoire of the shows. He certainly didn't write it to trick her, unless he has access to a time machine. Activist (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


### Recent edits reverted
I have undone the recent edits, which appear to go against the NPOV version that was hashed out by many editors over an extended period of time and work. Recent edits also suppress text that reflected Democratic congressional regret RE: Sen. Gillebrand initiative. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Continued at #11:42, 8 September 2020 version, below.

Thanks SPECIFICO.  We worked for quite some time to find consensus on this matter and it is upsetting to see an editor move in and do so much altering of what we accomplished.  This is not the way we hope to be able to write and sustain good Wikipedia editing/articles. When we write bios our subjects deserve better treatment. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, did you think some of my edits were good? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What you did was similar to having someone make a similar slew of edits to the Emmett Till article or Elizabeth Warren's Pocahantas problems as though you had every reason to "improve" them.  Surely you must be aware of how sensitive this article is regarding Franken's charge of sexual misconduct after many years without even a whisper of inappropriate behavior with perhaps the exception of some behavior similar to that which Biden has been accused of.  I was so bewildered by your rash of edits that I hardly knew where to begin. Each change you wished to make should have been discussed.  I was ever so happy to see SPEC come along and revert you.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got a substantially different take on this entire situation than others here have had. We know that Tweeden lied about important elements of the circumstances. We know that Roger Stone was rapidly drawn into the situation, seizing an opportunity to trash the character of one of his frequent boss, Donald Trump's, more formidable political opponents. I'd watched him on C-Span in Judiciary hearings and he's immensely more effective than Amy Klobuchar, who was a professional supervising prosecutor. It's only rare trial attorneys that could acquit themselves as well as he did. He won his seat in 2008 though he wasn't seated until June 2009, due to his opponent's protests. I'm not a plastic surgeon, so I certainly could be wrong, but expect that Tweeden has breast implants because they don't seem to fit her body type. I Googled her name and that term and didn't see any of the first 20 of 231,000 hits that believed that was not the case. I didn't have the time to go through that many hits looking for a reliable source. She had not just left the convent when this incident happened. Lastly, I've never tried to push my tongue into anyone's mouth but it seems a rather risky adventure. The muscles controlling the tongue in a mammal other than an anteater have got to be a tiny fraction of the strength of jaw muscles. I expect if someone could somehow manage that intrusion, it would be at major risk of getting it bitten off. She's a self-admitted conservative political actor. She supposedly waited more than 11 years to mention this, and eight years after Franken won the seat. More than that, Roger Stone is a convicted perjurer and a notorious ratfucker who's been working for Donald Trump for decades. I Googled Stone's name and that term and got 185,000 hits, not as many as the Tweeden search, but substantial all the same. So the two of them went after Franken and landed lethal blows to his career, thanks in particular to the Gillibrand attack. Debating about whether or not or why he might have fondled her breasts through a flak jacket that can stop a 7.62 mm NATO round seems a bit myopic. It's ignoring the elephant in the living room, IMHO. Franken never was afforded a fair hearing in the matter but was convicted in the "court of public opinion," in the minds of many, unfortunately. Lastly, Wikipedia is not censored, right? Activist (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This topic was split off from #Text for Tweeden photo: groping, pretending, hovering, touching, reaching chest/breasts?#Recent edits reverted, above.

I went over the text very carefully; can you tell me if you noticed any edits which you agreed with? I did include text about Gillibrand's action, did you miss that or did you disagree with the parts I did remove about her? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you mentioned[5] disagreeing with the Gillibrand edits I made.[6] As I said in my edit summary, I felt that the amount of text about Gillibrand was UNDUE, but I felt one line was appropriate in that paragraph. (There is also a line about her at the end of the first section of the assault allegation.[7])  What do you think we need to say about Gillibrand? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I left a notice on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, did you notice any edits which you agreed with so I know which ones to focus on? You reverted my edits so I must discuss this with you before restoring anything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I just now made an edit (two: the second one fixed a typo in the citation) to add a duplicate citation somewhere that seemed lacking, then I changed my mind and thought maybe it wasn't as necessary as I'd thought. This is when I learn you can't even roll back your own edits without special permissions (oops), so I'm not sure if I should try to modify it back to the way it was, or just wait for somepony else to do a proper revert (if they feel it needs reverting, anyway—maybe I was right the first time). TricksterWolf (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

there's no controversy section labeled as such when you look at the main page of this article. Were the activities and the results of them considered to inconsequential to have a section labeled as controversies? 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:F128:8072:24B:967D (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)