Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them/Archive 1

message: That seems a little redundant to me, but I'm not sure how it could be worded better. Political humor by satirist Al Franken? Political satire by humorist Al Franken?
Or is it supposed to be a jocular reference to Franken's redundant title? In which case it seems to me that it needs to be more extreme if readers are supposed to get the joke ("this is a book of political satire by satirizing satirist Al Franken").
Just my $0.02...
Dpbsmith 00:09, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "political satire by satirist Al Franken..." 

message: Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, he is an independent. Read his article please. :) Sam [Spade] 23:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain your reverts. Sam [Spade] 23:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling him Independent is a bit of a stretch. He might be registered as such but his views are pretty far to the right of liberal.--Deridolus 08:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill O'Reilly is a registered republican, this is discussed in this very book, along with an image of O'Reilly's voter registration form, clearly indicating that he is of the aforementioned party. --24.51.94.14 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bill O'Reilly (commentator)]] 

message: Do we really need to list the table of contents in the article? That seems like overkill to me. It doesn't really impart any useful information to the reader. I'd get rid of it, but I want to check first to see if there are any people here who really think it should stay. Dave the Red (talk) 07:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I'd rather see some sort of analysis of its content, particularly about how factually accurate it is. I know there are rebuttal links, but I rather doubt they're not without bias.--Deridolus 08:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the table of contents, for the reasons listed above.  --Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Contents

message: Compare this article to that for Ann Coulter's Godless, and you'll see how biased Wiki can be. C'mon, folks. We can do better than this. There is no mention of the charges of plagiarism and factual inaccuracies in Franken's book. [] and [] D323P 04:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these charges published in reliable, verifiable sources?  ("Frankenlies.com" doesn't really count.) If they are, I wouldn't be opposed to adding mentions of them.  That said, many of the charges in the second link are on the order of "I disagree with Franken's analysis", which doesn't mean much of anything to me. Croctotheface 04:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good grief, Crocto. Please read the links. Regards to the plagiarism: A published book is cited. That book, in turn, cites a specific passage from Franken's book and compares it to an article available online (from FAIR). As for examples of inaccuracy, they can easily be cited without linking frankenlies.com. One can easily cite the falsehoods from Franken's book and then cite the truth from reliable sources (such as government documents.) A reminder, Crocto: Editors here are encouraged to assume good faith. Thank you for reviewing this policy. D323P 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the citations are to reliable, verifiable sources, as Croctotheface said, they can be included.  If anyone needs to review Wikipedia:Citing sources before adding a source, then it would be wise.  I suggest any additions in this regard be vetted on the Talk page, first.  --DavidShankBone 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a review of Wikipedia:Reliable sources would be merited.  --DavidShankBone 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I find it kind of ironic that you accuse me of not reading the links and then chide me for not assuming good faith.  I'm going to cut to the chase here: "Frankenlies" is a personal website: it has no peer review or other editorial review process.  Per WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources, "Frankenlies" has a bunch of problems.  I'd argue that the first four criteria listed there cast doubt onto this site's usefulness as a source.  Croctotheface 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Croc: "I find it kind of ironic that you accuse me of not reading the links and then chide me for not assuming good faith." Well, you obviously didn't read my response again!! Croc wrote, "'Frankenlies' is a personal website: it has no peer review or other editorial review process." Did you actually read what I wrote above?? I clearly wrote, "As for examples of inaccuracy, they can easily be cited without linking frankenlies.com." See? Even after writing what I wrote, you chide me for listing frankenlies, although I have clearly stated the article does not have to contain it. You are not complying with the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith. That's not cool. D323P 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can source the information you want to add to reliable publications, and your additions comply with WP:NPOV and any other applicable policies and guidelines, then everything should be fine.  I have no opposition as such to mentioning criticism of the book.  Regarding the anti-O'Reilly site, I'd have to think that I'd oppose using it to source negative material about O'Reilly as well, though I'm not familiar with the case, so I can't say definitively.  Croctotheface 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Croctotheface is correct. "Clinton administration busted the terror plot" and "Phillipine police busted the terror plot" are no more contradictory than "Eli Manning won the Super Bowl" and "Indiana won the Super Bowl." I read the relevant page of the GAO Senate Intelligence report, and it says nothing to indicate that the Clinton administration was not involved in the bust. It also makes it clear that the US intelligence community cooperated closely with Phillipine authorities following the bust. No contradiction, no lie, no controversy. I'm deleting that paragraph (and adding the relevant text below.) -Pete 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1... Pete: "I read the relevant page of the GAO Senate Intelligence report, and it says nothing to indicate that the Clinton administration was not involved in the bust." It also doesn't say that Kermit the Frog was not involved either. It unequivocally and clearly states that the plots were "thwarted by Philippine police." If the US were involved, it would have said so! By the way, the events of the bust by the Philippine police are carefully reported and detailed in a book by former ABC'er Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge. (I'll add that.) 2... Pete: "It also makes it clear that the US intelligence community cooperated closely with Phillipine authorities following the bust." Gee, I hope so! The plot was to blow up US airliners! And the issue is not what "followed" the bust, but the bust itself, and the Congressional report and Lance's book make it perfectly clear that it was the Philippine police, not the Clinton administration (as Franken claims), who were the ones who specifically "thwarted" the plots. D323P 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pete, you need to think this over. You are not assuming good faith. In addition to the Joint Intelligence report, the actions by Philippine police have been thoroughly researched and reported in at least two books! In Peter Lance's 1000 Years for Revenge (he is a liberal, by the way), Lance spends several pages on the events and the actions by Philippine police. Lance actually interviewed the Philippine police captain who busted the operation; he also interviewed the Philippine intelligent agent who interrogated the caught terrorist! There is also the book by Gerald Posner, Why America Slept. No honest person can honestly say that the Clinton administration thwarted any of these plots. It's that simple.D323P 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Rebuttal above.) D323P 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need for a rebuttal to the GAO Senate Intelligence report. -Pete 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article

message: A. KSM’s Links to Terrorist Attacks before September 11
KSM and his followers played a major role in several Islamist extremist plots before
September 11. These plots are notable for the large number of casualties they sought to create, the use of airplanes, and focus on symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center and U.S. government facilities, all characteristics of the September 11 attacks.
Investigators determined in 1995 that KSM was linked to the February 1993 bombing of
the World Trade Center. Federal prosecutors gave CIA a copy of a financial wire transaction for $660 between Qatar and the U.S., dated several days before the blast, from “Khaled Shaykh” in Doha to Muhammad Salameh, one of four defendants convicted in the World Trade Center bombing. With additional information that emerged from the Philippines investigation described below, CIA was able to determine that Khaled was KSM, that KSM was an uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing plot, and that KSM had married the sister of Yousef’s wife.
[In 1995, Yousef’s plots to bomb twelve U.S. airplanes flying Asian routes, kill the Pope, and crash a plane into CIA Headquarters were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where Yousef was preparing explosives. The police seized a list of names and telephone numbers and found a notation for “Khalid Doha” with telephone and facsimile numbers in Qatar. Yet another link to KSM was made when Yousef, who was apprehended shortly after fleeing the Philippines, made a call from detention to Qatar and asked to speak with “Khalid.” This number was similar to the one found by the Philippine police.
B. The Hunt for KSM
The Intelligence Community agencies worked together to apprehend KSM during his time
in Qatar and in the Balkans. However, KSM’s frequent travels, and the slow pace of efforts to learn his whereabouts, [ ].
sealed and would be opened once KSM was in custody].
: (Rebuttal above.) D323P 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need for a rebuttal to the GAO Senate Intelligence report. -Pete 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote from 
GAO
 Senate Intelligence report 

message: The below paragraphs have been removed from the article, because the details as presented violate wikipedia's No Original Research policy.  As written, there is no indication at all that any notable individual or organization actually made any of the criticisms.  In fact, it simply seems like a wikipedia editor noted Franken's alleged mistakes and inserted them into the article to provide a negative view of Franken's work; that is, obviously, Original Research.  If these same details can be provided adequately sourced to a notable critic, the information can be reinstated into the article.  
"For example, on pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives." Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.The actions by Philippine police are detailed and accounted over a number of chapters in a book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance, ‘’1000 Years For Revenge.’‘ In the book, Lance interviews members of the Philippine police responsible for thwarting the plots. The work by Philippine police in stopping the plots was also researched and written about by investigator Gerald Posner in a book called, Why America Slept.  	 
In passages about reported vandalism at the White House complex during the transition of the Clinton and Bush administrations in 2000-2001, Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred" (page 153). However, a 217-page report by the General Accounting Office concluded the opposite: "Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts."  United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007."
-Hal Raglan 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT original research! Instead of immediately deleting qualified material from this site, and then posting an incorrect comment that this is "original material," I would advise searching online and looking to see where these claims come from. Sourca added. D323P 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as written it was original research.  You need to read up on wikipedia policy before advising other editors that they are the ones who are "incorrect".  You obviously felt it appeared to be OR, since you finally added a (very questionable) source. While wikipedia is a collaborative medium, and other editors can certainly do online searches to add citations, common sense indicates that if you insert questionable information into an article you should also provide links to reliable sources fully indicating that the newly added info is not spurious.-Hal Raglan 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research material removed

message: This is simply not a credible source.  All sentences supported by Frankenlies.com need to be removed and reliable, mainstream sources need to be used.  Neither left-wing blogs nor right-wing websites count as reliable sources.  This is clear in reliable sources.  Who allowed this stuff to be put in without it being backed up by peer-reviewed, mainstream publications.  Use The Washington Times, use The Wall Street Journal, use Fox News, but Frankenlies.com does not belong.  This is clear in the guidelines for acceptable sources.--DavidShankBone 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You provide absolutely ZERO evidence that Frankenlies is not a reliable source. Why don't you look at the site? Frankenlies clearly and carefully cites its sources. "Right-wing websites" don't count as reliable sources, you say? But I suppose that left-wing ones like the discredited Media Matters do? This kind of biased thinking does not belong at Wikipedia. Editors are expected to assume good faith!! D323P 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We aren't expected to assume good faith on the part of biased websites, and the name itself is biased.  There is also no need for your emotive wording, ALL CAPS and over-use of exclamation points; take it down a notch, please.  --DavidShankBone 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frankenlies.com

message: I just removed two paragraphs inserted by D323P.
(1) concerning the Philippine terrorist plot: As I explained above, the joint Congressional report was presented as though it refutes Franken's claim; however, since the report is only partially declassified and at least two sentences on the topic have not been released to the public, it is impossible to know whether or not the report confirms Franken's words. This item could be included if its presentation were to make that clear. My attempt to do so was rejected, without any attempt to improve it, by D323P (who is advocating for the inclusion of this item.) Different approaches to explaining the matter might be acceptable, but lack of explanation results in a deceptive paragraph.
(2) The plagarism section was single-sourced to frankenlies.com, which DavidShankBone correctly described as an insufficiently reliable source. The charge of plagarism is also insignificant, as it is unaccompanied by any criminal charges, professional sanctions, or words of reprimand from the allegedly aggrieved party.
-Pete 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this removal.  D323P needs to find some better sources that are more reliable and I formally request he stop adding material that at least three editors have taken issue with and start discussing changes on the Talk page first, with other editors of this page.  I find the lack of credible sources itself cast suspicion on the material he is putting into the article, which apparently can only be sourced to a website calling Franken a liar.  This simply isn't an optimal way to edit Wikipedia.  --DavidShankBone 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed two paragraphs 

message: #The editors of the Lying Liars page (D323P the only exception) don’t believe that either Frankenlies.com (a personal website that looks like it was designed by somebody in high school, riddled with incorrect grammar, and not peer-reviewed) nor Newsbusters.com (an agenda-driven “news” site that has no journalistic standards either for its contributors or its articles) are reliable sources.  Wikipedia fights this problem often:  the efforts of agenda-driven partisans (left and right) who effort to insert POV material simply by citing an external website.  It is telling that D323P is unable to craft a criticism section using The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, Fox News, The Washington Times or other mainstream news outlets with a conservative bent that have peer-reviewed, journalistic standards of some degree.  
#When this has been pointed out to D323P, he calls all the editors dishonest, liars, agenda-driven, accuses them of working for the Al Franken campaign, says we have attacked him “ruthlessly”, etc., even though the entirety of our discussions may be found on the Talk page.  It is, in fact, D323P who has attacked, violated the policies of the site that are designed to build consensus, and made disruptive edits.  This can be seen with Hal Raglan, DavidShankBone, Peteforsyth and  Croctotheface
#Lastly, there is some concern that D323P, whose e-mail is dfp323@yahoo.com, is Dave Pierre who is self-promoting his website on Wikipedia.  Is D323P actually Dave323Pierre?   D323P is continually trying to put Frankenlies.com on the Franken pages, refers to it as “my material” and Dave Pierre has written articles on Wikipedia, and his criticisms of Wikipedia in those articles reference all the same articles that D323P edits and references here.  Conversely,  D323P has written 17 Amazon.com reviews, many spamming Frankenlies.com.  
--DavidShankBone 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summation of my issues

message: On the RfA board it has come out that D323P is Dave Pierre, creator of the Frankenlies.com website.  This violates Wikipedia:Spam.   --DavidShankBone 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I disagree.  The main articles under "external link spamming" are Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; and true, they are guidelines, both which were crafted to deal with this type of situation.  And yes, I also question whether this self-published work is a reliable source.  --DavidShankBone 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Pierre spamming his sites Frankenlies.com

message: Peterforsyth says he has "three sections" that concern him, and I would like to address them to you. This really gets to the root of the problem I am having here at this site and with other editors of this article.
:1. Peteforsyth: "Plagarism: I don't think this section belongs at all. "Plagarism" is not a crime, but a violation that applies to students and journalists, of which Franken is neither." 
:(First of all, DavidShankBone (on the same side as Pete) has no problem calling Al a journalist.) Al Franken is the author of six books. Lies and the Lying Liars was composed during a fellowship at Harvard! Noting the accusation (with an example) is totally legitimate. You'll see that in the article for Ann Coulter's book Godless, a plagiarism accusation is addressed there. Also, Al Franken is running for Senate. (You'll remember Joe Biden's candidacy for Prez was derailed by a plagiarism charge.)
:2. I don't feel my material I'm posting regarding Franken and Philippine "thwarting issue" is being dealt in a forthcoming manner by Pete. Here are the basics:
::Franken, Lies, pages 109-110:
:::
::(My key source)  (pdf file goto page 310) Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001:
:::
:The report is very clear on who did the "thwarting." Pete's objection is that some of the report is redacted (due to classified information). Pete appears to be saying that Franken "could" be right because it doesn't not say the US was involved. But Franken could have said that Kermit the Frog thwarted the plots, and the same objection would apply. (The Kermit thing is a joke, but it makes the point.) Pete's objection isn't fair. The material has to be taken for what it is.
:Also, Pete keeps failing to address that I've cited two published books that talk about the job by Philippine police in thwarting the plots. One of them is quite detailed, and it is written by Peter Lance; and the book was hailed during a Senate hearing by Max Cleland, a friend of Franken! 
:There is also the second book by Gerald Posner. I can also link a third book, which I think is actually better than Posner's (Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter).
:Also consider:
::... The 9/11 Commission Report states, "The plot [to blow up US airliners] unraveled after the Philippine authorities discovered Yousef's bomb-making operation in Manila."  (Chapter 5 of the Report)
::... Also see this 2001 article from CNN.com:  "U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings"
::... Also: This 2001 article by Matthew Brzezinski in the Washington Post: "Bust and Boom: Six years before the September 11 attacks, Philippine police took down an al Qaeda cell that had been plotting, among other things, to fly explosives-laden planes into the Pentagon" 
:I think the facts are clear on this one.
:3. Pete: "it is agreed that Franken committed a factual error, but not that the error is significant in the context of this article."
:The admitted error is in the first sentence of a key chapter in Franken's book called "Operation Ignore," in which Franken makes the case that the Bush administration "ignored" warnings before 9/11. To anyone who has read the book, it is clearly a significant error, as it frames an important premise in Franken's book.
Thank you for allowing me to address these concerns. All I ask is that the material be addressed in an honest manner. Cheers!
*"All I ask is that the material be addressed in an honest manner." - Dave Pierre, you really need to stop questioning people's honesty on here, either directly or indirectly, and your doing so is well documented on this Talk page.  SwatJester, since Pierre is listening to you, please address this issue.  It simply is not an optimal way to build consensus, nor is the over-use of exclamation points, ALL CAPS and bold text.  Let's bring it down a notch.  --DavidShankBone 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I was not "questioning people's honesty." This matter has been taken to arbitration and has been quite stressful. I was simply adressing my feelings and hopes for this article. Obviously I would not have taken this matter to arbitration if I felt that I was being treated fairly. I am more optimistic and feel better now that SWATjester has been kind to help mediate this situation. Thank you. (By the way: Although I have used italics and bold in some places, I have not used ALL CAPS, as you have claimed. Your attacks on me, including accusing me of "spamming" in headlines with my name, is also not a cool way to build consensus. Let's "chill out" as SWATjester advised! Cheers.) D323P 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give you the last word, but you only need look under your section above, "Dishonest Editors," for examples of all the things I mentioned.  Your the only one who has questioned anyone's honesty here, nobody has questioned yours; until it was proven that you are the authors of these sites, which is undeniably pertinent to your use of them.  So your allusion to honesty points to a pattern, and a pattern I think all editors would appreciate you stop.  Comment on the edits, not the editors, please.  Thank you - David  --DavidShankBone 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to SWATjester re: comments by Peteforsyth

message: Franken’s book has been the object of criticism:
====Accuracy====
=====Clinton thwarts attacks=====
On pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives."Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007. The actions by Philippine police have also been researched and detailed in several books including, 1000 Years For RevengeAmazon.com: 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance, a  2003 book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance;  Why America SleptAmazon.com: Why America Slept by Gerald Posner (2003) by investigator Gerald Posner; and Losing Bin Ladenhttp://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter, by Richard Miniter.
I don't like how this section reads. As I noted below, it is not our job to  prove or disprove Franken's claims. Instead, we need something else that directly links the criticism against franken. We can't just say "Franken asserts this. However, this happened that seems to disprove him." because that is original research. What we need to do is attribute it to someone who is linking it to Franken, by saying "Franken asserts this. However, Rush Limbaugh claims Franken is wrong, because of <insert data here>". . ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critiques

message: =====Clinton thwarts attacks=====
On pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives."Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007. The actions by Philippine police have also been researched and detailed in several books including, 1000 Years For RevengeAmazon.com: 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance, a  2003 book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance;  Why America SleptAmazon.com: Why America Slept by Gerald Posner (2003) by investigator Gerald Posner; and Losing Bin Ladenhttp://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter, by Richard Miniter.
I don't like how this section reads. As I noted below, it is not our job to  prove or disprove Franken's claims. Instead, we need something else that directly links the criticism against franken. We can't just say "Franken asserts this. However, this happened that seems to disprove him." because that is original research. What we need to do is attribute it to someone who is linking it to Franken, by saying "Franken asserts this. However, Rush Limbaugh claims Franken is wrong, because of <insert data here>". . ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: On pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives."Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007. The actions by Philippine police have also been researched and detailed in several books including, 1000 Years For RevengeAmazon.com: 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance, a  2003 book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance;  Why America SleptAmazon.com: Why America Slept by Gerald Posner (2003) by investigator Gerald Posner; and Losing Bin Ladenhttp://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter, by Richard Miniter.
I don't like how this section reads. As I noted below, it is not our job to  prove or disprove Franken's claims. Instead, we need something else that directly links the criticism against franken. We can't just say "Franken asserts this. However, this happened that seems to disprove him." because that is original research. What we need to do is attribute it to someone who is linking it to Franken, by saying "Franken asserts this. However, Rush Limbaugh claims Franken is wrong, because of <insert data here>". . ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton thwarts attacks

message: In passages about reported vandalism at the White House complex during the transition of the Clinton and Bush administrations in 2000-2001, Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred" (page 153). However, a 217-page report by the General Accounting Office concluded the opposite: "Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts."  United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.  The report said when Clinton assumed office  "some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also made during the 1993 transition."White House, GAO Debate Vandalism; Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, June 12, 2002; Page A01.  The GAO's report said it was "unable to conclude whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones" and that career government employees said similar conditions were present when President Bush's father was inaugurated in 1989. (These lines are irrelevant. Franken said "none of this vandalism occurred." The GAO report clearly states that it did. This additional material is simply a "Yeah, but" defense of Franken. These lines are POV. D323P 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton transition vandalism

message: Also, a 2004 article by pundit Rich Lowry, of the conservative National Review, challenged Franken's book on its facts. Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Lowry noted that Franken had claimed on page 115 of his book that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." However, Lowry wrote that Sandy Berger testified in front of Congress on September 19, 2002, and stated, "[T]here was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two
This section is fine, this is exactly what I meant about attributing the criticism to a critic, rather than doing the original research ourselves on here. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton terrorism plan

message: In a 2005 book called Pants on FireAmazon.com: Pants on Fire by Alan Skorski, released by the conservative organization World Net Daily, writer Alan Skorski claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the  media watchdog group FAIR.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007) An example by Skorski:
:FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:
::Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...
:Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):
::For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.
The passage in Franken's book does not have footnotes, and FAIR's report is not cited in the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of the book.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)
In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
So - What do we think? D323P 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious concerns.  The "Clinton thwarted attacks" and "Clinton transition vandalism" sections have no sources that show evidence that Franken was criticized in a notable way.  It just has what Franken said (fact A) and what other sources say (fact B).  There is not evidence that Franken has drawn notable criticism for the difference between what he said and what the other sources said.  Again, it is necessary to show that Franken has been criticized in a notable way for this section to comply with WP:A and WP:NPOV.  Using facts A and B to state opinion C (in this case that Franken has somehow been criticized or that he is incorrect) is not allowed per Wikipedia policy.  The sections that cite Lowry's criticism and the review from the Hill are both fine: if someone such as Lowry criticized Franken for the "thwarted attacks" or "vandalism" issues, then cite the notable criticism and include the material.  For the plagiarism section, I'm concerned that Newsbusters is being cited despite the fact that there is not a consensus here that it's a reliable source.  Personally, I'm of the opinion that the person leveling the criticism is doing so in a self-published sort of way, which doesn't seem to meet the standard required of WP sources.  Croctotheface 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Plagiarism

message: Dave Pierre/D323P, thank you for giving specific replies to my main concerns. You have significantly shifted your replies to the substance of the disagreement, and I appreciate it. Some further replies below.
DavidShankBone (on the same side as Pete)
:That's not true - there may be similarities in our views, but we have our differences as well. This isn't about "sides," it's about creating a mutually-acceptable article that provides a service to the curious reader.
[D323P considers Franken a journalist]
: Thank you for clarifying your view. Up till now, I didn't know if you thought AF was a journalist, or if you thought plagarism applied to non-journalists, or if you were simply ignoring this point altogether.
: Franken is not a journalist. Along with other talk radio hosts like Bill O'Reilly, Randi Rhodes, and Michael Savage, he has asserted that he's not on his show. And he's right to do so: the organization he worked for retained him on the basis of his ability to draw listeners, or promote a certain point of view. Journalists differ from talk hosts in that their job description includes a code of ethics, and their employer is expected impose sanctions if those are violated. Plagarism is one of those codes. Not so in talk radio (not saying I necessarily like that, but that's how it is.)
: As for Joe Biden, I'm confused. I thought it was universally understood that Biden's race was derailed by his racially insensitive remarks about an opponent. That's the only account I'd heard.
2. The report is very clear on who did the "thwarting."
: The report's clarity is unavailable to the public. That sentence is there, yes; surrounded by sentences that may or may not qualify it in some way. Those sentences might even say that Kermit The Frog contributed substantial intelligence to the Philippine police; thus, if Franken had claimed that Kermit thwarted the attacks, the partially-classified report would not be a valid foundation for rebutting the claim. It could be rebutted on other grounds, like the fact that Kermit is not real, but the report would not be a relevant source for making that argument.
: It is true that the citations you now provide - the 9/11 report and CNN report - may strengthen your case, and I'll take a closer look. I'll also try to look at the books you cite when I get the chance. But the partially-declassified intelligence report does not contradict Franken, and citing it in the way you have misleads the reader.
: In the meantime, please consider this: Sandy Berger's testimony, which you cite yourself for the "eliminate Al Qaida" item, includes the following sentence:
3. Franken makes the case that the Bush administration "ignored" warnings before 9/11.
: That case, as you summarize it, is intact. The testimony you cited also includes Sandy Berger asserting that Condoleeza Rice had acknowledged his communication to her, and repeatedly expressing frustration at the Bush administration's subsequent failure to deal effectively with Al Qaida. Berger was highly critical of the way the Bush administration dealt with his warnings; his language in the testimony is more polite than Franken's, but it reflects substantially the same point of view. Your paragraph, presenting the distinction between disrupt and eliminate as the central lesson of that testimony, comes from someplace deep within the "spin zone."
In closing, let me reiterate: I do not insist that these sections be removed entirely (with the possible exception of the "plagarism" item.) The others may be worth discussing, but the current presentation is not acceptable. Rewriting them, and/or putting them in a different section, could easily address my concerns about (2) or (3).
-Pete 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Pete's observations and issues.  A notable criticism of these passages needs to be used, not statements that sound like "the facts speak for themselves." A notable critic/source needs to specifically criticize these aspects of the book, not original research that is thrown out there as evidence of Franken "lying."  --DavidShankBone 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed, after all of the discussion thats taken place I thought all of this should've been clear by now.  Its okay to place the criticisms in the article but they have to be cited to reliable sources that have actually made the criticisms.  Pierre's "revision" is almost exactly the same as his previous version, except the sourcing (Pierre's webpage) has simply been removed.  Now it reads like Original Research.  If the noted criticisms are major issues within the conservative community I would think notable critics should be easy to find via a Google search.- Hal Raglan 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems like a good approach. The problem I see, though, is that some discernment of the validity of the criticism is still necessary, to avoid perpetuating baseless or irrelevant criticisms. For instance, if somebody wrote somewhere that Franken's book was written in code to communicate with an Al Qaida cell, or was actually written by Boy George, or should be entirely disregarded because of a couple of grammatical errors, such criticisms would not belong in the WP article. That distinction is not always black and white, and I think much of what we're discussing here based on that disagreement. (Of course, the inclusion of a criticism by an established news outlet is one very important measure. If we stick to that, I think all concerns will be satisfied.) -Pete 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete F replies to Dave P 

message: I think we should also be careful about the scope of the criticism section. Looking at D323P's proposed criticisms, it's not our job to disprove or prove the accuracy of Franken's book. It's our job to include OTHER PEOPLE'S criticisms of the accuracy of Franken's book. I don't think the current version deliniates that well enough. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good approach. The problem I see, though, is that some discernment of the validity of the criticism is still necessary, to avoid perpetuating baseless or irrelevant criticisms. For instance, if somebody wrote somewhere that Franken's book was written in code to communicate with an Al Qaida cell, or was actually written by Boy George, or should be entirely disregarded because of a couple of grammatical errors, such criticisms would not belong in the WP article. That distinction is not always black and white, and I think much of what we're discussing here based on that disagreement. (Of course, the inclusion of a criticism by an established news outlet is one very important measure. If we stick to that, I think all concerns will be satisfied.) -Pete 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SWATJester's comments

message: In Pants on Fire, Skorski also claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the  media watchdog group FAIR.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007) An example by Skorski:
:FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:
::Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...
:Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):
::For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.
The passage in Franken's book does not have footnotes, and FAIR's report is not cited in the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of the book.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007) (We can lose this if it will help. - D323P)
In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)
+*+*+*++**+*+*+
Here is a new presentation! Could someone please archive this page a bit so we don't have so much on it? (I don't want to be the guy blamed for messing up. ;) ) Cheers. D323P 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some preliminary comments:  I think the Chelsea Clinton bit doesn't belong.  There is no indication that this was Franken's work, had any ties to Franken or that he was otherwise involved or could have done anything about it.  I also think the plagiarism section is not notable, and I don't think it qualifies as plagiarism.  --DavidShankBone 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually inclined to agree with DavidShankBone as far as having reservations about the plagiarism business.  Maybe I'd be more persuaded that the FAIR article should have been cited if I were presented with all the material, but as it is, I'm sort of torn between the fact that I do see a similarity when the phrases are put next to each other, and the fact that there are probably only so many ways you can describe Hannity and Colmes.  The fact that FAIR did not complain about this makes its inclusion a bit more suspect.  Croctotheface 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A plagiarism issue is addressed in the Wiki article on Godless, the book by Ann Coulter. I think it's a fair addition. People can make up their own minds about the severity of the alleged infraction. (I also think the fact that "FAIR did not complain" is not a serious challenge. FAIR's beliefs are often aligned with Franken's. I would not expect the Media Research Center to complain if Sean Hannity had cribbed a few lines from them. Again, I say let the readers decide for themselves.) D323P 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That section in Godless: The Church of Liberalism is actually shorter than the one we're considering for this article despite the fact that it makes reference to more sources accusing Coulter of plagiarism.  If we include this section, I don't think it's necessary to list an example with indented quotes.  I'm still not really on board with the belief that this piece of criticism is notable, but if we remove the example and restrict it to just a couple of sentences, I'm not really concerned about it because it won't overwhelm the article.  Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Godless article, the criticism is actually meshed within the article itself! I estimate that 30-40 percent of the article is composed of rebuttals to the book's content. (Not cool, IMHO.) I'm sure that the amount of criticism in our finalized version won't even come even close to the percentage amount in the Godless piece. D323P 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The abstinence letter is covered in the Al Franken article.  Though it was part of the research for this book, it's not really related to the content of the book in the same way that it's related to Franken in general.  I agree that the Chelsea Clinton business is not really a valid criticism of either Franken or his book.  In general, the _Do As I Say_ book is notable, so that can source the vandalism dispute.  The Cleland business can be included, even though it doesn't strike me as a major deal.  The O'Reilly house business is covered on the article on O'Reilly controversies, so I don't know that it really belongs here.  One criticism that is absent from this section is probably the most common one: I didn't do a ton of research to support this, btu I think that a lot of reviews of the book probably said something like, "Sure, Franken's funny, Liberals will love his book, and he does a good job refuting Coulter, but is this kind of thing really good for the national discourse?"  Something like this should almost certainly be included.  A final, unrelated point: it's important that the criticism section not overwhelm the article.  I think that if the kinds of changes I proposed were made, it would not, but I suspect that most people who come to this page want to read about the book itself and not critcism of it, so the article should be geared toward that.  Croctotheface 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a second reference to the incident is OK. Here's why: The Andrea Mackris lawsuit against Bill O'Reilly, for example, is mentioned in several different Wikipedia articles. Since the letter is directly related to the composition of the Lies book, I think it is a worthy episode that should stay in this particular article. D323P 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really notable to include criticism of a satirical book for its use of satire?  --DavidShankBone 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree here.  This is an article about the book, any criticism relating to this incident would be directed at Franken himself, not the text, which is what this article is about.  It's just not germane. Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any big issues; however, the vandalism issue is highly disputed on both sides, and is relatively inconclusive, that it would be inaccurate to present it as an uncontested idea that this vandalism occurred in its entirety.  That simply is not undisputed, even in the same report that Dave Pierre sites.  Which is what makes the Washington Post article important as a citation, since it explains the controversy in interpreting the report (by both sides of the debate).  --DavidShankBone 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if matters are in dispute, then we need to be careful not to endorse one side of the dispute.  In general, I think I'd be in favor of only touching upon matters of public controversy such as this.  If there is more of a general dispute among liberals and conservatives over something, such a the vandalism, then the fact tat Franken came down on the liberal side isn't really a particularly notable criticism of the book, especially not the way that, say, the criticism he got from the reviewer for _The Hill_ is.  Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the real point - a disputed issue that is inconclusive isn't really a "criticism" since it's still up for debate and interpretation.  The vandalism issue, whether it occurred, and its extent, is a matter of interpretation.  To present it as a conclusive "fact" and, thus, an inaccuracy in Franken's work carries more nuance than the Satire/Nonfiction problem (which I agree, is a problem with Franken's books, and the root of much of their criticism).  --David Shankbone 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DavidShankBone: "it would be inaccurate to present it as an uncontested idea that this vandalism occurred in its entirety." I'm not quite sure what this means. The bottom line is that the GAO report says that vandalism occurred. Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred." I don't think it's a matter of "which side" he came down on. It's a matter of what the record actually says versus what Franken wrote. More importantly, it's a discrepancy that was noted by an author (Peter Schweizer) in a bestselling book. I think the readers can be the final judges. That's my two cents. D323P 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the nuance in the discrepency is noted in a highly-regarded news publication, which let's the reader decide the fairness of the criticism.  --David Shankbone 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Plagiarism

message: This Washington Post article contradicts this paragraph - we need to resolve who is right.  If O'Reilly's mother is saying the same thing Franken says, then it's hardly a fair criticism:
:::O'Reilly actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown, according to his mother Angela, who still lives in the Levitt-built house Bill grew up in. His late father, William O'Reilly Sr., was a currency accountant with Caltex, an oil company; Angela "Ann" O'Reilly was a homemaker who also worked as a physical therapist.
The writer of this article is Paul Farhi, who is oft-referenced on Wikipedia on a wide variety of topics.   Alan Skorski is only quoted on the Al Franken page for the same book.  He is hardly notable and his book was largely panned and pointed to as majorly flawed piece when I found research on it.  Other comments to this WaPo article and this section?  --David Shankbone 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a big rigamarole over a minor thing.  It's covered in detail at Critics of Bill O'Reilly.  It's really all about semantic designations--apparently O'Reilly's property was located in what is called Levittown before a certain date, and after that point it became Westbury.  It probably receives too much coverage over at that article; there's no reason to rehash the whole thing here. Croctotheface 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post article was Franken's source for his Westbury-Levittown claim. (See Franken's "Notes and Sources" in the back of his book.) The deed not only refuted Franken, but also his source. Let's think about it. Someone says that you didn't grow up where you said you did. How can you defend yourself? What better proof than to show the actual deed to your home! It is not a "minor thing." This episode is certainly noteworthy for this article. (The controversy is buried in that ridiculously long "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" article, in which the case could easily be made that "minor things" are found there.) D323P 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the problem is the source (O'Reilly's mother, or the Washington Post?), not Franken, is what you are saying?  This doesn't count as a criticism of Franken for using a reliable source.  How is this not minor?  I don't feel this is worthy of inclusion; it actually seems a little ridiculous. --David Shankbone 15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should start a Criticism of Al Franken page; the two articles aren't analogous.--David Shankbone 15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Skorski

message: We need to look at each of these criticisms and look at their merits; as I've demonstrated above on the two I've done just surface research on, there are problems with these; they aren't wholly accurate.  I like The Hill bit, but some of these others are an issue.  Just having written a book is not good enough.  There are lots of books written.  We aren't putting in criticism just because they are levelled by any guy who can pound out 400 pages typed, and finds some random publishing house to put it out.  What was the reaction to the book?  Was it well-received, flawed, etc?  The mission on this site isn't just to redact every issue every liberal or conservative has attracted, but whether these criticisms raise above the surface into more reputable publications, that actually examine what the criticism is, researches it, and reports on its accuracy.  As the Washington Post article initially demonstrates, and O'Reilly's mother shows, Franken didn't come up with this out of thin air.  Dave Pierre, I'm sure there are problems with other sections, including with conservatives.  I'm not editing those, though.  You should instead of fighting for the same allegedly weak standards you have written you found on other articles, bring higher standards of debate and argumentation to them and have them changed productively (and I will help you edit those articles if you have valid problems and want to use reputable sources, and remove problematic ones).  But right here, right now, we should have no trouble crafting a good, reputable criticism section from reputable conservatives, with charges that stick.  --David Shankbone 01:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One last point:  With Franken's run for the Senate, there is a good chance this article will be heavily trafficked and high-profile.  It behooves all of us to spend time to craft something that makes the site look good.  Our goal should be to educate, and that when a person does a simple Google search can come up with information from reputable sources that contradicts that found here, it hurts the site.  --David Shankbone 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with the _Do As I Say_ book as a source that Franken was criticized.  However, a lot of the things it says seem to be less criticism and more disagreement.  Franken gives his side of an argument, and the author of the other book gives his.  I'm OK with mentioning the Max Cleland grenade business, but the rest of it should probably be mentioned in passing, if at all.  The "pants on fire" book is, in my opinion, one rung above self-published.  It's existence might be notable as evidence that Franken received criticism, but I don't think it passes muster as a source in and of itself.  Croctotheface 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Criticism Section