Talk:Al Franken

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete Bio 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mayer's reporting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit warring over sexual misconduct accusations?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , did you think some of my edits were good? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits reverted

message: 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)
replies: text: , you mentioned disagreeing with the Gillibrand edits I made. 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.)  What do you think we need to say about Gillibrand? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a notice on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

text: , 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)
thread_title:  11:42, 8 September 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Franken&oldid=977364210 version] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Oops"