Talk:Al Franken/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Revert war

message: 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)
thread_title: Mbstone wrote...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Franken picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention Jewish Heritage? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Al Franken Show and Guests

message: 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)
thread_title: POV Push?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: []. Blake was a rival school to mine, and I've personally talked to Al about it. MicahMN | Talk 17:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary education dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gloria Wise/[[Air America Radio|AAR]] on Franken's page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mention Franken's Hatred of Thanksgiving?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Apology to Attorney General and conservative leaders 

message: 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)
thread_title: Radio Show Guests

message: 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)
replies: text: Glad to oblige. See this USA Today article. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: According to an editorial in the Dec 6, 2005 Madison Capitol Times , 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)
thread_title: Candidate for the Democratic party nomination

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons for reversion of content on Gloria Wise controversy 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coneheads 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Prankish Spirit" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feud with Bill O'Reilly 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved from article

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tussling with Protestors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judd Nelson? and Archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: IMdB would suggest you are correct. JChap2007 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God Spoke? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, don't think so. This was ages ago and he was quite jovial about it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did he drop the Jr.?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recently added Neutral POV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section