Talk:Al Franken

Revert war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mbstone wrote...

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

---

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franken picture

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism?

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

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

Mention Jewish Heritage?

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

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

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

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

Al Franken Show and Guests

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

Cryptico 10 July 2005

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

POV Push?

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

Secondary education dispute

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

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

Gloria Wise/AAR on Franken's page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's what I propose.

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

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

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

THAT is your justificaton??? Please.

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

Except maybe in Wikipedia...

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

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

USO sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savin' It

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where I come from we call this lying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

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

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

Mention Franken's Hatred of Thanksgiving?

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

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

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

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

Rhonda Franken

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

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

That is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.205.8 (talk)

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

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

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

THAT IS A LIE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.221.252 (talk)

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

So?

Apology to Attorney General and conservative leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radio Show Guests

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

Candidate for the Democratic party nomination

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

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

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

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

The "Selected Quotes" section

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