| Revision as of 19:28, 11 July 2005 editGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,001 edits moving all picture comments into one section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:40, 13 July 2005 edit undoGooguse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,838 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==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. ] 03:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mbstone wrote...== | ==Mbstone wrote...== | ||
Revision as of 03:40, 13 July 2005
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:NPOV. If you have a problem with the current content, please feel free to discuss it here. Best, ] 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 Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Perhaps they could be reworded by the author and reinserted.
- I've tried a compromise version; see what you think. ] 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, ] 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'm not too good with pictures on wikipedia. can someone make it a bit smaller? thanks. Stancel 18:19, 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)
NPOV?
Surely a person who is so prominent in politics would have critics of some kind? :) 172.197.198.105 04:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)