Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 20 December 2017

°Template:Active politician

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

	Al Franken has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 8, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 8, 2009.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Minnesota High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 21, 2017.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al Franken article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Photograph of the alleged sexual assault

File:Al Franken groping Leeann Tweeden.jpg
This is one of the rare instances in which a public domain image actually exists of the alleged sexual assault in question. I've uploaded the photo here. I request that it be added to the article. CorduroyCap (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL at an "alleged" photograph of the sexual assault — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.183.248 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Corky  19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Franken asked for the photo to be taken and then posed for it, smiling (see photo at right). So, how is this an "egregious BLP violation" to have it in the article? CorduroyCap (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging IronGargoyle who removed it. Corky  20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I've nominated the image for deletion because of unclear copyright status. No opinion about inclusion (if re-uploaded as fair use).  Sandstein  21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue of protection for BLP in this case is not solely of Sen. Franken. The image portrays the victim of an alleged sexual assault in the midst of said assault. There is absolutely no way this belongs on Misplaced Pages (I also agree wholeheartedly on the image's unclear copyright status). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I oppose inclusion of the photo on BLP grounds. It seems inflammatory and undue to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• The photo would not be proportional to the current coverage of the incident. Per WP:NOTNEWS I think we should wait a bit and see how reliable sources cover this. As for BLP, my understanding is that Tweeden herself published the photo specifically to draw attention to Franken's actions and to prompt other people to come forward. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I mostly just do copy editing on Misplaced Pages, that and taking down obvious vandalism, because life's too short. But describing the photo as Franken "reaching" is some serious crap and whoever wrote that and is enforcing it against edits should feel bad. If you're going to mischaracterize the photo at least also show it. I'm not going to edit anything, but I wanted to say something because you're being horrible. Burnsbert (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On November 16, 2017, sports commentator Leeann Tweeden asserted that during a USO tour in 2006, Franken groped her while she was sleeping and forcibly kissed her. A photograph of Franken allegedly groping her was taken in the process. In response Franken said, "I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann... As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it." Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Patricia Murray have both come out in support of an ethics committee investigation into the accusations.

Unnecessary comma: USO tour in 2006 Franken groped her

Actions occurred separately: forcibly kissed her Cajual (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done I removed the comma, but I believe the sources say the kiss was backstage, not during a performance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Big problem here. The article currently says "Franken forcibly kissed her without her consent", but the woman herself in her article on KABC website says "He repeated that actors really need to rehearse everything and that we must practice the kiss. I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me." . We can argue all day about how coerced her consent may have been, but that is not the same as forcibly and without consent. Different wording is called for here. KH172.76.140.54 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't say Franken forcibly kissed her without her consent. It says she wrote he forcibly kissed her without her consent, which is exactly what she wrote, word for word. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Melanie Morgan has just alleged that Franken stalked and harassed her in 2000. Request that the information be added to the article. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And Mitch McConnell just requested an ethics investigation. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And two Democratic senators have joined in requesting an ethics investigation: Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Patricia Murray have both come out in support of an ethics committee investigation into the accusations.NBC News: "Sen. Al Franken accused of forcibly kissing, groping L.A. radio news anchor Leeann Tweeden" by Dartunorro Clark. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And Chuck Schumer just joined in requesting an ethics probe. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done In my view this illustrates how the information is recentism. I'd prefer to wait a little longer so that we can fairly summarize the various reactions, which are coming in just now. It would be undue to have a laundry list of each and every senator who has requested an ethics investigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We can say that senators called for an investigation, perhaps, but we don't need to list them all out. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Inherent POV in blocking reporting of Tweeden groping incident

It is quite unacceptable to have the story and the photo blocked. Franken has acknowledged the incident, and this is receiving wide circulation in many top newspapers along with various cable news channels.Dogru144 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The groping photo is pertinent as it clearly demonstrates that he was guilty of said accusation.Dogru144 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is trying to block the story, and the photo is already being addressed in another discussion above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Franken#Sexual assault allegations. Suggesting the story is being "blocked" is fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Treat Franken exactly, precisely the same way that Moore is being treated. Instantly. Failing to do so exhibits blatant left-wing bias by the ruling Misplaced Pages groupthink. It is unbelievable that Wikipedians would be so shamelessly biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans. Let's confront and defeat this left-wing bias immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Franken and Moore are different people with different accusations. Your bringing up Moore here at all is a wonderful case of whataboutism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The cases are not identical, but they are very similar. Invoking "whataboutism" as a defense could be seen as an attempt to ensure that similar subject matter, on different sides of the aisle (Republican vs. Democrat), will not be subject to comparison. Comparison is necessary, however, to ensure that we are treating the two political parties even handedly. This is not "whataboutism." This is "Wikipedianism." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you're describing false equivalency. Misplaced Pages isn't cable news, where one Democrat faces off against one Republican on every issue. Comparison is inappropriate, including when you compared Franken to Dennis Hastert, a convicted felon. (Franken isn't.) – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about "equivalency." I said that they're similar. There's a difference between "similar" and "equivalent." There is a larger cultural context here. A large number of prominent, powerful men, in politics and the media, have been accused of various forms of sexual misconduct in the past few months. Some have called it the "Weinstein effect." When the accusers against Weinstein came forward, it encouraged accusers against other powerful men to come forward, and it also prompted The Washington Post to pursue allegations against Moore and publish that story. Gay men such as George Takei and Kevin Spacey have been accused; this isn't limited to heterosexuals. It also cuts across racial and political lines. All must be treated fairly and with an even hand, so this comparison is appropriate. It is this refusal to compare them that is inappropriate. Pretending that there isn't such a cultural context, and pretending there aren't similar cases worthy of comparison, raises a lot of questions about Misplaced Pages bias. I grow weary of these rationalizations for left-wing partisan bias at Misplaced Pages. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're saying we should treat Republicans and Democrats in an equivalent fashion, but that's not how it works here. Every case is its own. I grow weary of debating with people who throw out unsubstantiated claims of "left-wing partisan bias" just because we don't treat a Democrat who does something bad in the exact same way as a Republican who does something worse. See WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Both are only accused. Therefore, here at Misplaced Pages we're not allowed to say that either one of them actually did it (i.e. "does something bad ... does something worse"). Furthermore, the allegations against Moore are 40 years old and he's been in public office for about 35 of those years. One would think, entirely apart from questions about a statute of limitations, that his accusers would have come forward a long time ago if they were telling the truth. I consider the two cases roughly equivalent for these reasons. Then of course, there's the whole feminist attitude about how society should have absolutely zero tolerance for any type of sexual misconduct, whether the victims are 100 14-year-olds or one middle-aged prostitute. So that also suggests they should be treated the same. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"You consider" - a key qualifier there. Somehow I don't think that most folks share the same perspective, both on and off Misplaced Pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, as to "One would think, entirely apart from questions about a statute of limitations, that his accusers would have come forward a long time ago if they were telling the truth": the Roy Moore accuser I just saw in a press conference recounted that Moore (allegedly) told her "I'm the district attorney. If you tell anyone about this, noone will believe you". Women who are abused by powerful men feel that they can't come forward because those men would destroy them. So no, it's not surprising that it would take a woman 30, 40 years to come forward. It's not surprising that many women never come forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:WEIGHT is still the best answer here. The "Left Wing Bias" argument is WP:NON here. Both of these individuals did something potentially illegal, but they haven't been charged or convicted. The best we can do is present the evidence that is notable so far. I think that there is a strong case for including the photograph apparently groping his accuser in the article (especially if that photograph is submitted as evidence before the Senate Ethics Committee). -- Sleyece (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the results of an RFC on this issue. The dominant culture here is clearly left-wing. But it's also feminist, meaning that they're both accused, therefore both should be treated the same, period. Unfortunately, I think partisan bias would eventually trump everything, as it did during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when Gloria Steinem wrote an NYT op-ed defending him -- and engaging in both slut shaming and age shaming in the process. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That might be interesting, but please remember here that our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to test for anyone's suspicions of bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"The dominant culture here is clearly left-wing" is clearly not WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow, Left and Right wing voices both tend to claim that articles of opposing political figures get special attention. No matter the ideology, the reasoning is WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - not a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed -- Sleyece (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Misconduct vs assault

I can go either way on describing the allegations as those of "misconduct" vs. "assault," but I will note that Sometimes the sky is blue's statement that "the accuser did not use the word "assault", and no WP:RS has either" is demonstrably false. Tweeden absolutely did call Franken's actions "sexual assault," and plenty of sources have used the same language. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Since sources, and commons sense, support the term "assault", and "misconduct" is vague and almost euphemistic, the more direct term should be used as a point of neutrality. Assault it not a subjective term in this case. Tweeden has used the term, and this was alleged forced unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature. Misconduct could be anything, from unsolicited photos, to cat-calls, to a consensual affair. It's too broad to be sufficiently informative. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I would support "Sexual harassment allegations" as that fits most of the sources I've seen. "Assault" is a legal term. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's better than "misconduct", I suppose. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, "sexual harassment" is also a legal term, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Groping is considered an assault. I favor assault to be used here, regardless of whether or not the accuser mentioned it. Corky  23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The photo is of him miming, mimicking, and pretending at a short distance with a theme of groping. That is rude and disrespectful, but not assault. physical contact is required for that word to be used. SH172.76.140.54 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This interpretation is not supported by reliable sources. Many of them use the term assault, but almost all of them that I have seen describe the photo as alleged "groping", not "pretending to grope" or "miming groping". If you have a source that says this was pretend, let's see it, but that will not automatically cancel-out those which describe this as groping. Grayfell (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Last I checked, IP, "forcibly kissing..." is physical contact which is sexual assault... Corky  15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Sexual assault" as a legal term requires the perpetrator to act in way that is motivated by the sexual desire of the perpetrator. Unwanted genital contact is not the criteria. It's why fondling of testicles by a pedophile is a form of sexual assault but kicking the pedophile in the testicles during a fight is not sexual assault. Both are unwanted contact with their genitals but the difference is whether the actor was doing it for their own sexual gratification. Franken has not stated his intention other than an attempt at humor but he acknowledged that regardless of his intention, it was clear that it was maltreatment of Tweeden.. "Maltreatment of Leeann Tweeden" is a heading title that I believe is NPOV and accurate. The section should then use the terms "groping" and "unwanted kissing" attributed to Tweeden (and not disputed). Also, Franked has stated he took the picture, not an unnamed "someone." Any language in Misplaced Pages's voice that diminishes Tweedan's account should be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think there's a single sentence in there I agree with. No need to pick it all apart. So Franken said he took the photo, do you have a link for that please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:You mean the exact quote from Franken in the most prominent source? “I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse,” he said.. What else did you dispute as everything I wrote is factually accurate? Please undo your revert that removed Tweeden's quote. It's the most direct and succinct characterization of her experience. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't interpret that quote as him admitting actually snapping the photo, but I can see how one might. Thanks for pointing me to that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Exactly how do you interpret "when I took that picture" as anything but saying he took the picture? Why attribute it to someone else? Taking a picture of a vulnerable person and sharing it with them or others is a form of control. No third party has been named or come forward. Why deflect blame away from Franken when he has readily said he took the picture? If you think it's ambiguous, I proposed just using the quote from Tweeden to describe how she felt. We quote Franken but then use all sorts of statements to diminish Tweeden. “You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.” should be in the article as a quote. --DHeyward (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

In the photograph, both of Franken's hands are clearly visible, so it's obvious that he isn't the one pressing the shutter button on the camera. When Franken said "I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture," he didn't mean that he himself personally "took" the picture in the sense that we think of photographers taking pictures by pointing and shooting the camera. Instead, he meant that he "took" the picture in the sense that he was "in" the picture, from the stand point of participating and "taking part in" the photograph. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that cameras have timers, right? A person other than Franken would be complicit in this act yet no one else has been named or even alluded. We have Franken's statement and no other. Personally, the only RS way to state "someone" is to quote Tweeden “You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.” There is no other way to invent a team of abusers. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting that Franken somehow got a camera stabilized into the right position on an in-flight military transport, framed up just right, and staged the picture himself using a timer? I traveled around the OIF theater on aircraft like that on more than one deployment and find the suggestion very far fetched. Actually encountered Tweeden at one point at Camp Udairi (now Buehring) in late 2003 very briefly with Rebecca Romijn and her former husband; she was nice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the exact statement by Franken I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture has more authority that your anecdotal story and junior detective work. You're refuting his words based on what? He's the only one named as involved, he took responsibility and is the only conscious person. I'll also note for your junior detectiveness that he is not belted in and the others are asleep. Doesn't quite match your made up flight scenario. --DHeyward (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That picture was taken inside a C-17 (a cargo airplane that can accommodate up to 134 personnel seated in the hold) flying from Afghanistan to Los Angeles, hence it's doubtful that there wouldn't be any other passengers present or conscious (plus there would have had to been at least one crew chief in the cargo hold with them). "Detectiveness" is not a real word either. However, if you wish to keep asserting that it really was Franken somehow taking this picture on his own using a timer and camera rig with nobody else on board, feel free. As it stands right now, the article reads Franken was also photographed appearing to grope her breast..., so the content does not take a stand on who it was that actually shot the picture one way or the other. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Which sources describe this as sexual assault?  Volunteer Marek  21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick review includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Caller, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, Salon, Variety and The Minneapolis Post. A lot of different publications, both left-wing and conservative, mainstream and fringe, have described it as "sexual assault." How many are declining to describe it as sexual assault, Marek? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• We should use neither Both "sexual misconduct" and "sexual assault" have definitions in various compilations of criminal law. To my knowledge there is no formal investigation, much less charges, much less convictions, of specific crimes. So we should take it seriously but still adhere to our neutrality policy by calling the allegations ones of "inappropriate sexual conduct". Besides, Ms Tweeden can't know if Franken's hands made contact with her gear/clothing. The pic is ambiguous on that point and by her own words she was asleep. At another time he apparently badgered her about a kiss, and she finally said "fine (probably thinking 'let's get this over with'). She said he was rough and and tongued her. The badgering might have been harassment, but that too is a word defined in law. If I were Tweeden, I'd be super pissed and disgusted. (Actually I am disgusted and I wasn't there) But these facts are pretty murky for purposes of criminal conclusions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Second allegation

Non neutral language in section heading purged by me, see full comment in the thread belowNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) A woman named Lindsay Menz has alleged that Franken grabbed her butt while they were posing for a photo together at the Minnesota State fair in 2010. This may be more troublesome for Franken since if true, it occurred after he became a member of the Senate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Senators should not be grabbing butts. Now that we have that out of the way, we have to be careful talking about Mrs. Menz' report. Per WP:NPOV we can not say this was a "sexual assault", nor for that matter should we give much weight to RSs that use that language. There are other RSs (CNN Example) that correctly point to the MN statute on point, which says touching a clothed butt doesn't even count for FIFTH degree sexual misconduct. On the other hand, maybe its fourth degree misconduct if he touched her with sexual intent. But Misplaced Pages editors are ill equipped to determine intent, so we can only say he's alleged of misconduct, and if he's ever investigated, or charged, or convicted, of "x" we can say that too. But until then we can't apply the names of crimes NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to the end of the introduction: Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden claimed in November 2017 that she was sexually assaulted by Franken twice in 2006. Dmurvihill (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrected semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

Okay here you go. This should be added to the end of the introduction (lede section):

Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden reported in November 2017 that Franken sexually assaulted her twice in 2006.

I added sources, and the absence of sources was the only objection offered. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Scroll up, and stop pretending that we don't have consensus. Dmurvihill proposed this edit without sources and I added the sources. That's two of us. Also read the comments by Corduroycap, Dogru144, Sleyece, AzureCitizen and in particular, Grayfell, Corky, and DHeyward. In opposition there's you, plus (possibly) have VSmith and Dr. Fleischmann. Possibly three. So supporting it I have two for certain plus, possibly, seven more. You have one for certain plus, possibly, two more. Are you going to insist that I need to go through the process of calling for an RFC and counting votes for 30 days? Or can you see which way the wind is blowing? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You DON'T have consensus. Not to put it in the lede. And not to call it "sexual assault". Volunteer Marek  21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear - if this leads to Franken resigning from the Senate or something, then yes, then it can go into the lede (though not as "sexual assault" unless it can be demonstrated that that's how most sources describe it). But as of now, no. Volunteer Marek  21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of prominent men who were accused of sexual misconduct and did not resign, yet somehow, the allegations are described (in greater detail than I've suggested) in the lede section. For example, see Roy Moore and Clarence Thomas, both of whom are Republicans; Thomas, like Franken, had only one accuser. So why should this left-wing Democrat be treated any differently than Moore and Thomas? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In both these cases the coverage was much more extensive and the effects long lasting. Here it's unclear if there will actually be any long term effects. Tweeden accepted his apology. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think it should be called "sexual assault." Please reread my comment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

But you agree it should be in the lede? And do you have any objection to pinpoint accurate terms such as "groped her breasts" and "forcibly kissed her"? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, "sexual assault" requires the perpetrator have sexual gratification as a motive. Franken apologized for how Tweeden felt, not what he did. He stood by his "humor" motive. While that was a rather pathetic apology and he should have been skewered by feminists, he wasn't and he hasn't admitted to any type of motivation beyond trying to be funny. I think Tweeden should be quoted in the section because every editor is watering down her account. We let Franken mansplain his behavior with a quote and we should balance it with Tweeden's “You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.” If it warrants a statement in the lead, I would call it "mistreatment" or "maltreatment." Franken disputes there was anything sexual about his conduct so it would be hard to say it in WP voice. --DHeyward (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that Tweeden should be quoted at length in the appropriate section about the sexual allegation: “You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later and be ashamed.” However, since she said "forcibly kissed me grabbed my breasts," the lede should include -- if not the words "sexual assault" -- then a paraphrase, as close as good English grammar will allow to her own words that she used to describe the incident: "forcibly kissed her and grabbed her breasts." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We actually avoid long block quotes. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That isn't a long block quote. It's two sentences. If you insist, I think we can take off the first one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic "he said/she said" case yet Misplaced Pages has managed to turn it into "he said/what men think she meant." It's lame. Quote Tweeden in the section that supposedly covers what she said. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a pretty straightforward application of WP:QUOTEFARM. In general we try to paraphrase quotes, unless they are ambiguous or there's encyclopedic value to the specific language being quoted. If you think you can adequately paraphrase Franken's quote, then by all means please go ahead and do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Wang, Amy B.; Bever, Lindsey; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (November 16, 2017). "'Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent,' broadcaster Leeann Tweeden says". The Washington Post.
2. Fandos, Nicholas (November 16, 2017). "Senator Al Franken Apologizes for Groping a Woman in 2006". The New York Times. Retrieved November 16, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

RfC: Should sexual assault allegation be in the lede?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lede section (introduction) of the Al Franken biography have the following added at the end: Sports commentator Leeann Tweeden reported in November 2017 that Franken forcibly kissed her and grabbed her breasts on a USO tour in 2006. Please post your votes, Yes or No in boldface below, with a bullet in front, and an explanation of your reasoning for your vote afterward. Please be sure to sign with four tildes. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Wang, Amy B.; Bever, Lindsey; Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (November 16, 2017). "'Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent,' broadcaster Leeann Tweeden says". The Washington Post.
2. Fandos, Nicholas (November 16, 2017). "Senator Al Franken Apologizes for Groping a Woman in 2006". The New York Times. Retrieved November 16, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

• Yes. This treats Franken in precisely the same way as many other public figures, both conservative and left-of-center -- including Louis C.K., Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas and Kevin Spacey -- who have been accused of sexual misconduct. In most of those biographies, since there was more than one accuser it's appropriate to devote more than one sentence to the allegations (and the consequences) in the lede, and on occasion discuss the allegations higher up in the lede. All I'm suggesting here is one sentence at the end of the lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. This is a non-starter because Tweeden didn't "report" anything here. She was simply telling her personal story. If that problem is fixed my inclination is to say that this event isn't sufficiently important to make it into the lead. Who knows, maybe the Tweeden thing will have long-lasting significance, but it's just too early to say that. Several of the other folks Phoenix and Winslow is comparing Franken to are in a very different category, where the alleged transgressions were much worse and/or they proved to be biographically important. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes the event should be mentioned though the exact details can be removed and consequences added. Whatever synonym for "reported" that DrFleischman wants is fine too. I would tend to leave out the name of the victim in the lead as well. In 2017, an entertainer that toured with Franken in 2006 complained about sexual misconduct. The complaint and a picture documenting the misconduct triggered a Senate investigation and an apology by Franken. --DHeyward (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• No.. And this sort of material should be removed from the lead of other figures when based solely on gossip or unsubstantiated claims (looking at Phoenix and Winslow's list - Clinton might be an exception as this was litigated / an issue in the attempted impeachment). Someone claiming Franken kissed her surely will not appear in a prominent location in a biography some years from now - it might not even appear at all - but it definitely won't be in the introduction. In terms of language - reported would be POVish, it should be said or claimed. It probably should appear in the body (though it might not 10 years from now).Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, not yet. A lot of these breathless updates ignore WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline: If this is a basic element of a person's biography a year, two years, or five years from now, then it won't hurt to wait until the immediacy is gone to figure it that it should be in the introduction — Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline. If it won't be important five years from now, then adding it to the introduction is a flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION. And WP:NOTDIR and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies not just to reliable sourcing, but also to weight: It is beyond the purpose of a general encyclopedia to provide a first-page notification that we're all supposed to be angry at the person this week. --Closeapple (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, at least not at this time, as undue WP:Recentism. If it ends up leading to a resignation, then probably yes. I'd argue that inclusion in ledes of some other men mentioned above is similarly undue and unwarranted: Weinstein is perhaps warranted given the scope and long-term 'open secret' of the allegations, but in Louis CK it just seems tacked on. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Animalparty: If it does lead to a possible resignation, I'd have to assume the reason for said resignation would be guaranteed in the lede as opposed to just "probably". 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• No Not a significant aspect of his life at this time, a section further down is appropriate. Certain right-wing media types are of course salivating over this and demand a tit-for-tat, but that's not how this actually work. If these allegations bring about a tangible reaction, e.g. a resignation, I'd change to a yes. ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Although there have been a number of allegations of sexual misconduct about powerful men lately, Mr. Franken's is one of the only ones in which we have actual physical evidence of it- the infamous photo. That photo of him groping (or pretending to grope) Ms Tweeden is now at the top of searches for Senator Franken. This incident will likely remain as one of the defining events of his life and career. A short mention of it in the introduction is definitely warranted. Also, because of the size of the section in the main body on the incident(s), a one sentence mention in the intro is proportional. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Admin note - To the eventual closer of this discussion, please note the above is a 4-day-old account that has only edited this article and 2 user talkpages in regards to the article. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @ValarianB: Among the feminist groups that I belong to, its common knowledge that attempts to add information on sexual crimes in Misplaced Pages is often met with pushback from the site's established editing bloc who generally try to downplay the level of sexual violence in modern Western culture. Shows that our society still has a long way to go. CorduroyCap (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please cease and desist with the charade. When you were blocked in 2013, it was for socking in an attempt to vote stack on a political article. When you were finally unblocked in 2015, a key condition from the Ban Appeals Subcommittee was that you would not sock, and would only edit from your main account. Don't make the mistake of thinking you're in the clear because you're using techniques to avoid a Checkuser as you did before; the behavioral evidence is readily self-evident just as it was last time. If you post with your sock again, you will force me to post the ban diffs and behavior proof with the same admins who actioned your case last time. In short, please respect the one editor = one !vote method of forming consensus, and play by the rules. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AzureCitizen that this would be extremely suspicious behavior even without the history of abusing multiple accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In a private feminist forum I participate in there is a thread on editing Misplaced Pages which, among other things, gives information on how to do basic editing. It also said that female editors who attempt to add information on sexual crimes should expect to receive bullying and hostility with one of the common reactions being accusations of "sockpuppeting" or "meatpuppeting" which is wiki-speak for "you are editing in a way I, an established editor, disapprove of." From what I read, unsupported accusations of sockpuppeting to try to intimidate a new editor is a violation of at least two Misplaced Pages policies. Does AszureCitizen get a pass on bullying new, women editors because he has been editing for longer or because he tries to minimize male sexual criminality? CorduroyCap (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the editor who just templated my talk page was not an "uninvolved administrator" but an editor who has opposed several of my suggested edits on this page. If that's not an attempt at intimidation-with-plausible-denial, I don't know what is. So far, my experience with Misplaced Pages and is exactly as how I was told would be. And all I did was suggest that a single sentence on this major story be included in the intro paragraph. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• CorderoyCap, a brand-new users already familiar with reply/ping, interesting. An encyclopedia is not perezhilton.com, more care is given here when discussing the addition of material to a WP:BLP (make sure you clock that and read it again), doubly so when it it involves issues of sexual assault allegations or the committing of a crime. As I said in my entry above, I'd be willing to change my "vote", as it is, if the Franken allegations actually affect his political career. At the moment, coverage in a sub-section is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And that of course means that he should be silenced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It means that his opinion should count less, yes. This topic area is rife with system-gaming. ValarianB (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @CorduroyCap: we also have physical evidence that Franken was in Stuart Saves His Family but that also does not require inclusion in the lede. --Animalparty! (talk)
• @CorduroyCap: You and your "feminist forum" are not correct and I find it hard to believe that you or other feminists have had so many difficulties. It's not that certain articles do not need improvement, they do. But in my experience, speaking as a feminist myself and being here for over 10 years, and being fully aware that men dominate WP and that dominance shapes our encyclopedia in a way that IMO needs improvement, I have not found, for the most part, male behavior comparable to that which you describe. Not at all. Actually quite the opposite. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. For the same reason Trump's Russia investigation is in his lede, it is highly noteworthy and has already results in several Democrats and Democratic candidate calling for his resignation. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Partial Lede yes, but no to the non-neutral term "sexual assault". There are allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior, to be taken seriously, but until he's charged with a crime, we should follow our neutrality policy by avoiding criminal legal terms ourselves. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. Lead sections are reserved for the most biographically significant aspects of the subject's life; text in the body of the article is appropriate. Neutrality 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. The lead section is reserved for a resumé of the most biographically important aspects of the subject's life. As to now those allegations are current event but not one of the determining biographical issues of Franken. Comparissons to Russiagate or Lewinskygate are incorrect as those were/are defining issues of those presidencies. Placing the text in the body of the article is appropriate. -- fdewaele, 21 November 2017, 19:15 CET.
• Not now. It should certainly be in the article, but it does not make sense in the lead. This is not—yet—a defining aspect of Franken's career. If he resigns from the Senate over this, then it will belong in the lead. agtx 18:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, it's too soon for that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, not in the lead. Moving forward, things may change. More victims may surface, the story may expand. Let's wait and see. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• No So far we have very little to suggest that this incident is important enough for the lead. If further believable serious allegations are made or he is removed from the Senate, which I find hard to believe, it would then become worthy of including. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. The discussion here has changed my mind. I'm confident that Ms. Tweeden's report will be remembered not just as a defining moment in Sen. Franken's career, but also as part of a string of allegations against major public figures that will eventually have a page of its own. But evidently there is not consensus for that, and Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline seems to apply. Dmurvihill (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just in the past couple of hours two more accusers have come forward, bringing the total to four. Tweeden's report has already become a defining moment out here in the real world. But within the cloistered confines of Misplaced Pages, we wait and see. And wait, and wait ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there are now four accusers is exactly why this shouldn't be in the lede as-of yet. Should we be updating the lede per every news story? No!, per WP:NOTNEWS. Unless it's clear that something important (such as a resignation or expulsion) will happen as a result of this, let's wait until the story develops before adding it to the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This type of special insight is desperately needed at Roy Moore as there has yet to be any development beyond accusations from the 1970's. Maybe it's the invention of the photograph that makes this situation too newsy as opposed to Moore. Spare us the OTHERSTUFF retroperistaltic reply of misogynistic hypocrisy. --DHeyward (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We will never see that special insight at the Roy Moore article. After all he isn't just a Republican, he's remarkably conservative even for a Republican, so he's just a meanie and a not very nice man, so any accusation -- no matter how uncorroborated, no matter how long ago -- is front and center. Meanwhile, here we have a cuddly, lovably left-wing fringe dweller serving halfway through his second term in the Senate and he must be protected at all costs by all good Wikipedians. So even though we see roughly the same number of accusers and one of them is corroborated by a photo of Franken reaching for her breasts and smirking for the camera, it's banished to the bowels of the article and the photo is banned. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I made the same argument at Talk:Roy Moore, while you have not yet bothered to express your apparently-ample opinions about the subject at the relevant talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No aspersions were cast. The fact is that it is in the lede for Roy Moore with a lot more detail than I expressed for here. I don't have a problem with it being in the lede in either article. Good for you if you are as consistent as I am. That is not the case for others that weighed with an unequivocal "Yes" for Moore and "No" for Franken. Don't hide under the ASPERSION bus, rather call out the hypocrisy that makes your emphatic "No" here pale in comparison to what happened over there. If you are consistent, call out the editors who are not. It's real easy to find them and your anger should be directed at them, not me as they are the ones opposing reasoned arguments in favor of partisan politics. Some weighed in only minutes apart on both issues. They are the ones that need to hear your arguments on consistency. Go be angry there as the the result is all that matters and they are ridiculing your oppose there while congratulating you here. Be angry on the page that says your input is wrong. Kind of pointless to rage here as it is the Moore articcle where your opinion is being discounted. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not at this time - it seems enough for a sub-subsection, but is not fit within the summary section WP:LEDE as it is not currently what makes him famous, nor had major impact on his life, nor is it large enough within this article. If it leads to his resigning or criminal charges, then it would get a lead mention. Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Probably not - I'd recommend checking back in in a month or two and seeing if anyone still even remembers it. GMG 11:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Its quite ridiculous how Franken can get away with little to no attention for his sexual misconduct allegations yet people like Trump and Moore had their allegations splattered into their respective ledes when they came out. Its just because Franken's a Democrat and most editors on this website align with them and almost always protect them when it comes to this stuff, if not we'd have been evenhanded with this and put the allegations into Franken's lede, no difference from his and Moore's. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a very strong and really, really despicable left-wing bias here at Misplaced Pages. Its worst practitioners deny it and then, in the same breath, they cheerfully proceed in treating whatever subject matter is at hand differently based on its value to, or loathsomeness as seen by the left. Here we see it in action. A bushel of accusers plus a photograph against Al Franken and it's not in the lede. Roughly the same number of accusers against Roy Moore with no photo and it's been in the lede since the first hour after the story broke. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on this page improving the Al Franken article. Complaints about systemic bias belong elsewhere, such as at WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Reminder that personally attacking editors and accusing them of bias in their resoning only damages your argument and furthers no contribution to the discussion. And for the record, no, the accusations against Moore and Franken are not equal, and Moore's are probably worse given what the victims have said. And your point about Trump doesn't make any sense because his allegations are not in his lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• No It's an accusation and Tweeden's narrative is contradictory and not verified by the photo she produced. Comparisons to child abuse, employement-setting harassment, or other such misconduct should be avoided here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• How is it "contradictory?" Are you saying her account is a lie? On what basis? Oh wait, you already weighed in on your reasoning. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. What possible basis do you have to think I accused this woman of lying? She said she agreed to rehearse a kiss, then she said he did it forcibly. Those are contradictory. She claimed he grabbed her breasts and "groped" her but released a photo that does not show him grabbing her. Etc etc. Perhaps we'll get some eyewitness accounts from the dozens of folks in close proximity or from the photographer and we will have more solid confirmation as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did she say agreed to rehearse a kiss? She said Franken wanted to rehearse a kiss and then forcibly put his tongue in her mouth. Not sure what source you think says she agreed to that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review the available sources and audio/video statements by Tweeden. SPECIFICO talk 04:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have. It's not there. Your denigration's are unsupported. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Cut it out since she clearly said she agreed because she felt "badgered" into it. This is reported in numerous sources. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You state this in 2017? By your reasoning, rape becomes consensual when the victim stops fighting? Heck, your saying it's consensual even though she fought before and after Franken forced his tongue in her mouth. Thank god you aren't involved in investigating sexual assault if you think consent is the absence of violent struggle. Here's her quote: 'Relax Al, this isn't SNL. … We don’t need to rehearse the kiss'," she wrote in a lengthy and detailed post on KABC's website. "He continued to insist, and I was beginning to get uncomfortable." Tweeden said she reluctantly agreed to rehearse the line leading up to the kiss and that's when Franken "came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth." "I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn't be so nice about it the next time," she said. "I felt disgusted and violated.". It's a pretty fucked up view if you think anything in that statement implies any sort of consent to be kissed, "badgered" or not. A disqualifyingly obtuse view and you should probably stop weighing in on it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh I don't think that I would be found to be disqualified at all. I've been working on WP women's articles for over 10 years. See for example this GA of mine 2012 Delhi gang rape. Also please see this google search: ] Gandydancer (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• No As with the comments I've made regarding allegations being added to Donald Trump and Woody Allen's ledes, these allegations haven't impacted their careers in any significant way. That could change, since the allegations against Franken are a current news story, but we should only include that in the lede after it happens.LM2000 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• No If anything it's WP:UNDUE, it's a mere accusation. It's basically 'Here's a brief summary of his life. He also groped someone. Apparently.' If he were to be arrested, charged and put on trial it would be more worthy. But for now it doesn't belong in the lede. My name is not dave (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• No The tweet, or somehow referring to it, probably belongs in the article, but not the lede. I regard the Rfc sentence of the tweet as WP:UNDUE. The topic is worthy, but only as a proportional part of the text in the lede. Perhaps the notion to use inappropriate sexual behavior (as put forth by NewsAndEventsGuy) is something to consider, worthy of further discussion. These allegations seem to be a defining part of Senator Franken's life and, as so, I believe should be mentioned in a sentence in the lede. This is an emotionally charged topic and I appreciate the AGF shown by so many.Horst59 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. (Summoned by bot) I think that given the length of this article and size of the lead, a mention of this highly significant issue should be included in the lead, as it has affected his career and there have been calls for his resignation. A sentence is not too much. Coretheapple (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Wait, if the allegations have a greater impact in his career, we should probably include it like in Harvey Weinstein or Roy Moore. Otherwise, I would oppose including it as I would in Donald Trump's article, where his allegations had only a brief relevance in the end of his 2016 campaign. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• No as the particular phrasing proposed is non-neutral and the subject is not necessarily at this point of sufficient importance to the life of Franken to really merit that degree of mention in the leaf. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• No - it would be WP:UNDUE to single out this specific accuser when there is now eight accusations and he has resigned - that is what should be in the lead - and this RfC should go ahead and be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite Error

References #111 and #112 of this article contain a cite error. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Fixed (see this edit). Corky  21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That fix actually seemed to have created a different error - I reverted the edit before noticing the former cite error. I'm working on sorting this out right now. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Got em. My apologies for not checking the talk page first - I thought I was seeing a regular old "messed up tags" cite error, but should have looked deeper since this is such a hot topic. Anyway, errors are sorted. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section, Abby Honold is misspelled as Hornold in the second mentioning of her name. Devinplatt (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Two more women come forward (total of 4 accusers in continuing saga)

Two More Women Accuse Sen. Al Franken Of Inappropriate Touching --DHeyward (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

AP coverage --DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sen. Al Franken says he 'crossed a line' USAToday --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly surfaced pics show Al Franken grabbing Arianna Huffington’s breasts and butt --DHeyward (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

From that article: "Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996. “The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post."--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is why she was not one of the four listed accusers. That particular incident was reported by someone that witnessed it and was not comfortable with it. People make up their own minds and "serial groper" has been mentioned more than once as well as the "it was just a joke." --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the biggest changes with the MeToo wave is that non-apologies and virtue signalling are insufficient excuses for unacceptable behaviour.

Al Franken still hasn’t denied grabbing women --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Video and script of skit contextualizing Tweeden kiss

These are primary sources, but they provide context for editors, regardless of whether there are ultimately RS reports concerning these facts. Tweeden apparently did not know or did not recount significant contextualizing facts concerning her interactions with Franken on the USO tour.

The script for this skit, which apparently was written for one of Franken's previous USO tours, was published in Mother Jones in 2004.
SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Tweeden isn't in or mentioned in any of this. How did you imagine it contextualized her experience? I guess we could thank Franken for not groping every woman he meets. It completely misses the mark. --DHeyward (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I see three things in the Mother Jones article: he discusses most of the women he mentions in terms of their sexuality; he calls several of the women "girls" or "young ladies", while the men are "guys", not "boys"; the photographer (during that tour) was his brother.

He also shows no awareness of the sad irony that the "girls" do a "bump-and-grind dance" in their burkas, then "peel them off and continue in their Redskins cheerleader outfits", because, after all, "we liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban". SarahSV 20:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You know what Slim Virgin, I'm betting that Franken would totally agree with you. Some people can learn from their past mistakes and some people just can not. I've learned a lot, including that even Playboy centerfolds and Hooter's top ten "girls" have feelings too. I have no end of respect for Twedden for so graciously accepting Franken's apology. We can all learn a lot from her. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Right. I mean, nobody here is suggesting that Tweeden knowingly misrepresented the incidents. SV: Yes the Mother Jones article accurately conveys the sexist, frat-boy, culture of male entitlement that has been the norm in these USO shows forever. So what. For the current WP article, the relevant point is that Tweeden was mistaken to think that Franken wrote the skit in 2006 so as to enable him to cop a kiss from her on that tour. It was a generic sexualized frat-boy ha-ha skit he'd done before. There are skits like that, or mocking gays, or similar "bad taste" skits on Saturday Night Live every week. And don't even think of going to a "comedy club" if that stuff is as repugnant to you as it is to me. Those of us who are troubled by this kind of gender-disparaging culture know, sadly, that the problem is far greater than an incidental expression of it in the Franken/Tweeden roadshow. For WP, the important point is that this has nothing in common with the Charlie Rose/Halperin/Weinstein et al. matters and as NPOV editors we must be mindful not to make any suggestion of a false equivalence. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifico, he chose to write that article the way he did. That isn't comedy; it's how he saw the world, and his recent statement (couched in relativist terms about how he's sorry the women felt that way) shows no sign that he sees things all that differently now. And the point about the skit is that it appears he did write it as an excuse to "kiss" women.

I feel that you've missed the point about this throughout. He insisted on rehearsing a fake kiss in a skit that did not need to be rehearsed. A woman agreed under duress. He then tried to swap that fake kiss for a real one, without her consent. When she reacted badly, he seems to have displayed an "ownership" attitude toward her, taking it out on her (in her view) in passive-aggressive acts during the rest of the tour. That's pretty disturbing. What would have happened if she had been his employee? This is how women have to live, at the beck and call of men with those attitudes. It isn't the trivial thing you make it out to be. SarahSV 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Having said that, I want to add that people can change, and if he really has made an effort to do that, then of course it should be welcomed. But I haven't seen a clear statement from him yet that indicates much heightened awareness. SarahSV 22:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I find the military-fratboy culture at least as disturbing as you do, SV. But Leanne also went along with it on the USO tour, as the photos show her forcibly kissing a soldier and asspinching etc. Others, I'm sure you know, show her putting her leg on poor Robin Williams' waist, etc. It sounds like the kiss was what was written in the script. So she, like Franken and countless others, has been an enabler of that culture. But the moral of the tale, which Franken did quickly acknowledge, is that even a Hooters/Playboy nude model is not really like that backstage. She just pretends. The worse part is that the story of the skit is itself repugnant, but as I said above that's what these tours are about. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

But please don't say "even a Hooters/Playboy nude model". Of course they're pretending. Again, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about fratboy culture, military culture, comedy clubs. I'm talking about how he, that individual, wrote that Mother Jones article: the words he chose, the thought process those words reveal. You posted it in his defence, but it illustrates the attitude that Tweeden described. And yes, I take your point that Tweeden went along with that culture. But a woman going along with it, and a man going along with it, are very different things. SarahSV 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't defend him. The only stand I have taken is that this incident is qualitatively different than the others I mentioned above. I also find it repugnant for those people to pretend to assume a role which is published as an icon to sexual harassment, abuse, and demeaning behavior of many kinds. it is every bit as immoral for an actor to accept the role of a Hooter Bunny as it is for a comedian to write a tasteless fratboy haha skit. I think we agree on most of this. Possible exception: I hold men and women to the same moral standard in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I do as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And Tweeden's whole career is arguably sustaining and promoting a gender-deprecating social and moral model. From "modeling" to the USO roles to her talk radio sports sidekick role. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not "arguably" at all. Other than her sexually attractive err... bosom and buttocks, she has no special talent at all, and she has made a lot of money off them, including her present sportscaster job. That said, I want to again repeat my respect and admiration for her to accept Franken's apology.Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that you've been defending him, belittling what she said, or arguing that she had misrepresented something. And the "same moral standard" argument is always used to defend sexism and racism, by failing to see that they're about power.

Imagine a comedy skit years ago where a white man pretends to be racist toward a black man, and the black man takes it. It's his job, he doesn't want to lose it; he takes the racism and smiles, and maybe even makes some racist jokes back.

Rehearsing one of the skits one day, something goes wrong. The white man goes too far, and the black man is offended and says so. For the rest of the tour, in the black guy's view, the white guy makes little passive-aggressive attacks, drawing horns on the other man's head on a photograph, for example. At the end of the tour, the white guy waits until the black guy is asleep, then arranges to have his photograph taken making a horrible racist gesture right next to the black man's body: maybe holding a noose and laughing, or wearing a sheet over his head. He does this knowing that the black man will see the photograph later.

Would we now be discussing whether the white man should be a senator? No. Even if the incident had happened decades ago, he would have had to resign immediately. SarahSV 23:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To use this comparison, an extremely attractive white woman to a black man from decades ago is very disrespectful of the position that people of color found themselves in both years ago, and even still today, as far as that goes. And, BTW, if she was so concerned about sexual stereotypical jokes, keep in mind that she willingly posed for naked Playboy photos and worked and modeled for Hooters, which as you know is an eating place where the "girls" put their breasts on prominent display and draw no end of comments. IOW, she does not exactly compare to a poor black man so in need of a job that he needed to put his pride and self respect aside, to say the least. Gandydancer (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh just stop. Other than her sexually attractive err... bosom and buttocks, she has no special talent at all, and she has made a lot of money off them, including her present sportscaster job. Are you really devolving into a "nuts and sluts" defense? Her job is radio broadcasting. Think about that as you ponder this line of attack. Also, we buried the "she was asking for it" excuse long before Franken was on a USO tour. Personally, I never heard of her before and it's rather abhorrent to hear this line of attack. Slut-shaming is simply not acceptable. Don't care how she dressed, where she modeled, or who she kissed - it's not an excuse to do what Franken did. Even he admits that even if it is mostly a lame "I am sorry about how you feel." --DHeyward (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the beauty of this as political fodder for Fox and others who are pounding it. It's impossible for neutral observers to contextualize it without being accused of misogyny and worse. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your use of this as political fodder rather than the neutral observation that this is a serious and credible account of actions that are incompatible with representing 50% of the population is clear. From all the coverage, Franken is showing that this is not isolated. The Washington Post noted today that he has yet to deny that he gropes women as a matter of course. In case you are confused, when Fox News and WaPo are on the same side, and you are opposed, it's you that has the "political fodder" problem.. No citation to Fox needed outside of your own mind. --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent that opinion piece as "The Washington Post". SPECIFICO talk 09:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop deflecting. There are a dozen articles about this on WaPo. It's not a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And if WaPo Opinion pieces are agreeing with Fox it's even more evidence of how far off the rails you are. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to go through the names of the various eds who are commenting to make sure everyone has the DS alert for US politics sometime in the past 12 months, but life is short. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Appearing" vs. "pretending" to touch breasts

Here is a quick sample of RS that say Sen. Franken pretended to touch Tweeden:

An editor has reverted this in favor of the inaccurate and speculative "appearing to touch", ironically claiming that the RS "pretending" is speculation.

Opinions? SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "pretending to grope" *is* speculation because Franken may have actually groped her. The fact that it's someone else's speculation that you repeated does not make it factual or neutral. Burnsbert (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there. I may have groped her and so have you, for all we know. Nobody has claimed that he actually groped her. We know that she felt humiliated when she saw the photo after the tour. And BTW everyone on the tour got the photo on their memento CD of the events. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Leean Tweedon *did* claim to be groped. Here is the piece she wrote alleging exactly that, in those words. http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/ Burnsbert (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The claim is refuted by photographic evidence, though. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

citation needed Burnsbert (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

? No. Most certainly not. The burden is on an editor who wishes to include this defamatory statement that he touched her, or even appeared to be touching her, when it was clearly a tasteless and deplorable attempt at humor. SPECIFICO talk

Accurately reporting an accusation is not defamatory. I provided my citation, which included a claim by Tweedon of being groped (not pretend groped). This is also what the photo appears to show. Here's that citation again http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/ You aren't arguing in good faith, and I think that will be clear to people who read this discussion without a political ax to grind. I'm done with this. Burnsbert (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Try to avoid commenting on the editors, but a more direct (without appearing or pretending) quote from a RS that I presented below is available here. Arkon (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'm going to avoid it so completely that this will be my last comment in this discussion. I'm obviously losing my patience with it. Burnsbert (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. One reason this has conflicting sources is that there were undue references in the initial reports. Recent reporting overwhelmingly discusses him pretending/mugging, etc. And Franken continues to apologize, as he should, because unless she was in on the gag, it is disrespectful and she says it is humiliating. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would be understood that I meant no credible secondary source has stated that he groped her. She can credibly claim that she was humiliated. It's possible, or at least nobody can refute that. She can't credibly claim, and no RS has stated, that he groped her -- citing evidence of his trademark goofball (like it or not) steak-eatin' grin. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The article should at least report her accusation accurately. You made false claims about what that was above. Now you seem to be presenting an entirely different objection. My objection to your earlier change is that it injected speculation about what happened ("pretended") and did much to obscure what Al Franken is being accused of. In a neutral tone, the article should present the allegation accurately along with Franken's response to it. This isn't hard - until people let their politics creep in. Misplaced Pages isn't Vox or Federalist or Politico or Twitter. Leave the politicizing of a sexual assault claim for somewhere else. Burnsbert (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

She can credibly claim what she wishes, and plenty of credible secondary sources have presented that claim. I wouldn't expect any RS to present that as -factual- of course, cause well, it's a claim. I feel like I'm missing something here... Arkon (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The article cannot state her unsubstantiated accusation as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. Where are the dozens of witnesses who were in the cabin and the many more who received a CD memento of Franken's lame clowning? None has confirmed her surmise about what happened while she slept or pretended to sleep or catnapped or whatever she was doing. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your objection at this point. I specifically stated we can't state it in WikiVoice (though I did find a RS that says it quite factually, strangely enough, to quote: The photo featured her asleep and Franken holding her breasts.). The rest of your comment appears to be your opinion, which isn't very helpful against the horde of RS's on the issue. Arkon (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I had typed a previous response that included the not in WikiVoice comment but replaced it with the point regarding RS's stating it as fact, so agreed on the "we can't say this happened in WikiVoice" point. Arkon (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• The very first source on that list (at least for me) says ...either groping or pretending to grope..., which is about as straightforward as it gets. Regardless, search results are of limited use in cases like this. Searching specifically for the contested word is not the best way to determine which word to use, because, among other things, it's a biased sample. The result also includes Daily Mail and other tabloid nonsense which shouldn't be confused for useful. "Appearing" is more neutral, as it allows for either interpretation. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't like googling for donuts myself. However in this case it quickly refutes the reverter's contention that it is not sourced. We can discuss weight and nuance and language, but the revert was not well-founded imo. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What contention, exactly? Being unsourced was not specifically part of that edit summary. Even so, "pretending" was not included in either of the two attached sources, so it seems reasonable to call that speculation. Sourcable =/= sourced. Just because sources might exist somewhere in some context doesn't mean that a statement is sourced. Neither source says anything at all about this being a pretend grope (whatever that means) but the NYT one says the photo shows Franken with his hands placed over Ms. Tweeden's breasts as she slept. The appearance of the photo, according to this and other sources, is that he is touching her, which is logically compatible with pretending to touch her, and it is also compatible with actually touching her. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you check the google results? It's more than 2 sources, and they say "pretend". The reverter asserted the false claim that "pretend" is not used in sources. SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Where did the reverter assert that? This revert? That's not my reading of the edit summary. You assert that "sources almost all now say pretending, not touching" but the sources that are currently used for the attached statement did not say this at all. Pointing to an editor-curated search results on a talk page is not an acceptable substitute for citing a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asserted, SPECIFICO. I said assuming that he only pretended to grope her was speculation, and it is. Please don't misrepresent what I said. Burnsbert (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And I suppose "appearing" is not speculation? RS say "pretending" as I demonstrated with my quick and dirty google link. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on how recent reporting and discussion refers to it. Here is one from today's Washington Post. Commentator Garrison Keilor states "pretending".

"never mind" 😫 SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Appeared to grope. Personally I'm not interested in cherry-picking exercises on either side. It looks to me from my own searching on Google News that many, many more reliable sources have been using "appeared to grope" rather than "pretended to grope" and that most of the ones that use "pretended to grope" are in the context of "groped or pretended to grope," which conveys a very different meaning. The one notable exception to this is USA Today, which has published multiple articles saying Franken pretended to grope, but it appears to be an outlier. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should not cherrypick. However cherrypicking is selecting for content rather than for date or notability of the source. Using the more recent RS is entirely appropriate, and in fact it's necessary with recent events articles of all kinds. What does the weight of recent RS narratives say? Of course "pretended to grope" is a subset of "appeared to grope" so there will always be more statements of the former, even where the same source also says the latter. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, as DrFleischman and Grayfell pointed out, your Google search results literally prove the exact opposite of what you claim. Respectfully, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for any of your extraordinary claims, e.g., that "more recent RS" have uncovered new evidence decisively proving that no groping occurred. Until you are willing to engage others in a more honest way, rather than constantly assuming facts not in evidence, I do not expect your arguments to gain much traction here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Forget Google and find the best word and justify your choice. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Looks like, based on yesterday's allegation by a sixth woman, that the Democrats are now turning en masse on Franken and he will likely resign tomorrow. If so, will we mention in the lede why he resigned? If he doesn't resign, is it significant that nine leaders within his own party called for his resignation, meriting a mention in the lede? CorduroyCap (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No point guessing what happens in tomorrow's encyclopedia. Wait for the weight of RS and reflect that in article content. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a first-person accusation?

I added a cite for the latest accusation against Franken--writer (and former congressional aide) Tina Dupuy charged Franken with groping her in 2009. My edit was removed shortly after by SarekOfVulcan (CORRECTION: by SPECIFICO) with the note "primary sourced BLP claim".

I don't see why this edit is a violation of either WP:BLP or WP:PRIMARY. Per WP:PRIMARY, we should only use primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". I believe this meets the criterion: The statement of fact is, simply, that Dupuy accused Franken, which anyone can verify by looking at her article. Similarly, on WP:BLP, it says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Given the "...to augment the secondary source" note, would it be acceptable if I add a secondary source referring to Dupuy's article, as well as leaving the cite to Dupuy's article itself? — Narsil (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That was SPECIFICO, actually. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops--my apologies! Writer needs coffee badly. ;-) Regardless, I went ahead and edited it as described--I added a Politico link (to establish that the accusation was noteworthy) as well as the first-person account in The Atlantic. Is good? — Narsil (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Narsil, that's not what the policy is intending to say. It's meant for things like SPECIFICO's phone number is 555-1212. But anyway, that does not establish noteworthiness and due WP:WEIGHT. Having said that, I thank you for your constructive response and I think it's not worth fussing with all these accusations real-time, because the facts and due weight of RS reporting will become much clearer with time. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that Franken is no longer a player in national politics, I think that we'll see a dramatic drop-off in the amount of edit-warring and attempts to intimidate new editors from participating in content discussions regarding this article. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Resignation section

I am new to this page, and seeing all the edit warring, I hesitated to make an edit without discussing it here first. At the end of the "Allegation of misconduct" section, is it necessary to still include the sentence, "Franken announced that he would make a statement on December 7."? Yes, it was news at the time (yesterday), but it has been trumped by his actual resignation statement. I propose we strike that sentence, as it is now old news and outdated, and move the sentence preceding it to the "Senate resignation" section, so that it reads:

Senate resignation

On December 6, more than two dozen Democratic Senators called on Franken to resign. Franken announced the following day that he would be resigning his Senate seat "in the coming weeks". Kerdooskis (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That he announced a statement isn't notable, the statement is. I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I just added a few small objective details to the misconduct section. Then I saw all this discussion. The things I inserted were dates, sources, and pertinent quotes from the accusers. It's nothing controversial, so I hope you'll keep the changes. These are things that I wanted to find out when I came here, but I had to go looking for them on my own. So I did the type of minimal editing that I normally do.Ramseyman (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for general event article

There needs to be a single general article or just a list at least of these recent resignations and firings.-Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9A1B:4C7E:BC44:6336:4C22:9457 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. With Franken and Franks, at least, resigning due to sexual misconduct issues, and Farenthold under investigation, this is becoming a significant event overall. --Mrfeek (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there already is such a page, Weinstein effect. Franken is listed there. Honestly, at this point we might want a category tag, too. "Sexual misconduct allegations of 2017"? Or just "Pervnado"? ;-) — Narsil (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Second shoe to drop

The article seems weird at this point. It has this sentence in the lede: "After Franken was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women in November 2017, he announced his intention to resign from the Senate on December 7th, 2017." And then literally not another word about the issue in the rest of the page. A reader not familiar with recent events will be left wondering when the second shoe is going to drop.Ebw343 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all in the "Allegations of misconduct and Senate resignation" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I searched the page for the word "sex" thinking that "sexual" would be used. Sorry.Ebw343 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Succession

While the Governor has indeed named Tina Smith to the vacancy which will eventually occur, none of this is official until Franken actually resigns. I'm not sure she even qualifies as a "designate" yet. JTRH (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's true Smith won't officially be a Senator until Franken resigns and she gets sworn in. However, what is it that officially makes someone a "designate"? Isn't it the status of having been publicly named by the Governor as a successor to the Senate? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an official definition of designate, and I don't know what else to call it. JTRH (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we can say that Dayton has said that he plans to appoint Smith, because that's documented. True, it's not official until it's official (i.e. nothing would legally stop either Dayton or Franken from changing their minds), but we can note what they've said they'll do. — Narsil (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we even need to worry about it; Misplaced Pages is not news. Unless there's some reason to care about when the governor said something, whatever is added now will be trivia once the successor is actually sworn in. --Closeapple (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, eventually it'll be a trivial detail. JTRH (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologetics and minimization of sexual harassment

I was surprised to see the lengths that Misplaced Pages writers/editors have gone to make Franken's forced kissing and groping of multiple women seem like a series of innocent misunderstandings. They were not, and all of the women involved were clear on this point. These were adults, professionals and mature women, and in the view of the women affected, there was precious little room for misinterpretation of Franken's actions. Most of the more pointed comments from the women themselves have been excised from this article, and the section regarding his forced kissing and groping does not accurately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Frankly, the way the section currently reads, it's unclear why any of the women complained in the first place, why Franken apologized, why the senate ethics committee is investigating, and why he has resigned. 2601:CB:8001:280E:E573:8A02:1AA9:AE67 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If so, that reflects what is known about these events. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO it describes the alleged actions in enough detail for readers to draw their own conclusions, and if they feel they need more context or details, they can always follow the links. — Narsil (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Media articles
• Low-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• GA-Class Minnesota articles
• High-importance Minnesota articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Selected anniversaries (May 2017)