| Revision as of 15:37, 9 September 2020 editGandydancer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,205 edits →Recent edits reverted: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:00, 23 November 2020 edit undoTricksterWolf (talk | contribs)479 edits →"Oops": new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| ::I left a notice on your talk page.]] 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC) | ::I left a notice on your talk page.]] 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :{{u|SPECIFICO}}, did you notice any edits which you agreed with so I know which ones to focus on? You reverted my edits so I must discuss this with you before restoring anything. ] (]) 02:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC) | :{{u|SPECIFICO}}, did you notice any edits which you agreed with so I know which ones to focus on? You reverted my edits so I must discuss this with you before restoring anything. ] (]) 02:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == "Oops" == | |||
| I just now made an edit (two: the second one fixed a typo in the citation) to add a duplicate citation somewhere that seemed lacking, then I changed my mind and thought maybe it wasn't as necessary as I'd thought. This is when I learn you can't even roll back your ''own'' edits without special permissions (oops), so I'm not sure if I should try to modify it back to the way it was, or just wait for somepony else to do it (if they feel it needs reverting, anyway). ] (]) 00:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:00, 23 November 2020
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 21, 2017. |
Should his listing as a Senator be removed or changed?
He resigned, so, he's now a private citizen. Thus, the caption under his photo should be changed. Skaizun (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- It has his dates in office. It doesn't imply that he's currently there. JTRH (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's fairly normal to continue referring to someone as their title after they leave office - President Bush, for example, rather than ex-President Bush. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of external links
Pvmoutside, why did you delete two external links (one of them a late Wayback scrape of Franken's own website)? -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- They don't work....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- How did they not work, Pvmoutside? ("404" messages from the Internet Archive, perhaps?) One link worked for me when I added it (I didn't check the other at that time); both worked for me just minutes before I asked the question above; both worked for me just minutes ago. I therefore propose adding
- * (alfranken.com) as archived by the ] on February 24 2018
- * as archived by the Wayback Machine on January 6 2018
- (The latter link is, I think, a slight improvement over the second one that you deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- usually former senators have their campaign pages and official Senate pages deleted unless they run again. The first page is not his official page, but a PAC page. If you insist on adding it, please identify it as such. The second page I deleted was a wayback calendar with no mention of Franken. Your proposed 2nd page change is better, but the page appears as if he is an active Senator, which he is not. In my opinion, both pages would be better not added, but if you insist, the replacement set is better.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've readded them, in slightly reworded form. I believe that we can trust readers of an encyclopedia to realize that what's said in an page archived at Wayback may no longer be true (particularly when many regular, "live" pages say things that are out of date). I don't rate myself as particularly intelligent (and indeed others have rated me as unusually stupid; see my user page for miscellaneous psychiatric evaluations). However, I'd feel that even my limited intelligence were being insulted if given a link described as something like Franken's U.S. Senate website as archived by the Wayback Machine on January 6 2018: does not reflect changes to his status since that time and indeed may not have been up to date even when archived. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- althougb i'd rather see them not there, the link descriptions are better and something i can live with.....Pvmoutside (talk)
- I've readded them, in slightly reworded form. I believe that we can trust readers of an encyclopedia to realize that what's said in an page archived at Wayback may no longer be true (particularly when many regular, "live" pages say things that are out of date). I don't rate myself as particularly intelligent (and indeed others have rated me as unusually stupid; see my user page for miscellaneous psychiatric evaluations). However, I'd feel that even my limited intelligence were being insulted if given a link described as something like Franken's U.S. Senate website as archived by the Wayback Machine on January 6 2018: does not reflect changes to his status since that time and indeed may not have been up to date even when archived. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- usually former senators have their campaign pages and official Senate pages deleted unless they run again. The first page is not his official page, but a PAC page. If you insist on adding it, please identify it as such. The second page I deleted was a wayback calendar with no mention of Franken. Your proposed 2nd page change is better, but the page appears as if he is an active Senator, which he is not. In my opinion, both pages would be better not added, but if you insist, the replacement set is better.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- How did they not work, Pvmoutside? ("404" messages from the Internet Archive, perhaps?) One link worked for me when I added it (I didn't check the other at that time); both worked for me just minutes before I asked the question above; both worked for me just minutes ago. I therefore propose adding
Mayer's reporting
An IP editor removed text quoted from the Jane Mayer New Yorker article in sources and disparaged her reporting. I note that her Misplaced Pages article notes nine awards conferred and that she was a finalist for a tenth. Activist (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring over sexual misconduct accusations??
It seems like there may be some back and forth edit warring over the inclusion of the words inhuman (not really a word) and rightly in the second paragraph of the introduction on the sexual misconduct accusation against sen. franken. Thankfully both words have been removed and just want to a blurb about why I think they shouldn't be included, inhuman is a weird way to frame sexual misconduct as it adds another unnecessary descriptor onto action that are already wrong and rightly assumes that fraken has been convicted of what is being alleged, which he has not. like it or not all of the accusations right now are just that and wikipedia shouldn't take a stand on whether they are right or not. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Text for Tweeden photo: groping, pretending, hovering, touching, reaching chest/breasts?
Gandydancer, I feel like this line which I had added, "pretending to grope (or possibly actually groping)" accurately reflects the sum of the RS. "Pretending to grope" alone is not what most RS say, but the full quote covers everything.
- "A photo shows Al Franken touching Leeann Tweeden’s chest. Many media reports still say he ‘allegedly’ groped her." Washington Post
She had, unlike so many other victims of harassment, hard evidence. This was not a case of her word against his, he said against she said; Tweeden had, via that photo of Franken groping and grinning, the receipts.
"Al Franken, That Photo, and Trusting the Women", Atlantic Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Per the Post source you offer, that source also says that that is not the opinion of most news reports. Re the Atlantic, you can as easily find another Atlantic article saying that his hands were "hovering over her". Let's not get into an argument in this Franken bio about whether or not his hands actually touched her or not. Unless you want to pull in numerous sources that give their own version of what happened. Gandydancer (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gandydancer:, yes, we can find many sources saying many things. I'm trying to find language that accurately sums it up with proper weight. From the WaPo source: "Merrill Perlman, a former New York Times copy desk director, explained why she would advise against a flat-out declaration that Franken groped Tweeden:
Since it's a still , we don't know what he did before or after. So the safest thing is to say he touched her chest. We can't assume that Franken squeezed her chest, or moved his hands in a groping movement, or touched her in this one movement and withdrew his hands. "Groping" implies action. The safest and most accurate course is to say that the photo clearly shows him touching her chest with his hands cupped (while mugging for the camera, maybe). That's descriptive of the photo and avoids any journalistic assumption of what the action was.
- Many sources say he "touched her chest". The Mayer story says, without quotes, Tweeden "said that it wasn’t until she returned home and received a CD of images from the tour photographer that she saw the image of Franken pretending to grope her while she slept." Maybe we could say he was
photographed pretending to grope her breasts while appearing to touch her chest.
What do you think? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)- According to the skit done on the show he said he was a doctor and would need to "examine" her breasts. It was funny and unfortunately Franken continued with his having fun while she slept, and she did not find it to be funny at all. She felt she was being mocked. She deserved an apology and Franken admitted he was wrong and apologized. Again, more sources than not say he held his hands over her breasts rather than to say he placed them on her breasts. Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is that from a source or your opinion? We would need to evaluate whether more sources said he held his hands over her breasts or actually touched her chest. I'm thinking:
On the flight back from the tour, Franken was also photographed pretending to grope her breasts by reaching out to touch her chest while she...
It sounds like we may be at an impasse, so we may need a third opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC) - I think
reaching out to touch her chest
is perfect because it doesn't necessarily mean that he touched her, but would be accurate if he did. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is that from a source or your opinion? We would need to evaluate whether more sources said he held his hands over her breasts or actually touched her chest. I'm thinking:
- According to the skit done on the show he said he was a doctor and would need to "examine" her breasts. It was funny and unfortunately Franken continued with his having fun while she slept, and she did not find it to be funny at all. She felt she was being mocked. She deserved an apology and Franken admitted he was wrong and apologized. Again, more sources than not say he held his hands over her breasts rather than to say he placed them on her breasts. Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Per the Post source you offer, that source also says that that is not the opinion of most news reports. Re the Atlantic, you can as easily find another Atlantic article saying that his hands were "hovering over her". Let's not get into an argument in this Franken bio about whether or not his hands actually touched her or not. Unless you want to pull in numerous sources that give their own version of what happened. Gandydancer (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits reverted
I have undone the recent edits, which appear to go against the NPOV version that was hashed out by many editors over an extended period of time and work. Recent edits also suppress text that reflected Democratic congressional regret RE: Sen. Gillebrand initiative. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Continued at #11:42, 8 September 2020 version, below.
- Thanks SPECIFICO. We worked for quite some time to find consensus on this matter and it is upsetting to see an editor move in and do so much altering of what we accomplished. This is not the way we hope to be able to write and sustain good Misplaced Pages editing/articles. When we write bios our subjects deserve better treatment. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, did you think some of my edits were good? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you did was similar to having someone make a similar slew of edits to the Emmett Till article or Elizabeth Warren's Pocahantas problems as though you had every reason to "improve" them. Surely you must be aware of how sensitive this article is regarding Franken's charge of sexual misconduct after many years without even a whisper of inappropriate behavior with perhaps the exception of some behavior similar to that which Biden has been accused of. I was so bewildered by your rash of edits that I hardly knew where to begin. Each change you wished to make should have been discussed. I was ever so happy to see SPEC come along and revert you. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, did you think some of my edits were good? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
11:42, 8 September 2020 version
This topic was split off from #Text for Tweeden photo: groping, pretending, hovering, touching, reaching chest/breasts?#Recent edits reverted, above.
- I went over the text very carefully; can you tell me if you noticed any edits which you agreed with? I did include text about Gillibrand's action, did you miss that or did you disagree with the parts I did remove about her? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, you mentioned disagreeing with the Gillibrand edits I made. As I said in my edit summary, I felt that the amount of text about Gillibrand was UNDUE, but I felt one line was appropriate in that paragraph. (There is also a line about her at the end of the first section of the assault allegation.) What do you think we need to say about Gillibrand? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I left a notice on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, did you notice any edits which you agreed with so I know which ones to focus on? You reverted my edits so I must discuss this with you before restoring anything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"Oops"
I just now made an edit (two: the second one fixed a typo in the citation) to add a duplicate citation somewhere that seemed lacking, then I changed my mind and thought maybe it wasn't as necessary as I'd thought. This is when I learn you can't even roll back your own edits without special permissions (oops), so I'm not sure if I should try to modify it back to the way it was, or just wait for somepony else to do it (if they feel it needs reverting, anyway). TricksterWolf (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Categories:- 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)