Difference between revisions of "Talk:Al Franken"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(This page: I won't start a fight over it)
Line 83: Line 83:
:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition.  Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:10, September 16, 2008


Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time SirJim 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [1] and could get this site in serious trouble. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Sources added, libel avoided. Karajou 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. Karajou 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is clearly being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--RossC 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. Karajou 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--RossC 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting certain people I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Books and credibility

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which he plagiarized from another source! --Ed Poor Talk


There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. LiberalSmack 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You can't cite being a radical. Learn together 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.

  • Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately smears and defames people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
  • The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
  • "even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
  • Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
  • We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.

On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? Learn together 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, considering the fan magazine article that is Ann Coulter on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. Learn together 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

No Response

It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

[2] Learn together 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. Learn together 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. Learn together 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Learning, as I am a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the Hamas paints too kind an image of them. ---user:DLerner--- 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

wrestling stars

I meant a source for the state being known for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... HenryS 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. Learn together 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

The edits stay

What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. Karajou 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
My attitude? And your's doesn't count? Karajou 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. Karajou 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. Learn together 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --Jareddr 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? HenryS 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --Jareddr 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? HenryS 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--Jareddr 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? HenryS 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking here shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --Jareddr 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. HenryS 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--Jareddr 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Do we do OR here? I can't remember. HenryS 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --Jareddr 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. Karajou 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

This page

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. NateE 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. Learn together 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Seeing as what just happened here, I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB here shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. NateE 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)