Talk:Al Franken/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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.[1]

The script for this skit, which apparently was written for one of Franken's previous USO tours, was published in Mother Jones in 2004. [2]
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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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.[3][4]. 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: [5]

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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". [6]

"never mind" [7] 😫 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)

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

• 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 Wikipedia: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 — Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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."[8]. 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: [[9]] 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)

The discussion above 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.

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)

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; Wikipedia 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 alleged sexual harassment

I was surprised to see the lengths that Wikipedia 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)

Just realized the section header was BLP-noncompliant. Fixed. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 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)

We're not allowed to use the word "sexual" to describe his misconduct. He's a Democrat. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (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".[130] 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)

I came back and found that for the last two accusers, the objective details that I had added were inadvertently deleted when that portion of the section was reorganized by someone. I have briefly re-entered the identities of the accusers and the gist of their accusations, without going into any details or arguments. In light of all the wrangling here about whether the allegations are "sexual" or not, and "assault" or not, it seems quite important to have at least this basic data included in the article, for factual reference. I hope everyone can agree on at least that much. Ramseyman (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20180224162528/https://www.alfranken.com/ Franken's website] (alfranken.com) as archived by the [[Wayback Machine]] on February 24 2018

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20180106013805/https://www.franken.senate.gov/ Franken's U.S. Senate website] 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)