Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them/Archive 1

POV?[edit]

Just looking through this, the Rebuttal Link reads "A research-based website that attempts to highlight alleged falsehoods and errors in Franken's book." Not too much of a problem, however, saying 'attempts' to highlight 'alleged' (which, after becoming acquainted with some WP rules, is a 'weasel-word'. The thing I have a problem with is the Counter-Rebuttal "Website that refutes conservative smears and allegations against Franken" specifically saying "conservative smears" out of a quote in an encyclopedia is most certainly biased, to quote wiktionary "To refute a proposition is to show beyond argument that it is false." Essentially, this is saying that the Counter-Rebuttal websites are correct and the Rebuttal sites are wrong, which I think is overtly POV.

I've attempted to even it out the best I can. "Repudiate" (to deny) seemed more neutral than "refute" (to prove false beyond any doubt), considering that the Rebuttals were not described as undeniable fact. Should still be edited for those 'weasel-words'...66.69.88.64 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty obvious that all these 'anti' vs 'pro' external links at the bottom of the page don't belong in a real encyclopedia, both here and on Michael Moore etc, because these sites get absolutely no review - i wonder if such links are appropriate even on entries like George W. Bush and John Kerry. for example, try this [6] link: if you read it from start to finish, you'll discover that the guy who wrote this forgot to take his pills... he's a lunatic... i saved that page in case he actually reads what he wrote and modifies it... other than that i only read his Bowling for Columbine 'it's a wonderful world' scene page, and that was more than enough for me.

for now, i just added 2 'pro' sites to the links here for balance - but i really think that the standards on wikipedia right now are way too low, because any lunatic can create a site and add it to wikipedia. i think that we should stick to criticism by more established sites, such as the W post review we have here - the NY times and W post etc are bad enough as they are - no need for mentally instable reviews too. --Nimc 14:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying I love the book (and I've cited it several places on Wikipedia), so if anything, I would be biased in favor of the book. I was the one who added the anti-franken external links. I think they're informative, and quite relavant to the article. The manual of style explictely says that external links are good. Our NPOV policy suggests that we should have a balance of pro and anti LLLWTT sites. The user can use his own good judgement when viewing sites, but we're not going to refuse to link to them. →Raul654 15:08, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

the issue is not neutral POV, the issue is which POVs are worth mentioning. you seem to suggest the anyone that has the skills to create a website, and spend his time filling his site with what he wants, deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia - i.e., the actual content of the site is not important in your opinion, or more precisely: you don't think that there should be a lower bar on having a minimally reasonable content. i don't know about the rest of his site, but at least that link i mentioned is completely crazy. i still think that removing all these 'anti' and 'pro' sites would have been better, also because they create wars on wikipedia (see the history of Michael Moore) - i think it's better to link only to sources that are willing to risk the reputation they supposedly have, like the W post review link. --Nimc 16:39, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There *is* an unofficial minimal bar - "does the link add relavant information to the discussion?" That's why I said above that yes, the site does introduce new information, which is why it is worth linking to. I think it's better to link to a blantatly partisan site (provided it's framed that way) rather than not having any links at all. →Raul654 16:45, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

i'm not sure how you define partisan, but that site frames itself as non-partisan it appears. anyway, that specific site is not the issue, i just used it for the example. i'm not sure about adding relevant info either, as i said i think that such info should be minimally reasonable. another example, we have a link to professor werner cohn sci-fi book on Noam Chomsky - again we're probably dealing here with a person who is mentally instable, who in fact supported rabbi kahana who was described by israeli court as a nazi, but just because he is a professor and he wrote a long book, he should be linked there? does he add relevant info to the discussion, assuming we agree that his book is about all sort of fantasies that evolved in his head, without any relation to reality...? --Nimc 17:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does this article have it wrong about Franken's position in the book? Salon.com's interviewer states the following to Franken in an interview: "In your book you say that there's really not a liberal bias in the media, and not even necessarily a conservative bias, but more of a global profit-motive bias, which is why news is skewed towards the sensational, violence and sex. Is there any sex or violence scandal I should know about you before I take this to my editor?" [7] Koyaanis Qatsi 14:31, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

kq, I haven't read the book or <shudder> talked personally with Franken. So my only conception of what his views might be, come straight from the Washington Post review of his book.

BTW, the new political spectrum (as seen by liberals) is that they are mainstream, and conservatives are the far-right. Meanwhile, conservatives maintain that they are "right" and liberals are "left". We can't even agree on the meanings of political labels! --Uncle Ed 15:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

let's just say "the selfish bigots" and "the liberals". ;) -- Tarquin 16:22, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Right. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:51, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Wash Post and the other book review link will be dead links in a coupler of months. Try to link to something more enduring.Mbstone 03:18, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When you find something better, please make the change. Vicki Rosenzweig 03:30, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

P.S. A better book upon which to start a debate on left-right media bias would be The Spike by Moss and de Borchgrave.Mbstone 03:18, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a debate site, and/but there's no reason not to have articles on both books. Vicki Rosenzweig 03:30, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should we have a section of where one can by the book and at a discount? Smith03 01:01, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, I've added the ISBN which automatically links to Special:Booksources so people can see where to buy them. Angela 01:06, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

As I read it, the article is wrong. Franken doesn't criticize her for using endnotes, he criticizes her for calling them footnotes. A footnote, by definition, goes at the foot of a page; an endnote goes at the end of the paper. It's not exactly rocket science --Raul654 21:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"political satire by satirist Al Franken..."[edit]

That seems a little redundant to me, but I'm not sure how it could be worded better. Political humor by satirist Al Franken? Political satire by humorist Al Franken?

Or is it supposed to be a jocular reference to Franken's redundant title? In which case it seems to me that it needs to be more extreme if readers are supposed to get the joke ("this is a book of political satire by satirizing satirist Al Franken").

Just my $0.02...

Dpbsmith 00:09, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder whether Fox deserves its prominent mention in the first paragraph. The article is not about Fox, it's about Franken's book, which probably would have been a best seller without their help.Mbstone 05:46, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's absolutely not true. Franken himself said something along the lines that many, many more people will read the book as a result of Fox's lawsuit than if they had not filed suit. The lawsuit probably increased sales by an order of magnitude. --Raul654 07:44, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- That's because controversy sells. By suing Franken, Fox made the book controversial, and there's nothing better for book sales - nothing at all that makes people want to read a book more - than it being something that somebody Does Not Want You To Read. -- Iceberg3k 12:59, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)[edit]

Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, he is an independent. Read his article please. :) Sam [Spade] 23:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please explain your reverts. Sam [Spade] 23:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Calling him Independent is a bit of a stretch. He might be registered as such but his views are pretty far to the right of liberal.--Deridolus 08:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is a registered republican, this is discussed in this very book, along with an image of O'Reilly's voter registration form, clearly indicating that he is of the aforementioned party. --24.51.94.14 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the wikipedia article on Bill O'Reilly "O'Reilly has been registered as having no party affiliation since 2001." So who exactly is (to paraphrase this articles title) the "lying liar telling a lie" here? (to clarify, I'm asking "Who is wrong/lying here, you? the people who made the Bill O'Reilly article? or Franken?", since if he uses something that hasn't been true for two years, at the time of publishing, to attack someone for circumventing the truth, then...)

Table of Contents[edit]

Do we really need to list the table of contents in the article? That seems like overkill to me. It doesn't really impart any useful information to the reader. I'd get rid of it, but I want to check first to see if there are any people here who really think it should stay. Dave the Red (talk) 07:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see some sort of analysis of its content, particularly about how factually accurate it is. I know there are rebuttal links, but I rather doubt they're not without bias.--Deridolus 08:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the table of contents, for the reasons listed above. --Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article[edit]

Compare this article to that for Ann Coulter's Godless, and you'll see how biased Wiki can be. C'mon, folks. We can do better than this. There is no mention of the charges of plagiarism and factual inaccuracies in Franken's book. [[8]] and [[9]] D323P 04:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these charges published in reliable, verifiable sources? ("Frankenlies.com" doesn't really count.) If they are, I wouldn't be opposed to adding mentions of them. That said, many of the charges in the second link are on the order of "I disagree with Franken's analysis", which doesn't mean much of anything to me. Croctotheface 04:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Crocto. Please read the links. Regards to the plagiarism: A published book is cited. That book, in turn, cites a specific passage from Franken's book and compares it to an article available online (from FAIR). As for examples of inaccuracy, they can easily be cited without linking frankenlies.com. One can easily cite the falsehoods from Franken's book and then cite the truth from reliable sources (such as government documents.) A reminder, Crocto: Editors here are encouraged to assume good faith. Thank you for reviewing this policy. D323P 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the citations are to reliable, verifiable sources, as Croctotheface said, they can be included. If anyone needs to review Wikipedia:Citing sources before adding a source, then it would be wise. I suggest any additions in this regard be vetted on the Talk page, first. --DavidShankBone 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a review of Wikipedia:Reliable sources would be merited. --DavidShankBone 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it kind of ironic that you accuse me of not reading the links and then chide me for not assuming good faith. I'm going to cut to the chase here: "Frankenlies" is a personal website: it has no peer review or other editorial review process. Per WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources, "Frankenlies" has a bunch of problems. I'd argue that the first four criteria listed there cast doubt onto this site's usefulness as a source. Croctotheface 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croc: "I find it kind of ironic that you accuse me of not reading the links and then chide me for not assuming good faith." Well, you obviously didn't read my response again!! Croc wrote, "'Frankenlies' is a personal website: it has no peer review or other editorial review process." Did you actually read what I wrote above?? I clearly wrote, "As for examples of inaccuracy, they can easily be cited without linking frankenlies.com." See? Even after writing what I wrote, you chide me for listing frankenlies, although I have clearly stated the article does not have to contain it. You are not complying with the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith. That's not cool. D323P 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. - It just further illustrates the bias here at Wikipedia that people would argue that that Frankenlies.com would not be permitted, but an anti-O'Reilly site ("Sweet J-, I Hate Bill O'Reilly") can be cited within the article on Bill himself. The bias and double standards here are astounding sometimes.)[reply]

If you can source the information you want to add to reliable publications, and your additions comply with WP:NPOV and any other applicable policies and guidelines, then everything should be fine. I have no opposition as such to mentioning criticism of the book. Regarding the anti-O'Reilly site, I'd have to think that I'd oppose using it to source negative material about O'Reilly as well, though I'm not familiar with the case, so I can't say definitively. Croctotheface 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, the additions made are troubling to me. I deleted the bit about plagiarism because the source, a book published by some guy through a right wing imprint (and maybe even self-published?) doesn't really count as a reliable source per WP:V. The criticisms section is a little less troubling, but I'm concerned it fails WP:SYNT, which holds that you can't mention facts A and B to advance position C (in this case, "Franken says A, but a government report says the opposite (B); therefore, Franken is a liar (C)"). In other words, the section is labeled "criticisms," but there isn't anybody actually criticizing him. Croctotheface 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croctotheface is correct. "Clinton administration busted the terror plot" and "Phillipine police busted the terror plot" are no more contradictory than "Eli Manning won the Super Bowl" and "Indiana won the Super Bowl." I read the relevant page of the ~~GAO~~ Senate Intelligence report, and it says nothing to indicate that the Clinton administration was not involved in the bust. It also makes it clear that the US intelligence community cooperated closely with Phillipine authorities following the bust. No contradiction, no lie, no controversy. I'm deleting that paragraph (and adding the relevant text below.) -Pete 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1... Pete: "I read the relevant page of the ~~GAO~~ Senate Intelligence report, and it says nothing to indicate that the Clinton administration was not involved in the bust." It also doesn't say that Kermit the Frog was not involved either. It unequivocally and clearly states that the plots were "thwarted by Philippine police." If the US were involved, it would have said so! By the way, the events of the bust by the Philippine police are carefully reported and detailed in a book by former ABC'er Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge. (I'll add that.) 2... Pete: "It also makes it clear that the US intelligence community cooperated closely with Phillipine authorities following the bust." Gee, I hope so! The plot was to blow up US airliners! And the issue is not what "followed" the bust, but the bust itself, and the Congressional report and Lance's book make it perfectly clear that it was the Philippine police, not the Clinton administration (as Franken claims), who were the ones who specifically "thwarted" the plots. D323P 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P: 1. For all we know, the report does say that the Clinton administration contributed to the bust. At least two sentences in the relevant section were not declassified by President Bush (and entire paragraphs shortly thereafter.) Did he black out words unrelated to American intelligence tactics? Why would he do that? You could state that the declassified portions of the ~~GAO~~ Senate Intelligence report do not support Franken's claim, but to go any further is misleading. And "do not support" is hardly grounds for your claim of controversy. -Pete 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to think this over and give you a chance to respond before deleting that paragraph again. Having done so, and looking back at your last comment, I now see that you're not asserting that Lance's book makes the claim you wrote - that Franken's words were contradicted by the joint Congressional report. So, unless you can find a credible source, this is clearly original research, and the entire discussion is moot. (side note: it's hard to see how any source taking your position could be credible, given the logical problems in your analysis detailed above.) Paragraph re-deleted. -Pete 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, you need to think this over. You are not assuming good faith. In addition to the Joint Intelligence report, the actions by Philippine police have been thoroughly researched and reported in at least two books! In Peter Lance's 1000 Years for Revenge (he is a liberal, by the way), Lance spends several pages on the events and the actions by Philippine police. Lance actually interviewed the Philippine police captain who busted the operation; he also interviewed the Philippine intelligent agent who interrogated the caught terrorist! There is also the book by Gerald Posner, Why America Slept. No honest person can honestly say that the Clinton administration thwarted any of these plots. It's that simple.D323P 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P: I have made no assumption whatsoever about your motives. Even so, you fling accusations of "no assumpution of good faith" around like confetti. I have already expressed my opinion of that tactic (see below.) Rather than get deeper into that, I will continue to reply only to the arguments you advance, leaving your motives out of it. Also, you say above that I need to think something over, in response to my assertion that I took a day to think it over. That makes no sense, so I'll ignore that as well. Your emotional appeals have no place in rational discussion.

Now, regarding the claims of thwarting: it doesn't matter if there were 1000 books detailing the police efforts. Your claim - and the inclusion of the story in the "criticisms" section - is predicated on the notion that the Clinton administration did not play any role. That information is not available to the public, or to anyone writing a book - it's classified. There are lesser claims about Franken's statement that you could legitimately make, but you have not done so. Even if you did so, it's unlikely they would rise to the level of notability that would merit their inclusion in a section of "criticism." -Pete 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quote from GAO Senate Intelligence report[edit]

A. KSM’s Links to Terrorist Attacks before September 11 KSM and his followers played a major role in several Islamist extremist plots before September 11. These plots are notable for the large number of casualties they sought to create, the use of airplanes, and focus on symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center and U.S. government facilities, all characteristics of the September 11 attacks. Investigators determined in 1995 that KSM was linked to the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Federal prosecutors gave CIA a copy of a financial wire transaction for $660 between Qatar and the U.S., dated several days before the blast, from “Khaled Shaykh” in Doha to Muhammad Salameh, one of four defendants convicted in the World Trade Center bombing. With additional information that emerged from the Philippines investigation described below, CIA was able to determine that Khaled was KSM, that KSM was an uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing plot, and that KSM had married the sister of Yousef’s wife.

[In 1995, Yousef’s plots to bomb twelve U.S. airplanes flying Asian routes, kill the Pope, and crash a plane into CIA Headquarters were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where Yousef was preparing explosives. The police seized a list of names and telephone numbers and found a notation for “Khalid Doha” with telephone and facsimile numbers in Qatar. Yet another link to KSM was made when Yousef, who was apprehended shortly after fleeing the Philippines, made a call from detention to Qatar and asked to speak with “Khalid.” This number was similar to the one found by the Philippine police.

B. The Hunt for KSM The Intelligence Community agencies worked together to apprehend KSM during his time in Qatar and in the Balkans. However, KSM’s frequent travels, and the slow pace of efforts to learn his whereabouts, [ ]. sealed and would be opened once KSM was in custody].

(Rebuttal above.) D323P 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a rebuttal to the ~~GAO~~ Senate Intelligence report. -Pete 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism / Edit Debate[edit]

The examples of plagiarism clearly compare Franken's book to the FAIR report. Although the source of the claim is from a book from WorldNetDaily, the charge can be made without this source. WND is cited only because the material has come from their book. By the way, you (Croctotheface) also say WND "is not a reliable source." But why is Media Matters perfectly OK? Your liberal bias and unfairness, Croc, is absolutely some of the most dishonest I have ever witnessed here at Wikipedia. D323P 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about where I said that Media Matters was "perfectly OK." Depending on the context, I could see Media Matters being either appropriate or inappropriate as a source. I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter if "the charge can be made without the source" because Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:V, REQUIRES that articles be sourced to reliable publications. Of all the material you added, the only one that I'm satisfied passes WP:V and WP:NOR is the Armitage/Helen Thomas one. The rest of the "criticism" section is original research. If you can't get the content you want in without sourcing it to reliable publications, then WP policy holds that it should not be included. Croctotheface 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your dishonesty continues to astound. Regarding Media Matters, you leave alone the parts of articles that cite them, but edit other areas. Your comment regarding WP:NOR is horribly misinformed. "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." In everything I have added, I have carefully and honestly linked reliable sources. Your citations of WP are deliberately dishonest. You are are textbook example of what's wrong here at Wikipedia. There is one standard for liberals and a completely different one for conservatives. You do not WP:assume good faith, sir. Your OR tag to the criticisms section is also bogus and does not WP:assume good faith. D323P 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that Wikipedia editors were forbidden from editing articles in a way that you would consider inconsistent. For all the references you've made to assuming good faith, I'd have expected you to, well, do that in this case as well. I already explained why the first two examples of the "criticisms" section fail WP:SYNT, so I won't do that again. In those cases, the sources you cited are reliable, but they don't source the idea that Franken was criticized, which is what the section is about. The OR tag is therefore appropriate. Croctotheface 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P, let's stick to the merits of the claim, and leave this "good faith" silliness aside. If you're as sensitive as you pretend, you shouldn't be questioning others' credibility to begin with, as you do with this entire ad hominem attack on Franken. The last sentence of the good faith guideline you quote says this:

“

Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

”

Let's all try to stick to the facts, and not get sidetracked by one another's credibility. -Pete 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism is an offense (not a crime - copyright violation is something different) that applies to two kinds of people: students and journalists. There are sanctions for either group. The harm incurred by plagarism is attached to the incremental increase to the author's reputation, where it is not deserved. In this case, Franken - neither a student nor a journalist - may have recycled the comparison to the Globetrotters without giving attribution. It would be a stretch to assert that such a small point increased his reputation, even as a comic or a politician. Therefore, even if someone wrote somewhere in a book that he plagarized something, that claim is non-notable and unimportant to an understanding of the book or of Franken. -Pete 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I'm afraid you totally gave away your cards when you talk about "this entire ad hominem attack on Franken". C'mon. This is where assuming good faith comes in. Simply listing the fact that the book has been charged with plagiarism is not an ad hominem attack and is perfectly fitting for the mission of Wikipedia. If you see the articles on Ann Coulter's Godless and other books, for example, you see plagiarism charges written about there. Meanwhile, it seems that you want the Al Franken articles on Wikipedia to read like campaign literature, where all unflattering episodes are scrubbed. I'm sorry, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. ~~Deleted material restored.~~ D323P 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that a politician or political commentator drew political fire is not notable. Every successful political figure draws some criticism. If the criticism is notable on its own merits, it should certainly be included in an encyclopedia entry. If I write a letter to the editor claiming that George Bush smells suspiciously like swiss cheese, that would not merit inclusion; nor does this "claim" of plagarism. If Ackerman made a big stink about it, maybe that would make this notable. Plagarism is an issue that is notable only when it betrays the public trust in media: Matthew Cooper comes to mind. Not when it represents only a minute detail of "ownership" of a comic turn of phrase.

Regarding card games, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Your recent contributions to this article have been all been critical of one person's credibility; thus, an ad hominem attack. I didn't question your credibility, just characterized your recent contributions. Ad hominem attacks are entirely fair and reasonable in some contexts, so it is no insult for me to describe your edits as such.

Pete: "Your recent contributions to this article have been all been critical of one person's credibility" ... Oh, and what about your contributions; they have been nothing but scrubbing any unflattering episodes about Al Franken. The reason I have made the contributions that I have is because this particular article contains no criticism of the book at all. Compare that to any article about the books by Ann Coulter and/or Bill O'Reilly and/or Sean Hannity. Pete, you only reinforce the famous quote by Equinox that trying fix any articles on liberals will "be dealt with very swiftly and strictly by the libs here." How true that it, and it is sad.

Pete: "Plagarism is an issue that is notable only when it betrays the public trust in media." ... Yes, and Franken's apparent plagiarism is notable for that very same reason. (Even though I don't think you should be the sole judge of what defines "notable plagiarism"!!) Again, let's hold up the Ann Coulter example. As anyone can clearly see, at Wikipedia, there is one standard for conservatives and another for liberals. For Wikipedia to be balanced, there must be a comparable tone between liberals and conservatives. D323P 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out the "deleted material restored" comment above, because the "plagarism" section under discussion here was never deleted. Please keep the multiple issues under dispute separate. -Pete 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P: I apologize for the "ad hominem" remark. It was not intended to offend, but I can see it was ill-advised.

I am not familiar with the Coulter article, and operate under no illusion that Wikipedia as a whole will be balanced; I'm interested only in the pages I choose to edit. Once again, let's stay focused on the issues at hand. You have not addressed my arguments head-on, but rather have taken the discussion in new directions. I am removing your edits again, because you are not engaging with the points raised here. Please note that we are both approaching a violation of the "three revert rule," and so may wind up blocked from editing for 24 hours if we stay on the present course. -Pete 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are advancing a false charge that I am posting material that is original to Wikipedia. Please actually take the time to read the material BEFORE you delete it. And it is Wikipedia policy that such material be DISCUSSED. Wikipedia editors are asked to assume good faith. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. D323P 04:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research material removed[edit]

The below paragraphs have been removed from the article, because the details as presented violate wikipedia's No Original Research policy. As written, there is no indication at all that any notable individual or organization actually made any of the criticisms. In fact, it simply seems like a wikipedia editor noted Franken's alleged mistakes and inserted them into the article to provide a negative view of Franken's work; that is, obviously, Original Research. If these same details can be provided adequately sourced to a notable critic, the information can be reinstated into the article.

"For example, on pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives." ^[1]The actions by Philippine police are detailed and accounted over a number of chapters in a book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance, ‘’1000 Years For Revenge.’‘ In the book, Lance interviews members of the Philippine police responsible for thwarting the plots. The work by Philippine police in stopping the plots was also researched and written about by investigator Gerald Posner in a book called, Why America Slept. In passages about reported vandalism at the White House complex during the transition of the Clinton and Bush administrations in 2000-2001, Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred" (page 153). However, a 217-page report by the General Accounting Office concluded the opposite: "Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts." ^[2]" -Hal Raglan 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT original research! Instead of immediately deleting qualified material from this site, and then posting an incorrect comment that this is "original material," I would advise searching online and looking to see where these claims come from. Sourca added. D323P 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as written it was original research. You need to read up on wikipedia policy before advising other editors that they are the ones who are "incorrect". You obviously felt it appeared to be OR, since you finally added a (very questionable) source. While wikipedia is a collaborative medium, and other editors can certainly do online searches to add citations, common sense indicates that if you insert questionable information into an article you should also provide links to reliable sources fully indicating that the newly added info is not spurious.-Hal Raglan 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plans re: Al Qaida[edit]

D323P: The new paragraph you added is less acceptable than your prior additions. In the panel discussion you cite, Sandy Berger clearly articulated that under the Clinton administration, he helped develop and execute a plan to "detect" and "take out" Bin Laden, and "disrupt" Al Quaida, and that he was not at liberty to discuss it in public, but that he had personally turned it over to Condoleeza Rice. The specific denial of a "war plan" is not germane to Franken's words, at least as presented by you or Mr. Lowry. Full quotation of Berger's concluding remarks below:

“

BERGER: We were continually looking at what we were doing -- looking at new techniques -- looking at new steps we could take.

In February of 2000, for example, I sent a memo to President Clinton outlining what we were doing. And he wrote back, "This is not satisfactory." It was particularly related to how do you find this guy? We've got to do more.

And that prompted us to work with the intelligence community and the military on a new technique for detecting Bin Laden. I'm not able to talk about it in this forum.

We tested that in the fall of 2000. Actually, it was very promising as a way of determining where he would be if we had one strand of human intelligence.

So we were continually looking at how we could up the ante.

CHAMBLISS: But did you have a plan that could be executed to disrupt or take out Bin Laden and disrupt the organization?

BERGER: Yes, sir. And we were executing that plan.

CHAMBLISS: All right.

BERGER: Now, the second question you asked -- which comes off of the "Time" magazine story, I think -- was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.

The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had -- I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information -- what was going on and what situations they faced.

Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I'm not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing -- on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was.

But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.

”

-Pete 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pete! Your post clearly shows that I was 100 percent correct (as was Rich Lowry), and that Franken was wrong. There was no "far-reaching plan" turned over to the Bush administration. As Berger clearly and unequivocally stated, he merely "briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was ... But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."

Berger is clearly saying that that element of the Time magazine report is completely false. ("Reports of that are just incorrect.") And what does Franken cite as the source for his claim in the back of his book? The bogus Time magazine article, which Berger refuted! Thank you, Pete. D323P 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - glad to see we're getting closer to agreement. We have agreed that there is a factual inaccuracy in Franken's book. The thing we have NOT agreed on is whether or not that inaccuracy belongs in the article, described as it was. In the context of a book whose subject is deliberate and significant deception, the simple statement of an inaccuracy - where that inaccuracy was clearly sourced, and was not germane to the point Franken was making in that passage - is POV pushing. I see two alternatives: (1) leave it out, because it is relatively insignificant; or (2) include it, with sufficient exposition that the reader may judge its significance for his/herself. If you like, let me know which is preferable to you, and perhaps we can work together toward making the most neutral version possible. -Pete 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if there is going to be any agreement, you have to get your facts straight first. You say the claim about the plan "was not germane to the point Franken was making in that passage." Good grief! You could not be more wrong. The passage is from page 115 (of the hardcover), the opening sentence (!) of a chapter called "Operation Ignore." Franken uses his bogus claim to advance his thesis that Bush "ignored" Clinton's "plans" to eliminate al-Qaeda. He then cites the Time article which Berger says is incorrect. Lowry called Franken on this, and Lowry is absolutely correct. I am restoring the deleted passage. If this is no be a neutral article, the passage should remain. D323P 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P, please spare me the histrionics. We can do this in a calm and respectful manner.

Franken's claim is very simple in structure: (1) the Clinton administration had a plan to deal with Al Qaida, (2) they made an effort to communicate it to the Bush administration, and (3) the Bush administration did not diligently pursue it. Let's leave aside whether or not you and I agree on that analysis – it's not necessary to the present discussion. My point is this: the characterization of whether that plan was a war plan designed to eliminate Al Qaida or a prosecution plan designed to capture bin Laden and disrupt Al Quida is not important to Franken's argument. That's not to say the distinction is unimportant in general; clearly in the context of the hearing quoted above, and to a National Security Advisor, the distinction was important. But Franken's point is not refuted by that; he said there was a plan (albeit inaccurately described), it was communicated, and it was not acted upon. His presentation may have been inaccurate, his source incorrect, and that may have resulted in the point being somewhat exaggerated; but the argument is not thereby refuted.

Any formulation of the issue that fails to provide that context, or allow an intelligent but uninformed reader to consider the possibility, is POV pushing. -Pete 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your dishoinesty is astounding and unbecoming of Wikipedia. You only reinforce the belief that Wiki is dominated by "libs." Compare the content of this article with that for any Ann Coulter book, and it's as clear as day. The material posted speaks for itself. You want to imply that something is there when it clearly isn't. This is flat-out dishonesty on your part. An important reminder: Wiki editors are expected to assume good faith! Please adhere to this important guideline. D323P 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P, this is getting tiresome. (1) regarding good faith, I assume nothing about yours either way. It is you who are making incorrect assumptions about my motives; my comments are purely about the substance of the article, while yours are about me. (2) I don't recall ever looking at the Ann Coulter page, and see no relevance to this conversation. Your allegation of bias in all of Wikipedia is not relevant to the alleged bias of this one page; if you have problems with the Coulter page, the place to discuss that is over there.

If you believe my argument is flawed, please address my argument. In your comment above, you do nothing but evade the issue; I'm sure you're capable of better. -Pete 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenlies.com[edit]

This is simply not a credible source. All sentences supported by Frankenlies.com need to be removed and reliable, mainstream sources need to be used. Neither left-wing blogs nor right-wing websites count as reliable sources. This is clear in reliable sources. Who allowed this stuff to be put in without it being backed up by peer-reviewed, mainstream publications. Use The Washington Times, use The Wall Street Journal, use Fox News, but Frankenlies.com does not belong. This is clear in the guidelines for acceptable sources.--DavidShankBone 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provide absolutely ZERO evidence that Frankenlies is not a reliable source. Why don't you look at the site? Frankenlies clearly and carefully cites its sources. "Right-wing websites" don't count as reliable sources, you say? But I suppose that left-wing ones like the discredited Media Matters do? This kind of biased thinking does not belong at Wikipedia. Editors are expected to assume good faith!! D323P 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't expected to assume good faith on the part of biased websites, and the name itself is biased. There is also no need for your emotive wording, ALL CAPS and over-use of exclamation points; take it down a notch, please. --DavidShankBone 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two paragraphs[edit]

I just removed two paragraphs inserted by D323P.

(1) concerning the Philippine terrorist plot: As I explained above, the joint Congressional report was presented as though it refutes Franken's claim; however, since the report is only partially declassified and at least two sentences on the topic have not been released to the public, it is impossible to know whether or not the report confirms Franken's words. This item could be included if its presentation were to make that clear. My attempt to do so was rejected, without any attempt to improve it, by D323P (who is advocating for the inclusion of this item.) Different approaches to explaining the matter might be acceptable, but lack of explanation results in a deceptive paragraph.

(2) The plagarism section was single-sourced to frankenlies.com, which DavidShankBone correctly described as an insufficiently reliable source. The charge of plagarism is also insignificant, as it is unaccompanied by any criminal charges, professional sanctions, or words of reprimand from the allegedly aggrieved party.

-Pete 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this removal. D323P needs to find some better sources that are more reliable and I formally request he stop adding material that at least three editors have taken issue with and start discussing changes on the Talk page first, with other editors of this page. I find the lack of credible sources itself cast suspicion on the material he is putting into the article, which apparently can only be sourced to a website calling Franken a liar. This simply isn't an optimal way to edit Wikipedia. --DavidShankBone 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest Editors[edit]

The dishonesty with this article knows no bounds. It is unbelievable. It only reinforces that "libs" will do anything, including being dishonest, to scrub unflattering references to liberals. Examples of dishonesty:

1. Frankenlies IS a reliable source. The author has properly identified himself. He is a contributor to NewsBusters, the blog of the MRC. Any honest person can see that the sources listed on the articles are clearly identified and credible. If Frankenlies is unacceptable, so would be Media Matters!

Newsbusters is not a reliable source, either. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. NO ONE has found any incorrect information on Frankenlies.com. In fact, the material on Frankenlies is backed up with online sources, government documents, newspaper reports, and published books. (Using "suspicion" is simply a dishonest and duplicitous maneuver to scrub this material.)

Frankenlies is not a peer-reviewed source, and it draws its own conclusions. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. DavidShankBone: "which apparently can only be sourced to a website calling Franken a liar." The bias of this editor is unequivocally clear and betrays the mission of Wikipedia. (Gee, Franken's book directly calls people liars, but that does not seem to be a problem, does it?) I also challenge anyone to find an article on the site that directly calls Al a liar. I see exactly one, and that article is about an episode not from his book, but from something he said on the radio regarding the Gloria Wise scandal.

I ask that you stop making personal attacks and aspersions to my character. Currently, there are four editors who are reverting you, and if this goes to admin you will not fare well. There is a better way to handle the way you discuss these issues. If "Frankenlies.com" is not, by it's title, calling Franken a liar, then there is no point in discussing this issue with you. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. DavidShankBone: "The plagarism section was single-sourced to frankenlies.com". Pardon me, but it was NOT single-sourced. This is a lie. It was also sourced at NewsBusters!

Newsbusters is not a credible source. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. As far as the Philipinne plot, the Congressional paper could not be more clear: "In 1995, Yousef’s plots to bomb twelve U.S. airplanes flying Asian routes, kill the Pope, and crash a plane into CIA Headquarters were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where Yousef was preparing explosives." An honest reader will see that the classified redactions clearly have nothing to do with any involvement by US officials. And as the Frankenlies source says, there are TWO BOOKS that recount how the Philippine police thwarted the plots! Again, flat-out dishonesty here by liberal editors.

6. DavidShankBone: "We aren't expected to assume good faith on the part of biased websites, and the name itself is biased." YES, you are! Media Matters is clearly a biased site. What does the name have to do with it? Nothing. (By the way, do you think you see a bias in the title, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them?)

There is no good faith assumption on the part of sources. There is an assumption of good faith on the part of editors, which you have shown does not apply in this situation as regards your edits. Franken's title has nothing to do with Wikipedia editing, and we are not here to make commentary on the subject of the article, only to explain it using NPOV sources. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. And the BIGGEST dishonesty of all is that DavidShankBone added a completely anonymous "blogspot" source to a "counter-rebuttal" section to the article. This is all while claiming to assume good faith. This is dishonesty at its WORST, folks. Anonymous sources are CLEARLY against Wikipedia policy.

D323P 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem taking this out, I actually thought I was throwing you a bone by keeping Frankenlies.com in - they will both go. --DavidShankBone 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.It is really unbelievable. You add a completely anonymous blog and then delete a sourced web site written by an identified person?!? Unbelievable dishonesty. D323P 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P, it would be nice if you would stop attacking other editors as "dishonest" and "liars" simply because you don't agree with them. Everyone here is trying to engage in a conversation with you regarding the edits you are attempting to make to this article. Hurling insults will not help people understand your side of the argument. If you could calmly discuss the issues raised instead of simply complaining about a "liberal conspiracy", it would help matters considerably. All of the criticisms you want to include need to be cited to reliable sources. Frankenlies.com is not a reliable source, just like Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly.com would not be a reliable source for an article on one of Bill O'Reilly's books. That's common sense.-Hal Raglan 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All of the criticisms you want to include need to be cited to reliable sources." You keep saying this, yet you have NEVER, EVER giving one reason why it is not reliable except to say it is "unreliable."

More dishonesty from you, Hal: I've never called anyone "liars" as you say. For that, I will say your statement is a bold-faced lie. D323P 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a very short memory. This is what you wrote above, only a few hours ago: "DavidShankBone: "The plagarism section was single-sourced to frankenlies.com". Pardon me, but it was NOT single-sourced. This is a lie." -Hal Raglan 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment was a lie. But I did not call him a liar. Please stop these WP:personal attacks on me. D323P 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said his comment was a lie. By everyone's standards except your own, you called him a liar. You've also repeatedly called other editors "dishonest". Since you yourself do not seem to understand wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy, I strongly recommend you read it again.-Hal Raglan 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the distinction between saying someone told a lie, and saying someone is a liar. But one thing is sure - your attack (or non-attack, if you prefer) was on the wrong person: I was the one who said the section was single-sourced, not DavidShankBone.

Also, I'm not sure of the policy, but it seems to me that the courteous thing to do would be for those parties involved in the arbitration to hold off from posting further comments here, pending arbitration. I will do so myself from this point forward, and invite you (D323P) and DavidShankBone to join me. -Pete 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested administrator intervention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Pete 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summation of my issues[edit]

The editors of the Lying Liars page (D323P the only exception) don’t believe that either Frankenlies.com (a personal website that looks like it was designed by somebody in high school, riddled with incorrect grammar, and not peer-reviewed) nor Newsbusters.com (an agenda-driven “news” site that has no journalistic standards either for its contributors or its articles) are reliable sources. Wikipedia fights this problem often: the efforts of agenda-driven partisans (left and right) who effort to insert POV material simply by citing an external website. It is telling that D323P is unable to craft a criticism section using The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, Fox News, The Washington Times or other mainstream news outlets with a conservative bent that have peer-reviewed, journalistic standards of some degree.
When this has been pointed out to D323P, he calls all the editors dishonest, liars, agenda-driven, accuses them of working for the Al Franken campaign, says we have attacked him “ruthlessly”, etc., even though the entirety of our discussions may be found on the Talk page. It is, in fact, D323P who has attacked, violated the policies of the site that are designed to build consensus, and made disruptive edits. This can be seen with Hal Raglan, DavidShankBone, Peteforsyth and Croctotheface
Lastly, there is some concern that D323P, whose e-mail is dfp323@yahoo.com, is Dave Pierre who is self-promoting his website on Wikipedia. Is D323P actually Dave323Pierre? D323P is continually trying to put Frankenlies.com on the Franken pages, refers to it as “my material” and Dave Pierre has written articles on Wikipedia, and his criticisms of Wikipedia in those articles reference all the same articles that D323P edits and references here. Conversely, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2ZS1QLYZEMTPF/ref=cm_pdp_about_see_review/102-7255127-4821735?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview D323P has written 17 Amazon.com reviews, many spamming Frankenlies.com].

--DavidShankBone 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pierre spamming his sites Frankenlies.com[edit]

On the RfA board it has come out that D323P is Dave Pierre, creator of the Frankenlies.com website. This violates Wikipedia:Spam. --DavidShankBone 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Spam according to policy is widespread inclusion of external links. The inclusion of a valid external link related to the article is not spam. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is only one form of SPAM. See Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, also on the Wikipedia:SPAM page. --DavidShankBone 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what the forms of spam are. However, keep in mind two things: one, WP:SPAM is not policy, it is a guideline. Two, from that page: "There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting")." Frankenlies.com is not the 1st kind of spam, as this article is about Lying Liars. It is not the 2nd kind of spam because it is not being widely included. It is not the 3rd kind of spam because it is not tangential, it is directly related. It is not the 4th kind of spam because it is not "crossposting" across user talk pages.

Therefore, this site fails to meet all 4 definitions of spam.

More accurately, what you are questioning here is the validity of the source, under the "reliable sources" section of WP:A. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The main articles under "external link spamming" are Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; and true, they are guidelines, both which were crafted to deal with this type of situation. And yes, I also question whether this self-published work is a reliable source. --DavidShankBone 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration: Comments by uninvolved editors[edit]

I'm an uninvolved editor, and no fan of Franken's journalism, if that helps. (Although I do think that he can sometimes be very funny as a comedian). Here are my few cents:

Frankenlies.com is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. If it could be shown that the writer of Frankenlies, Dave Pierre, was a journalist or expert writing within his field, then it the page might qualify as a reliable source.
This standard leaves open plenty of on-line criticism of Franken's work. On-line sources like The National Review Online, The American Spectator's blog, or similar publications by journalists may, in appropriate cases, be fair game.
If Frankenlies "cites its sources," as D323P alleges, and if there aren't any original research leaps necessary, then just look up the underlying sources and cite them. If Frankenlies makes deductions or inferences that would be unacceptable from a Wikipedia editor, then they are also unacceptable from Frankenlies.
If D323P is Dave Pierre, and it looks like he probably is, then he, in any case, should not be inserting references to his own site. Although the relevant sections of WP:COI and WP:ATT suggests that it is sometimes permissible for an editor to cite him or herself, it should be done with caution, with an eye to avoiding excessive self-promotion, and should only be done if the cited material is a reliable, published source. Even if Frankenlies.com were permissable under the "self-published material by an expert writing within his or her field" exception, I would still caution against Mr. Pierre citing to his own self-published material, rather than suggesting additions on the talk page and letting the interested editors discuss it.

Thanks, I hope that's helpful, TheronJ 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theron gives a good summary of this. Starting points could easily include [10] and [11] as starters. JoshuaZ 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Where frankenlies.com has citations, just attribute the citations directly instead of through frankenlies.com; the only reason I can see to attribute frankenlies.com would be for commentary on there, which due to TheronJ's reasoning, likely would not meet WP:A#RS standards. In plainer english, if frankenlies.com says "Franken lies because of XXXXX, according to (citation)", then just take the citation directly, instead of citing Frankenlies.com first. However, if you were going to use Frankenlies.com as the source of the analysis you are citing, it's likely to be removable as a non-reliable source, unless it can be verified elsewhere. Now, all that being said, Frankenlies.com is still acceptable as an entry into the external link section. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how Frankenlies.com is acceptable as an external link. It's a personal website (not peer reviewed) by somebody who is not a recognized authority on Al Franken or politics. It's full of flippant, caustic remarks about the subject. This doesn't seem to me to be an external link worthy of Wikipedia. Just my two cents on this issue. --DavidShankBone 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franken's book is full of flippant caustic remarks about many conservatives. Doesn't mean it's not includable. As for WP:EL, that is a guideline, not policy. Furthermore, personal webpages are generally considered to be web pages about one's self, i.e. vanity pages. They don't mean pages that someone personally owns. Every webpage is technically someone's personal page. There's no harm in including frankenlies.com as an external link only, in fact it is beneficial as it neutralizes the POV and prevents undue weight from being given to the pro-franken view (Please note below that I advocate not allowing frankenlies.com as a reference). Since it's only as an external link, it's not undue weight. Balance. Compromises on this will go a long way towards solving editing disputes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that Franken's book is full flippant, caustic remarks, the book was a bestseller written by a notable comedian and journalist, and now U.S. Senate candidate, and that book is the subject of this article. Frankenlies.com is a home-made website written by an unnotable partisan who has attempted to use his original research to craft a criticism section on Wikipedia. We aren't here to balance flippant with flippant; we're here to showcase useful, notable critiques, which are not all equal. Is it really that difficult to find somebody in the mainstream (conservative) media who has critiqued this book? If so, I think it casts doubts on the criticism itself. There certainly is no shortage of peer-reviewed, credible conservative news outlets and commentators out there. --DavidShankBone 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it doesn't matter what's in franken's book. But by that same note, it doesn't really matter that the website's content is caustic as well. The site is unacceptable for other reasons (notability/partisanship etc.). As for criticism, Ann Coulter wrote a book that is basically entirely critical of Franken. It was either Slander, or How to talk to a Liberal if you must. I can't remember which. She devoted entire chapters to critiquing and fact-checking Franken. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) this is the section I'm referring to, which was originally a column run by her, but it's included in one of her books and for the life of me I can't remember which one. Anyway, the chapter is called "answering my critics" and it's critical of franken. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, from WP:EL "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight." ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I post the material that I have attempted to add so this matter can be discussed? If I'm not doing this right, please, you have my permission to delete this part:

==Criticisms==

Criticisms have been made of the book, including those by Frankenlies.com,^[3] operated by Dave Pierre,^[4] a contributor to NewsBusters, operated by the conservative Media Research Center. Sourced rebuttals are cataloged at the site. Among Frankenlies.com's criticisms:

On pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives."^[5] The actions by Philippine police are also detailed and accounted over a number of chapters in a 2003 book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance, 1000 Years For Revenge. In the book are interviews by Lance of members of the Philippine police responsible for thwarting the plots. The work by Philippine police in stopping the plots was also researched and written about by investigator Gerald Posner in a 2003 book called, Why America Slept.^[6]

In passages about reported vandalism at the White House complex during the transition of the Clinton and Bush administrations in 2000-2001, Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred" (page 153). However, a 217-page report by the General Accounting Office concluded the opposite: "Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts." ^[7]^[8]

In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, a fan of Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." ^[9] As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback).^[10]

Also, a 2004 article by pundit Rich Lowry, of the conservative National Review, challenged Franken's book on its facts. ^[11]. Lowry noted that Franken had claimed on page 115 of his book that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." However, Lowry wrote that Sandy Berger testified in front of Congress on September 19, 2002, and stated, "[T]here was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."^[12]

===Charges of Plagiarism===

In a 2005 book called Pants on Fire, released by the conservative organization World Net Daily, writer Alan Skorski claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the media watchdog group FAIR.^[13] An example by Skorski:

FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:

Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...

Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):

For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.

The passage in Franken's book does not have footnotes, and FAIR's report is not cited in the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of the book.^[14]

In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.^[15]

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

Thank you again, SWATjester. (I feel better already.) D323P 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I have no problem at all with the Frankenlies.com part (in the opening paragraph) being removed completely, as long as the material itself stays. My intention all along has been to abide by Wikipedia policy and add legitimate, fact-based criticisms to the article. Cheers. D323P 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts[edit]

D323P, the other editors on this page don't seem to feel comfortable with the inclusion of frankenlies.com as a source in of itself. Whether frankenlies.com is acceptable as a source is sketchy at best. However, there IS cited material on there that could be included into this page. For instance, starting with the "charges of plagiarism" section, instead of citing Newsbusters.org and frankenlies.com, why not cite the actual book by World Net Daily? It's the same criticism, but from a more reliable source. Moving upwards, we could use the Sandy Berger section, those citations are ok.

The "the hill.com" section above that is certainly acceptable, it's a critical review by a newspaper. However, make sure you cite the web version of that document, instead of frankenlies.com.

Similarly, above, you could cite Peter Lance's book instead of frankenlies.

Finally, the first paragraph adds nothing to the article. The fact that David Pierre contributes to newsbusters.org does not in of itself make him a viable source for inclusion, and his site clearly does not fit the list of includable reliable sources per WP:A.

So here is my suggestion to you. Take the criticism section, and rework it. Keep all the criticism that you can attribute to a valid source: newspapers, published books, notable magazine articles, etc, and eliminate the partisan websites, and the frankenlies.com references. Make sure ALL criticism is cited. Then, that would likely be acceptable for inclusion, and you could leave an external link to Frankenlies.com in the external links section, something like [http://www.frankenlies.com FrankenLies.com a site critical of Franken] which would show up like FrankenLies.com a site critical of Franken. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester's suggestions are a good starting place. --DavidShankBone 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SWATjester! I will begin to rework the material for tomorrow. Cheers. D323P 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, good first step. We'll see how it continues tomorrow. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is worth noting that any revision should make sure the conclusions and criticisms themselves are cited to credible, notable sources. --DavidShankBone 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, make sure that the language is precise in that all opinionated statements are attributed to individuals and groups rather than stated as fact,

mentioned in passive voice constructions, or attributed to "some critics". Croctotheface 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both very good points. Though this article doesn't fall under WP:BLP, comments about Franken do, so we need to be careful to attribute criticisms as opinions, rather than potentially libelous facts. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting caught up here (so much to read!), and very relieved to find the tone has moved toward one of collaboration. Thanks to SJ and others for helping us get to this point.

There are three sections that concern me the most, I have made my arguments above, but will summarize them here.

Plagarism: I don't think this section belongs at all. "Plagarism" is not a crime, but a violation that applies to students and journalists, of which Franken is neither. (Note, I'm not a huge fan of talk radio hosts disavowing journalistic responsibility, but they do so across the political spectrum, and it's well-established.) I believe this item is spurious, just as if someone wrote a book that mentioned that Larry Bird smelled kinda like cottage cheese, it wouldn't belong on the Larry Bird article.

The Sandy Berger item should be somewhat rewritten: it is agreed that Franken committed a factual error, but not that the error is significant in the context of this article. I believe there's a way to form the text so that it makes that apparent; I tried to do so, but my attempt did not meet D323P's approval. Perhaps someone else can give it a shot.

re: the Phillipine police vs. Clinton administration. D323P cited a government report, which has been partially declassified. D323P's argument rests on the notion that confirmation of Franken's point "would be in the report" if he was right; but we don't know what was in the report, as at least two sentences are blanked out in the very paragraph in question. I think this item should be removed, but perhaps it could also be rewritten in a suitably neutral tone.

If these concerns are addressed, I think the result will likely be a valuable addition to the article. -Pete 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to SWATjester re: comments by Peteforsyth[edit]

Peterforsyth says he has "three sections" that concern him, and I would like to address them to you. This really gets to the root of the problem I am having here at this site and with other editors of this article.

1. Peteforsyth: "Plagarism: I don't think this section belongs at all. "Plagarism" is not a crime, but a violation that applies to students and journalists, of which Franken is neither."

(First of all, DavidShankBone (on the same side as Pete) has no problem calling Al a journalist.) Al Franken is the author of six books. Lies and the Lying Liars was composed during a fellowship at Harvard! Noting the accusation (with an example) is totally legitimate. You'll see that in the article for Ann Coulter's book Godless, a plagiarism accusation is addressed there. Also, Al Franken is running for Senate. (You'll remember Joe Biden's candidacy for Prez was derailed by a plagiarism charge.)

2. I don't feel my material I'm posting regarding Franken and Philippine "thwarting issue" is being dealt in a forthcoming manner by Pete. Here are the basics:

Franken, Lies, pages 109-110:

“

Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah are all currently behind bars ... They were involved in [further] plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously. But neither happened. ... Why? Because Clinton thwarted them. He thwarted them all."

”

(My key source) [12] (pdf file goto page 310) Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001:

“

In 1995, Yousef’s plots to bomb twelve U.S. airplanes flying Asian routes, kill the Pope, and crash a plane into CIA Headquarters were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where Yousef was preparing explosives.

”

The report is very clear on who did the "thwarting." Pete's objection is that some of the report is redacted (due to classified information). Pete appears to be saying that Franken "could" be right because it doesn't not say the US was involved. But Franken could have said that Kermit the Frog thwarted the plots, and the same objection would apply. (The Kermit thing is a joke, but it makes the point.) Pete's objection isn't fair. The material has to be taken for what it is.

Also, Pete keeps failing to address that I've cited two published books that talk about the job by Philippine police in thwarting the plots. One of them is quite detailed, and it is written by Peter Lance; and the book was hailed during a Senate hearing by Max Cleland, a friend of Franken!

There is also the second book by Gerald Posner. I can also link a third book, which I think is actually better than Posner's (Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter).

Also consider:

... The 9/11 Commission Report states, "The plot [to blow up US airliners] unraveled after the Philippine authorities discovered Yousef's bomb-making operation in Manila." [13] (Chapter 5 of the Report)

... Also see this 2001 article from CNN.com: [14] "U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings"

... Also: This 2001 article by Matthew Brzezinski in the Washington Post: "Bust and Boom: Six years before the September 11 attacks, Philippine police took down an al Qaeda cell that had been plotting, among other things, to fly explosives-laden planes into the Pentagon" [15]

I think the facts are clear on this one.

3. Pete: "it is agreed that Franken committed a factual error, but not that the error is significant in the context of this article."

The admitted error is in the first sentence of a key chapter in Franken's book called "Operation Ignore," in which Franken makes the case that the Bush administration "ignored" warnings before 9/11. To anyone who has read the book, it is clearly a significant error, as it frames an important premise in Franken's book.

Thank you for allowing me to address these concerns. All I ask is that the material be addressed in an honest manner. Cheers!

"All I ask is that the material be addressed in an honest manner." - Dave Pierre, you really need to stop questioning people's honesty on here, either directly or indirectly, and your doing so is well documented on this Talk page. SwatJester, since Pierre is listening to you, please address this issue. It simply is not an optimal way to build consensus, nor is the over-use of exclamation points, ALL CAPS and bold text. Let's bring it down a notch. --DavidShankBone 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I was not "questioning people's honesty." This matter has been taken to arbitration and has been quite stressful. I was simply adressing my feelings and hopes for this article. Obviously I would not have taken this matter to arbitration if I felt that I was being treated fairly. I am more optimistic and feel better now that SWATjester has been kind to help mediate this situation. Thank you. (By the way: Although I have used italics and bold in some places, I have not used ALL CAPS, as you have claimed. Your attacks on me, including accusing me of "spamming" in headlines with my name, is also not a cool way to build consensus. Let's "chill out" as SWATjester advised! Cheers.) D323P 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you the last word, but you only need look under your section above, "Dishonest Editors," for examples of all the things I mentioned. Your the only one who has questioned anyone's honesty here, nobody has questioned yours; until it was proven that you are the authors of these sites, which is undeniably pertinent to your use of them. So your allusion to honesty points to a pattern, and a pattern I think all editors would appreciate you stop. Comment on the edits, not the editors, please. Thank you - David --DavidShankBone 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop with the questioning each other's honesty at all, on either end. In fact, lets drop that whole line of reasoning. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "Criticisms" section by D323P[edit]

Note: for ease of editing, lets use italics to discuss the changes and save regular font for the text of the proposed section. If you want to remove something, use the strikeout tags, not deleting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques[edit]

Franken’s book has been the object of criticism:

Accuracy[edit]

Clinton thwarts attacks[edit]

On pages 110-111 of the book (hardcover, 1st edition), Franken claims that President Clinton "thwarted" "plots to kill the Pope and blow up twelve U.S. jetliners simultaneously." On page 121, he asserts a similar claim: that Clinton thwarted a plot "to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA headquarters." However, a Congressional joint inquiry, declassified in 2003, concluded these plots "were thwarted by Philippine police when a fire erupted in an apartment where [a terrorist] was preparing explosives."^[16] The actions by Philippine police have also been researched and detailed in several books including, 1000 Years For Revenge^[17], a 2003 book by former ABC reporter Peter Lance; Why America Slept^[18] (2003) by investigator Gerald Posner; and Losing Bin Laden^[19], by Richard Miniter. I don't like how this section reads. As I noted below, it is not our job to prove or disprove Franken's claims. Instead, we need something else that directly links the criticism against franken. We can't just say "Franken asserts this. However, this happened that seems to disprove him." because that is original research. What we need to do is attribute it to someone who is linking it to Franken, by saying "Franken asserts this. However, Rush Limbaugh claims Franken is wrong, because of <insert data here>". . ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton transition vandalism[edit]

In passages about reported vandalism at the White House complex during the transition of the Clinton and Bush administrations in 2000-2001, Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred" (page 153). However, a 217-page report by the General Accounting Office concluded the opposite: "Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts." ^[20] The report said when Clinton assumed office "some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also made during the 1993 transition."^[21] The GAO's report said it was "unable to conclude whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones" and that career government employees said similar conditions were present when President Bush's father was inaugurated in 1989. (These lines are irrelevant. Franken said "none of this vandalism occurred." The GAO report clearly states that it did. This additional material is simply a "Yeah, but" defense of Franken. These lines are POV. D323P 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Also could people please sign their revisions to my proposal? Thank you.) I do agree with you that the line referring to the 1993 transition is a "Yeah but" comment that is irrelevant to Franken. However, I believe the "GAO unable to conclude whether 2001 worse than other transitions" line is a valid counter-criticism, and should be included. . ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton terrorism plan[edit]

Also, a 2004 article by pundit Rich Lowry, of the conservative National Review, challenged Franken's book on its facts. ^[22]. Lowry noted that Franken had claimed on page 115 of his book that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." However, Lowry wrote that Sandy Berger testified in front of Congress on September 19, 2002, and stated, "[T]here was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."^[23]

This section is fine, this is exactly what I meant about attributing the criticism to a critic, rather than doing the original research ourselves on here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty posed by use of in interpreting the difference between (D323P) satire and nonfiction[edit]

In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, a fan of Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." ^[24] As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback).

Accusations of Plagiarism[edit]

In a 2005 book called Pants on Fire^[25], released by the conservative organization World Net Daily, writer Alan Skorski claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the media watchdog group FAIR.^[26] An example by Skorski:

FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:

Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...

Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):

For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.

The passage in Franken's book does not have footnotes, and FAIR's report is not cited in the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of the book.^[27]

In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.^[28]

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

So - What do we think? D323P 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious concerns. The "Clinton thwarted attacks" and "Clinton transition vandalism" sections have no sources that show evidence that Franken was criticized in a notable way. It just has what Franken said (fact A) and what other sources say (fact B). There is not evidence that Franken has drawn notable criticism for the difference between what he said and what the other sources said. Again, it is necessary to show that Franken has been criticized in a notable way for this section to comply with WP:A and WP:NPOV. Using facts A and B to state opinion C (in this case that Franken has somehow been criticized or that he is incorrect) is not allowed per Wikipedia policy. The sections that cite Lowry's criticism and the review from the Hill are both fine: if someone such as Lowry criticized Franken for the "thwarted attacks" or "vandalism" issues, then cite the notable criticism and include the material. For the plagiarism section, I'm concerned that Newsbusters is being cited despite the fact that there is not a consensus here that it's a reliable source. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the person leveling the criticism is doing so in a self-published sort of way, which doesn't seem to meet the standard required of WP sources. Croctotheface 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Croctotheface, that was what I was trying to say earlier. The first two sections need to be attributed to a critic. The second two sections are fine how they are. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete F replies to Dave P[edit]

Dave Pierre/D323P, thank you for giving specific replies to my main concerns. You have significantly shifted your replies to the substance of the disagreement, and I appreciate it. Some further replies below.

DavidShankBone (on the same side as Pete)

That's not true - there may be similarities in our views, but we have our differences as well. This isn't about "sides," it's about creating a mutually-acceptable article that provides a service to the curious reader.

[D323P considers Franken a journalist]

Thank you for clarifying your view. Up till now, I didn't know if you thought AF was a journalist, or if you thought plagarism applied to non-journalists, or if you were simply ignoring this point altogether.

Franken is not a journalist. Along with other talk radio hosts like Bill O'Reilly, Randi Rhodes, and Michael Savage, he has asserted that he's not on his show. And he's right to do so: the organization he worked for retained him on the basis of his ability to draw listeners, or promote a certain point of view. Journalists differ from talk hosts in that their job description includes a code of ethics, and their employer is expected impose sanctions if those are violated. Plagarism is one of those codes. Not so in talk radio (not saying I necessarily like that, but that's how it is.)

As for Joe Biden, I'm confused. I thought it was universally understood that Biden's race was derailed by his racially insensitive remarks about an opponent. That's the only account I'd heard.

2. The report is very clear on who did the "thwarting."

The report's clarity is unavailable to the public. That sentence is there, yes; surrounded by sentences that may or may not qualify it in some way. Those sentences might even say that Kermit The Frog contributed substantial intelligence to the Philippine police; thus, if Franken had claimed that Kermit thwarted the attacks, the partially-classified report would not be a valid foundation for rebutting the claim. It could be rebutted on other grounds, like the fact that Kermit is not real, but the report would not be a relevant source for making that argument.

It is true that the citations you now provide - the 9/11 report and CNN report - may strengthen your case, and I'll take a closer look. I'll also try to look at the books you cite when I get the chance. But the partially-declassified intelligence report does not contradict Franken, and citing it in the way you have misleads the reader.

In the meantime, please consider this: Sandy Berger's testimony, which you cite yourself for the "eliminate Al Qaida" item, includes the following sentence:

“

With Filipino authorities, [the intelligence community] helped to prevent a Manila-based plot to assassinate the pope, and blow up 12 American airlines over the Pacific.

”

3. Franken makes the case that the Bush administration "ignored" warnings before 9/11.

That case, as you summarize it, is intact. The testimony you cited also includes Sandy Berger asserting that Condoleeza Rice had acknowledged his communication to her, and repeatedly expressing frustration at the Bush administration's subsequent failure to deal effectively with Al Qaida. Berger was highly critical of the way the Bush administration dealt with his warnings; his language in the testimony is more polite than Franken's, but it reflects substantially the same point of view. Your paragraph, presenting the distinction between disrupt and eliminate as the central lesson of that testimony, comes from someplace deep within the "spin zone."

In closing, let me reiterate: I do not insist that these sections be removed entirely (with the possible exception of the "plagarism" item.) The others may be worth discussing, but the current presentation is not acceptable. Rewriting them, and/or putting them in a different section, could easily address my concerns about (2) or (3).

-Pete 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pete's observations and issues. A notable criticism of these passages needs to be used, not statements that sound like "the facts speak for themselves." A notable critic/source needs to specifically criticize these aspects of the book, not original research that is thrown out there as evidence of Franken "lying." --DavidShankBone 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, after all of the discussion thats taken place I thought all of this should've been clear by now. Its okay to place the criticisms in the article but they have to be cited to reliable sources that have actually made the criticisms. Pierre's "revision" is almost exactly the same as his previous version, except the sourcing (Pierre's webpage) has simply been removed. Now it reads like Original Research. If the noted criticisms are major issues within the conservative community I would think notable critics should be easy to find via a Google search.- Hal Raglan 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SWATJester's comments[edit]

I think we should also be careful about the scope of the criticism section. Looking at D323P's proposed criticisms, it's not our job to disprove or prove the accuracy of Franken's book. It's our job to include OTHER PEOPLE'S criticisms of the accuracy of Franken's book. I don't think the current version deliniates that well enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good approach. The problem I see, though, is that some discernment of the validity of the criticism is still necessary, to avoid perpetuating baseless or irrelevant criticisms. For instance, if somebody wrote somewhere that Franken's book was written in code to communicate with an Al Qaida cell, or was actually written by Boy George, or should be entirely disregarded because of a couple of grammatical errors, such criticisms would not belong in the WP article. That distinction is not always black and white, and I think much of what we're discussing here based on that disagreement. (Of course, the inclusion of a criticism by an established news outlet is one very important measure. If we stick to that, I think all concerns will be satisfied.) -Pete 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D323P replies to Pete[edit]

1. Pete: "[D323P considers Franken a journalist]"

I never said that. I merely stated the following facts:

1. Al Franken is the author of six books.

2. Al Franken composed the Lies book at Harvard. (By the way, Franken has written, "Telling the truth is something I take seriously, and I hold myself to an impossibly high standard.")

3. Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate.

You wrote something about me that was not true. Personal attacks and false charges are a clear violation of Wiki policy.

Lets not bring policy into this. It was not a personal attack, and incorrect charges are not listed in policy. Lets focus on the content. It doesn't really matter whether you consider him a journalist or not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Pete: "As for Joe Biden, I'm confused. I thought it was universally understood that Biden's race was derailed by his racially insensitive remarks about an opponent. That's the only account I'd heard."

I provided a Wiki link to the article on Joe Biden. The plagiarism issue surfaced in 1988.

3. The "thwarting" issue

I personally own all three books which I have referenced. The thwarting of the plots by Philippine police is an episode I have researched extensively.

Again, the facts can be found at:

... [http://www.amazon.com/1000-Years-Revenge-International-FBI/dp/0060597259/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913346&sr=8-1 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance]

... [http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Slept-Reasons-Failure/dp/0812966236/ref=sr_1_3/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913406&sr=8-3 Why America Slept by Gerald Posner]

... [http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter]

... The 9/11 Commission Report states, "The plot [to blow up US airliners] unraveled after the Philippine authorities discovered Yousef's bomb-making operation in Manila." [16] (Chapter 5 of the Report)

... This 2001 article from CNN.com: [17] "U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings"

... This 2001 article by Matthew Brzezinski in the Washington Post: "Bust and Boom: Six years before the September 11 attacks, Philippine police took down an al Qaeda cell that had been plotting, among other things, to fly explosives-laden planes into the Pentagon" [18]

4. Pete: "Your paragraph, presenting the distinction between disrupt and eliminate as the central lesson of that testimony, comes from someplace deep within the "spin zone."

What paragraph of mine are you talking about?? Please paste the reference. D323P 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+_+_+_+

I have added a NEW proposal for the "Criticisms" section below. New material. New sources included. Thank you for your patience. D323P 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW Proposed "Criticisms" Section by D323P[edit]

Criticisms[edit]

Franken’s book has been the subject of criticism, including:

Factual accuracy

A 2004 article by pundit Rich Lowry, of the conservative National Review, challenged Franken's book on its facts. ^[29]. Lowry noted that Franken had claimed in his book that the Clinton administration had a "far-reaching plan" to eliminate al Qaeda and that the Clinton team "decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out." However, Lowry wrote that Sandy Berger testified in front of Congress on September 19, 2002, and stated, "[T]here was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."^[30]

In a 2005 book called [http://www.amazon.com/Pants-Fire-Franken-Smears-Deceives/dp/1581824807 Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives], writer Alan Skorski cited that Franken claimed in his book that Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly was not from the working-class New York suburb of Levittown as he has claimed. Franken wrote that O’Reilly grew up “several miles apart” from Levittown in the “affluent suburb of Westbury.” However, Skorski writes that in an April 2004 airing of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly displayed what he said to be the actual deed from his boyhood home upon which the words, “Levittown, New York” were printed.^[31] In the 2005 bestselling book [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0767919025/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174010415&sr=8-1 Do As I Say], author Peter Schweizer criticized Franken’s facts:

... Franken wrote that the General Accounting Office refuted the Bush administration in claiming that there was ‘no record of damage’ done by Clinton staffers to the White House as they vacated their offices after the 2000 election. Wrote Schweizer, "Actually, the report begins, ‘Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.’”^[32] Also contained in the report were interviews with employees of the General Services Administration who were responsible for preparing the office space for the transition. "It was not possible to determine whether, in all cases, the reported incidents had occurred, when they occurred, why they occurred, and who may have been responsible for them," the report said.'^[33]

...Franken wrote, "[Former Georgia Senator] Max [Cleland] left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off." Schweizer replies, “Actually, the tragedy was a result of a training accident, as Cleland writes in his memoir.”

...At the beginning of the Lies book, Franken writes that he received applications from “seven hundred students” to work with him during his fellowship at Harvard. But a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson reported, “Franken received applications from 90 students ...”^[34]

~~Alleged “meanness”~~

Schweizer also addressed what he perceived to be a double standard in some of Franken’s criticisms: In his book, Franken criticizes Rush Limbaugh for a skit he presented on his television show in 1993 that was unflattering to the appearance of Chelsea Clinton. Yet when Franken was a lead writer for ‘’Saturday Night Live’‘ in 1993, the show presented two skits featuring actress Julia Sweeney dressed as a “homely teenaged Chelsea Clinton.” (struck by D323P)

Difficulty in interpreting the difference between satire and nonfiction

In a book review of Franken's book in the Washington newspaper The Hill, reviewer Mary Lynn F. Jones, ~~a fan of~~ who liked Franken's previous works, opined, "Franken's tendency to mix fact with fiction [also] left me wondering sometimes what was true and what wasn't." ^[35] As an example, she cited a passage in Franken's book in which he wrote that former Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage "bolted" from a Senate hearing and "[knocked] over veteran reporter Helen Thomas, breaking her hip and jaw" (page 218). In the paperback version of Lies, Franken subsequently clarified the passage with a footnote saying, "the Helen Thomas thing is a joke" (page 227 of the paperback).

(added by D323P)

~~Abstinence letter~~

In a November 2003, article,^[36] conservative David Frum took issue with a satirical letter that Franken wrote for the book. Using Harvard stationary, Franken wrote prominent conservatives, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, that he was "at Harvard writing a book...on abstinence-only education called Saving It! And don't you think it is time that kids had abstinence heroes? And I would like your abstinence story."^[37] Wrote Frum, "[H]ow does a man who values truth so highly as Franken says he does, and is so plainly eager to have his readers think him a nice guy, convince himself that it is OK to deceive people in order to lure them into doing foolish things that will cause others to laugh at them?" Franken apologized to Harvard, but not to any recipients of the letter.

Struck by SWATJester- This section is not related to the book. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear. This episode about the letter is in the book. He composed the letter during his fellowship at Harvard while writing Lies, and he included the episode in chapters called, "Abstinence Heroes (I and II)." In addition to Frum, Paula Zahn challenged Franken about the abstinence letter in this August 2003 interview on CNN. Does this change anything? D323P 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accusations of Plagiarism[edit]~~
In Pants on Fire, Skorski also claimed that Franken plagiarized portions of Lies and the Lying Liars from a 2001 report on the Fox News Channel by the media watchdog group FAIR.^[38] An example by Skorski:
FAIR, July/August 2001: " The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:
Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...
Al Franken, page 63 (hardcover, 1st edition):
For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.
~~The passage in Franken's book does not have footnotes, and FAIR's report is not cited in the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of the book.^[39]~~ (We can lose this if it will help. - D323P)
In all, Mr. Skorski believes to have cited a total of ten passages in Franken's book which bear "striking similarities" to the FAIR report.^[40]
+*+*+*++**+*+*+
Here is a new presentation! Could someone please archive this page a bit so we don't have so much on it? (I don't want to be the guy blamed for messing up. ;) ) Cheers. D323P 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some preliminary comments: I think the Chelsea Clinton bit doesn't belong. There is no indication that this was Franken's work, had any ties to Franken or that he was otherwise involved or could have done anything about it. I also think the plagiarism section is not notable, and I don't think it qualifies as plagiarism. --DavidShankBone 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually inclined to agree with DavidShankBone as far as having reservations about the plagiarism business. Maybe I'd be more persuaded that the FAIR article should have been cited if I were presented with all the material, but as it is, I'm sort of torn between the fact that I do see a similarity when the phrases are put next to each other, and the fact that there are probably only so many ways you can describe Hannity and Colmes. The fact that FAIR did not complain about this makes its inclusion a bit more suspect. Croctotheface 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A plagiarism issue is addressed in the Wiki article on Godless, the book by Ann Coulter. I think it's a fair addition. People can make up their own minds about the severity of the alleged infraction. (I also think the fact that "FAIR did not complain" is not a serious challenge. FAIR's beliefs are often aligned with Franken's. I would not expect the Media Research Center to complain if Sean Hannity had cribbed a few lines from them. Again, I say let the readers decide for themselves.) D323P 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section in Godless: The Church of Liberalism is actually shorter than the one we're considering for this article despite the fact that it makes reference to more sources accusing Coulter of plagiarism. If we include this section, I don't think it's necessary to list an example with indented quotes. I'm still not really on board with the belief that this piece of criticism is notable, but if we remove the example and restrict it to just a couple of sentences, I'm not really concerned about it because it won't overwhelm the article. Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Godless article, the criticism is actually meshed within the article itself! I estimate that 30-40 percent of the article is composed of rebuttals to the book's content. (Not cool, IMHO.) I'm sure that the amount of criticism in our finalized version won't even come even close to the percentage amount in the Godless piece. D323P 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abstinence letter is covered in the Al Franken article. Though it was part of the research for this book, it's not really related to the content of the book in the same way that it's related to Franken in general. I agree that the Chelsea Clinton business is not really a valid criticism of either Franken or his book. In general, the _Do As I Say_ book is notable, so that can source the vandalism dispute. The Cleland business can be included, even though it doesn't strike me as a major deal. The O'Reilly house business is covered on the article on O'Reilly controversies, so I don't know that it really belongs here. One criticism that is absent from this section is probably the most common one: I didn't do a ton of research to support this, btu I think that a lot of reviews of the book probably said something like, "Sure, Franken's funny, Liberals will love his book, and he does a good job refuting Coulter, but is this kind of thing really good for the national discourse?" Something like this should almost certainly be included. A final, unrelated point: it's important that the criticism section not overwhelm the article. I think that if the kinds of changes I proposed were made, it would not, but I suspect that most people who come to this page want to read about the book itself and not critcism of it, so the article should be geared toward that. Croctotheface 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a second reference to the incident is OK. Here's why: The Andrea Mackris lawsuit against Bill O'Reilly, for example, is mentioned in several different Wikipedia articles. Since the letter is directly related to the composition of the Lies book, I think it is a worthy episode that should stay in this particular article. D323P 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really notable to include criticism of a satirical book for its use of satire? --DavidShankBone 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree here. This is an article about the book, any criticism relating to this incident would be directed at Franken himself, not the text, which is what this article is about. It's just not germane. Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can go ahead and include everything that is not struck out, with the exception of the plagiarism section which we should rework a little bit more before including. Any objections? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any big issues; however, the vandalism issue is highly disputed on both sides, and is relatively inconclusive, that it would be inaccurate to present it as an uncontested idea that this vandalism occurred in its entirety. That simply is not undisputed, even in the same report that Dave Pierre sites. Which is what makes the Washington Post article important as a citation, since it explains the controversy in interpreting the report (by both sides of the debate). --DavidShankBone 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if matters are in dispute, then we need to be careful not to endorse one side of the dispute. In general, I think I'd be in favor of only touching upon matters of public controversy such as this. If there is more of a general dispute among liberals and conservatives over something, such a the vandalism, then the fact tat Franken came down on the liberal side isn't really a particularly notable criticism of the book, especially not the way that, say, the criticism he got from the reviewer for _The Hill_ is. Croctotheface 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the real point - a disputed issue that is inconclusive isn't really a "criticism" since it's still up for debate and interpretation. The vandalism issue, whether it occurred, and its extent, is a matter of interpretation. To present it as a conclusive "fact" and, thus, an inaccuracy in Franken's work carries more nuance than the Satire/Nonfiction problem (which I agree, is a problem with Franken's books, and the root of much of their criticism). --David Shankbone 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidShankBone: "it would be inaccurate to present it as an uncontested idea that this vandalism occurred in its entirety." I'm not quite sure what this means. The bottom line is that the GAO report says that vandalism occurred. Franken wrote, "Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred." I don't think it's a matter of "which side" he came down on. It's a matter of what the record actually says versus what Franken wrote. More importantly, it's a discrepancy that was noted by an author (Peter Schweizer) in a bestselling book. I think the readers can be the final judges. That's my two cents. D323P 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and the nuance in the discrepency is noted in a highly-regarded news publication, which let's the reader decide the fairness of the criticism. --David Shankbone 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Alan Skorski[edit]~~
~~This Washington Post article contradicts this paragraph - we need to resolve who is right. If O'Reilly's mother is saying the same thing Franken says, then it's hardly a fair criticism:~~
O'Reilly actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown, according to his mother Angela, who still lives in the Levitt-built house Bill grew up in. His late father, William O'Reilly Sr., was a currency accountant with Caltex, an oil company; Angela "Ann" O'Reilly was a homemaker who also worked as a physical therapist.
The writer of this article is Paul Farhi, who is oft-referenced on Wikipedia on a wide variety of topics. Alan Skorski is only quoted on the Al Franken page for the same book. He is hardly notable and his book was largely panned and pointed to as majorly flawed piece when I found research on it. Other comments to this WaPo article and this section? --David Shankbone 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big rigamarole over a minor thing. It's covered in detail at Critics of Bill O'Reilly. It's really all about semantic designations--apparently O'Reilly's property was located in what is called Levittown before a certain date, and after that point it became Westbury. It probably receives too much coverage over at that article; there's no reason to rehash the whole thing here. Croctotheface 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post article was Franken's source for his Westbury-Levittown claim. (See Franken's "Notes and Sources" in the back of his book.) The deed not only refuted Franken, but also his source. Let's think about it. Someone says that you didn't grow up where you said you did. How can you defend yourself? What better proof than to show the actual deed to your home! It is not a "minor thing." This episode is certainly noteworthy for this article. (The controversy is buried in that ridiculously long "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly" article, in which the case could easily be made that "minor things" are found there.) D323P 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is the source (O'Reilly's mother, or the Washington Post?), not Franken, is what you are saying? This doesn't count as a criticism of Franken for using a reliable source. How is this not minor? I don't feel this is worthy of inclusion; it actually seems a little ridiculous. --David Shankbone 15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should start a Criticism of Al Franken page; the two articles aren't analogous.--David Shankbone 15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This Criticism Section[edit]~~
We need to look at each of these criticisms and look at their merits; as I've demonstrated above on the two I've done just surface research on, there are problems with these; they aren't wholly accurate. I like The Hill bit, but some of these others are an issue. Just having written a book is not good enough. There are lots of books written. We aren't putting in criticism just because they are levelled by any guy who can pound out 400 pages typed, and finds some random publishing house to put it out. What was the reaction to the book? Was it well-received, flawed, etc? The mission on this site isn't just to redact every issue every liberal or conservative has attracted, but whether these criticisms raise above the surface into more reputable publications, that actually examine what the criticism is, researches it, and reports on its accuracy. As the Washington Post article initially demonstrates, and O'Reilly's mother shows, Franken didn't come up with this out of thin air. Dave Pierre, I'm sure there are problems with other sections, including with conservatives. I'm not editing those, though. You should instead of fighting for the same allegedly weak standards you have written you found on other articles, bring higher standards of debate and argumentation to them and have them changed productively (and I will help you edit those articles if you have valid problems and want to use reputable sources, and remove problematic ones). But right here, right now, we should have no trouble crafting a good, reputable criticism section from reputable conservatives, with charges that stick. --David Shankbone 01:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last point: With Franken's run for the Senate, there is a good chance this article will be heavily trafficked and high-profile. It behooves all of us to spend time to craft something that makes the site look good. Our goal should be to educate, and that when a person does a simple Google search can come up with information from reputable sources that contradicts that found here, it hurts the site. --David Shankbone 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the _Do As I Say_ book as a source that Franken was criticized. However, a lot of the things it says seem to be less criticism and more disagreement. Franken gives his side of an argument, and the author of the other book gives his. I'm OK with mentioning the Max Cleland grenade business, but the rest of it should probably be mentioned in passing, if at all. The "pants on fire" book is, in my opinion, one rung above self-published. It's existence might be notable as evidence that Franken received criticism, but I don't think it passes muster as a source in and of itself. Croctotheface 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ [1] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ [[2]]

^ http://newsbusters.org/user/43 Dave Pierre :: NewsBusters (accessed February 28, 2007

^ Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ Frankenlies.com: Franken and the Pope and 12 airplanes

^ [3] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ Frankenlies.com: We Are Discouraged, Al ... By Your Facts

^ Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ Frankenlies.com: No Broken Bones!

^ Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

^ Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ http://www.frankenlies.com/lies/plagiarism.htm Frankenlies.com: Addendum G: Charges of Plagiarism Against Al Franken

^ Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ [http://www.amazon.com/1000-Years-Revenge-International-FBI/dp/0060597259/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913346&sr=8-1 Amazon.com: 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance]

^ [http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Slept-Reasons-Failure/dp/0812966236/ref=sr_1_3/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913406&sr=8-3 Amazon.com: Why America Slept by Gerald Posner

^ http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter]

^ [4] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ White House, GAO Debate Vandalism; Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, June 12, 2002; Page A01.

^ Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

^ Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

^ Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ [http://www.amazon.com/Pants-Fire-Franken-Smears-Deceives/dp/1581824807/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173920817&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Pants on Fire by Alan Skorski]

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

^ Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

^ http://www.billoreilly.com/images/pdf/deed.pdf Image from billoreilly.com Retrieved February 27, 2007.

^ [5] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ White House, GAO Debate Vandalism; Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, June 12, 2002; Page A01.

^ Al Franken Talks 'Lies' By Hana Alberts

^ Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

^ David Frum, “Inside Joke,” ‘’Commentary’‘ magazine, November 2003.

^ CNN Transcript from Paula Zahn show with Al Franken, August 25, 2003.

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

^ NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[1] Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[2] [1] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[3] [[2]]

[4] ttp://newsbusters.org/user/43 Dave Pierre :: NewsBusters (accessed February 28, 2007

[5] Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[6] Frankenlies.com: Franken and the Pope and 12 airplanes

[7] [3] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[8] Frankenlies.com: We Are Discouraged, Al ... By Your Facts

[9] Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[10] Frankenlies.com: No Broken Bones!

[11] Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

[12] Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

[13] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[14] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[15] ttp://www.frankenlies.com/lies/plagiarism.htm Frankenlies.com: Addendum G: Charges of Plagiarism Against Al Franken

[16] Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 310) page 61 of pdf) Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[17] [http://www.amazon.com/1000-Years-Revenge-International-FBI/dp/0060597259/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913346&sr=8-1 Amazon.com: 1000 Years For Revenge by Peter Lance]

[18] [http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Slept-Reasons-Failure/dp/0812966236/ref=sr_1_3/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173913406&sr=8-3 Amazon.com: Why America Slept by Gerald Posner

[19] ttp://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173919254&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Losing Bin Laden by Richard Miniter]

[20] [4] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[21] White House, GAO Debate Vandalism; Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, June 12, 2002; Page A01.

[22] Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

[23] Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

[24] Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[25] [http://www.amazon.com/Pants-Fire-Franken-Smears-Deceives/dp/1581824807/ref=sr_1_1/002-9967048-5181665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173920817&sr=1-1 Amazon.com: Pants on Fire by Alan Skorski]

[26] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[27] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[28] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[29] Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

[30] Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Transcript of hearing : 19 Sept 2002, part two

[31] ttp://www.billoreilly.com/images/pdf/deed.pdf Image from billoreilly.com Retrieved February 27, 2007.

[32] [5] United States General Accounting Office, "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," June 2002, p. 19 (page 22 of the pdf file).] Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[33] White House, GAO Debate Vandalism; Report: 2001 Damage Was Possibly Typical, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, June 12, 2002; Page A01.

[34] Al Franken Talks 'Lies' By Hana Alberts

[35] Mary Lynn F. Jones, "Franken's Humor Overpowered by Cynical Look At the Right," The Hill, September 9, 2003 Retrieved February 25, 2007.

[36] David Frum, “Inside Joke,” ‘’Commentary’‘ magazine, November 2003.

[37] CNN Transcript from Paula Zahn show with Al Franken, August 25, 2003.

[38] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[39] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[40] NewsBusters.org: Al Franken Plagiarized Liberal Group's Writings (accessed February 28, 2007)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

POV?[edit]

"political satire by satirist Al Franken..."[edit]

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)[edit]

Table of Contents[edit]

Biased Article[edit]

quote from GAO Senate Intelligence report[edit]

Plagiarism / Edit Debate[edit]

Original research material removed[edit]

plans re: Al Qaida[edit]

Frankenlies.com[edit]

Removed two paragraphs[edit]

Dishonest Editors[edit]

Summation of my issues[edit]

Dave Pierre spamming his sites Frankenlies.com[edit]

Request for Arbitration: Comments by uninvolved editors[edit]

My thoughts[edit]

Note to SWATjester re: comments by Peteforsyth[edit]

Proposed "Criticisms" section by D323P[edit]

Critiques[edit]

Accuracy[edit]

Clinton thwarts attacks[edit]

Clinton transition vandalism[edit]

Clinton terrorism plan[edit]

Difficulty posed by use of in interpreting the difference between (D323P) satire and nonfiction[edit]

Accusations of Plagiarism[edit]

Pete F replies to Dave P[edit]

SWATJester's comments[edit]

D323P replies to Pete[edit]

*NEW* Proposed "Criticisms" Section by D323P[edit]

Criticisms[edit]

Accusations of Plagiarism[edit]

Alan Skorski[edit]

This Criticism Section[edit]

NEW Proposed "Criticisms" Section by D323P[edit]