Talk:Norm Coleman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Personal interactions

The standard of personal interaction and level of personal attacks on this page is appalling. Remember WP:NPA. The greatest Wikipedians are polite to those they disagree with. I will be monitoring all statements on this page each day from now on and will turn a blind eye to previous offences but will be severe on all future ones. Thank you and happy wiki-ing.--File Éireann 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

More on compromise

172, are you ok with DanielM's suggestion above? It would replace what is there now with:

"In January 2006, a number of news agencies ran articles on controversial edits by Coleman's staff to the senator's Wikipedia entry. (ref) See Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia" --agr 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think Travb's solution was better, after he came along to accepting the compromise. The link to the Wikinews article [1] and the "see also" link to the new article strike me as more than sufficient. 172 | Talk 05:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that for now (it does raise the broader question of how we handle Wikinews links from articles about a political figure). Should we do the same with Mary Meehan and the others?--agr 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really supposed to leave news boxes in a page indefinitely? I mean it's not news anymore. It's a matter of time before another editor comes and wipes out the box because it's old news. Another issue is the box says nothing about any Coleman relationship. People are supposed to infer from placement of the box that there is a Coleman angle? Why not just tell them?DanielM 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And to answer your question. I don't know much about Marty Meehan. Do I gather that his staffer replaced his Wikipedia entry with a bio from his website or something? To me that is a different type of thing than what the Coleman crew did. It depends on the specifics whether a uniform approach should be used for Coleman and Meehan and whomever else, I suspect not. Truthfully I don't think what is here should be replicated because we haven't done a very good job of it. DanielM 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can revisit the news box issue if and when somebody wants to delete it. Meehan did not attempt to justify the edits. He said they were an inappropriate use of staff time, should not have happened and thanked the Lowell Sun, which broke the story, for calling it to his attention. --agr 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Coleman as former pro-choicer

I can find no evidence that Norm Coleman has ever been or described himself as "pro-choice," nor supported pro-abortion legislation in any way. His avowed appreciation of such persons as Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey stems from the days when both those Democrats were anti-abortion. At the very least, the sentence "At one time he was pro-choice, but he has campaigned as pro-life since at least 1993" requires a citation for the pro-choice claim, but, until someone can prove it, I'm deleting the clause. --BCSWowbagger 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bipartisanship

In 2002, the Bush Administration persuaded Coleman to run against Paul Wellstone for Senate rather than try for the governor's chair. [12] Critics of Coleman argue that he campaigned on using bipartisan efforts to "get things done" in the Senate, [13] but in his first year in office he voted with President Bush's position on bills 98 percent of the time (according to Congressional Quarterly statistics).

This sentence needs to be reworked. Voting with the president does not necessarily mean one is failing to use bipartisan efforts. It would make more sense if it were explained that Democrats often opposed such measures (if, in fact, they did). 69.241.235.253 07:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just saying he voted the President's position here and there, it's stating he is lockstep with the President nearly all the time. I'm not sure it doesn't make sense because it doesn't come out and specify that Democrats often oppose the President's positions on legislation. That is a relatively obvious thing. For instance Democrats were generally seen as disagreeing with the President on recent votes on stem cell funding, flag burning amendments, extension of Bush tax cuts, gay marriage amendment, however Coleman agreed with him in each case. So I think the logic that his voting record refutes his previous claims to bipartisanship is okay. I'm not ruling out that the paragraph could be reworked or perhaps expounded upon to make it clearer, so I am not totally out of sync with you. DanielM 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


The following is an excerpt from a transcript of a March 26th 2008 WCCO program called Reality Check:

"Coleman's has moved away from President Bush as Bush has become less popular. In 2003, he voted to support the President 98 percent of the time, but five years later his support of the president ranks at only 68 percent. According to Congressional Quarterly, that percentage puts Coleman in the bottom 10 Republicans in loyalty to the president."

Based on information from the Congressional Quarterly, he initially went against his campaign goal of being bipartisan to "get things done" by voting 98% with the President and 92% with the Republicans. Then, as the President's rating plummeted, he shifted tactics. Norm Coleman described himself as a " 99 percent improvement over Paul Wellstone, just about on every issue." Coleman made the remark as he sought to stress his ties to President Bush. He told Roll Call that Wellstone "was never with the president." And now, with President Bush's ratings at record lows, it appears that Norm Coleman doesn't want to be with the President either.

It's hard to have Wikipedia articles about politicians without the articles getting wrangled in the politics!! --56307rez (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Category:American lawyers (for now)

I temporarilly removed this article from Category:American lawyers because it never mentions Norm Coleman actually practicing law. He's licensed to practice, but there's no mention of him actually practicing as a lawyer. The article goes straight from his education to his political life.

If the article is later expanded to mention him specifically practicing law at some point, then go ahead and place it Category:Minnesota lawyers (I'm assuming that if he practiced as an attorney, it was in Minnesota).Dugwiki 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a short summary of his time as a practicing lawyer, so I will put back in the Category:American lawyers. Crumley (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Family

Does anybody know where his kids live? With his wife or with him? or elsewhere

I think they live with his wife in Los Angeles. Qw3rty 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant article

I was just browsing when I came across this article. Jeez. What an incredible hit job this is! Apparently, others have noticed this as well since prior comments point to previous neutrality violations. I find the following to be neutrality violations under Wiki policy:

1) Highlighting "I am a lifelong Democrat" If he said it, just say it. 2) The tone of the section on being a Democrat. Further, would Norm Coleman be Wikiworthy if he weren't a Senator? I suggest that this section be reduced to a brief dicussion of his early life. 3) The sections on Abortion and Gay rights. 4) The section "Ties with George Bush". Both this section and the Abortion/Gary rights sections should be merged into a career discussion section. 5) The section on his Father (This really goes over the top as irrelevant)

I suggest the Wikipage on either Senators Richard Lugar or Evan Bayh, both from Indiana, as the template for a totally revised section. Section headings are neutral and non-political (e.g. Early Life, Mayor/Governor Career, Senate Career, etc.) Both negative and positive information is presented without the acid.

Perhaps a new article should be created that just lists factual information relevant to the Senator's policies and votes while a senator. Jpetersen46321 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unusual to see an editor modify his own remarks as substantially as you just did. I barely blinked while checking something and replying and found myself reading a vastly different text. Perhaps the "I am a lifelong Democrat" was bolded in Coleman's own letter? This should be sourced but is no reason to throw up a NPOV tag. I don't see the neutrality violation in the abortion, stem cell research, and Terry Schiavo bit, though it should be sourced better. Insufficient sourcing is not necessarily NPOV violation. I looked up the article on Evan Bayh that you recommended as a template. Part of it reads like a Bayh campaign brochure: "Stressing fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government, Bayh's tenure as governor is highlighted by: eight years without raising taxes; the largest single tax cut and budget surplus in state history; "welfare-to-work"-type social programs; increasing annual school funding; high academic standards and new college opportunities; the creation of over 350,000 new jobs; strengthened law enforcement; and improved environmental quality." You are going to come here and mark the Coleman page NPOV and hold *that* up as a quality example? I think you should be more specific in idenofying neatrality violations. I do agree with you that the bit on his father is not relevant and should be done away with. DanielM 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree w/DanielM -Ravedave 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Citations needed

Someone deleted the [citation needed] that I had put following this statement:"When first elected mayor of the City of Saint Paul in 1993, Coleman was a member of the DFL and considered left-of-center politically, but gradually shifted to much more conservative positions on many issues during his tenure," without any explanation here as to why a citation isn't needed for such statement. What evidence is there that Coleman's transformation was gradual, or even that he was "left of center" when first elected to mayor? Articles about very conservative or very liberal politicians such as this one need to be thoroughly referenced. Appraiser 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

suspicious edits from Minnesota-area IPs!

IP addresses assigned to Minnesota ISPs that have recently edited this article to remove material that might be seen as embarrassing to the candidate:

And special honorable mention to this anonymous St. Paul user who was especially persistent about adding glowing reports of Coleman's legislative achievements:

Perhaps Coleman's campaign staff didn't learn their lesson after the last election cycle? Or just decided they would be more careful about not editing Wikipedia from Congressional offices? Tim Pierce 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay uh, what exactly makes them suspicious, just because they're in Minnesota? You know, often constituents are interested in their elected leaders…just sayin'… -Pete 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Minnesota resident, and thought I'd add my two cents. I'll be honest, I do not like Norm Coleman. I did not vote for him, and feel he got into office largely because the incumbent, Paul Wellstone, died tragically in a plane crash. Regardless, this is a poorly written article. I just visited the article on Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota's other U.S. Sentator: That article reads like an article in an encyclopedia, as it should. That article has a more consistent and more neutral feel. That article is concise and brief. This article on Norm Coleman, on the other hand, reads like it was written by a committee of opposites, which is exactly what it is. Besides poorly written, it is way too long. Frankly, it reads like it has a pro-Coleman stance with interspersed counterjabs that try to counterbalance. It's simply terrible.

I am not going to do any editing, as I am a new member and don't feel ready for it. Besides, it looks like there is enough warfare going on over content as it is.

If the article is going to remain so long, then I'd like to see some other comments added.

The following quote is from an article published on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 by the Minnepolis Star Tribune titled "Coleman Should Apologize for Wellstone Remark, Congresswoman Says", by Rob Hotakainen.

"To be very blunt and God watch over Paul's soul, I am a 99 percent improvement over Paul Wellstone," Coleman said in a front-page story published in Roll Call. "Just about on every issue."

The article goes on to quote Norm as saying Coleman made the remark as he sought to stress his ties to President Bush. He told Roll Call that Wellstone "was never with the president." I include that comment, because of the apparent efforts of some members to portray Norm in this article as being an independent, and as having been independent throughout his tenure. This simply isn't accurate, and has prompted me to register with Wikipedia just so I can add some comments. --56307rez (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ANWR, environmental positions appropriate for page?

Daveswagon moved the ANWR paragraph from the Norm Coleman article to a political positions of Norm Coleman" page, however I think it should be in the Norm Coleman page proper, just like the abortion, gay rights, marijuana paragraphs and so on. Anyone else care to venture an opinion? DanielM (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack ads?

Doesn't the attack ad Coleman created, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNl4VdPz-3A&NR=1, deserve a special mention? Coolgamer (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is not a valid source. Do you have some reliable source that makes an analysis that is appropriate to include in an encyclopedia? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
How about his official campaign webpage talking about the attack ad? http://colemanforsenate.com/blog-post/130/al-franken-edited-into-new-campaign-ad%3F

Party Switch

Hello,

I'd like to raise a point, I'm from Minnesota and I'm almost certain that Coleman ran as a Democrat in the Minnesota Gubernatorial election. I believe "Skip" Humphrey was the Republican. Could somebody please check on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.70.13 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Coleman became a Republican in 1996 and ran for Governor in 1998. Skip Humphrey has always been a DFLer.--Appraiser (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Um guys... I really don't think it is appropriate to have the f word on a US Senator's Wiki page. Millions of Minnesotans see this. By all means, keep the quote.... it just seems a bit rude to some of the more reserved readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.37.33 (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Topics for Improvement

I don't find anything dealing with important ethical concerns that have been reported in Minnesota during Coleman's term in the US Senate: e.g. Coleman's many trips paid for by special interest groups (possibly as many as 50), fishing trip in Alaska with Senator Ted Stevens and representatives of big oil, and the gift of several Nieman Marcus suits paid for by supporter Nasser Kazeminy that may not have been properly reported. I just today added a section about the DMT/Hays cases, but this is only the latest in a series of events or allegations that should be included in a well-rounded portrait of the senator. I hope some ambitious writer will help out with this!Skybluewater (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)skybluewater 11/2/08

James Madison High School

Who really cares that Bernie Sanders and Ruth Bater Ginsburg graduated from the same high school years before Coleman did?

It might be worth putting in as a James Madison High School article but I don't think it belongs in a Norm Coleman article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the tricky situation of Coleman's Term Ending

Does anyone have a recommendation on how this could be handled? I noticed someone posted a piece of the Yahoo article saying that Coleman may lose his office, floor desk and voting privileges, but would still maintain his floor privileges. Per that article it says his term ends at Noon Saturday (I am guessing EST since that is where Washington is). Should he then be referred to as a former senator? I'm just hoping for some clarification on this. Davidpdx (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote we change the article on Tuesday after the rest of the Senate is sworn in and the MN Senate is officially vacant. Froo (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Technically the term ends today, but since the election isn't over and no successor certified we should wait. As the incumbent, Coleman's staff stay on the Senate payroll for 60 days if Coleman ultimately looses, but his office technically will still operate under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate until the successor is sworn in. If Coleman prevails, we can remove the term end. There would technically be no gap in service since he is the incumbent and terms technically start on January 3 per the 20th Amendment.DCmacnut<> 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, his term officially ends today, the seat is vacant. If Coleman's staff is under the direction of the SofS as of today, he is no longer a senator (though he retains some previleges). The worst case scenario is that it should be changed on Tues at Noon EST, if the election isn't certified on Monday. Even if the election is certified on Monday, it could be blocked by a court theoretically. In that event, the the seat would remain vacant for however long it takes to sort out court cases. Davidpdx (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Coleman's term officially ended at 11 a.m. CST today according to the local media - so I guess the term former senator is correct. If he wins the recount then I guess that it will be retrospective with his dates, but not sure what happens if Franken wins when will his term start. Thejohansenfamily (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well IF Franken wins, his term would start when the election is certified and he is sworn in. It looks like it is going that direction, but he won't be sworn in until well after the other Senators will be depending on court cases, etc.
Back to the idea of whether Coleman should be still referred to as a Senator or former Senator and should the seat be treated as open. I'd like to get a better concensus on this. I lean toward the latter, but am fine with waiting until Tuesday if no decision has been made by then, then it should be considered open. It's a matter of either now or later (again assuming there is no outcome by Tuesday). Davidpdx (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Senate would have to proactively declare the seat vacant by resolution. Given the partisan divide, I don't see that happening. There is precedent for seats being held in limbo like this for weeks in the past while candidates duke it out. Technically, Minnesota will be without 2 senators, but the seat will not be "vacant" since there is a pending election between two contestants. If the Senate were to declare the seat vacant, Pawlenty could appoint a caretaker until the race is resolved, but I don't see this dragging out so long as to get to that point. Again, we'll know more Tuesday. Regardless, the successor would be TBD rather than "open." Franken would be the direct successor if certified the winner regardless of the gap. Barack Obama is not succeeded by "vacant" rather whomever fills the vacancy.DCmacnut<> 04:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree TBD would be better then. Then are we in agreement this seat should be labeled as TBD, Coleman should be designated as a former Senator and his term should show as expired? If the election swings the opposite way, that can be changed back, but it looks very doubtful. By the way, this has already been changed by someone else, but I was trying to get a discussion going before making any changes. Davidpdx (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
TBD would be fine with me, but we could also leave the successor field out until this is resolved one way or the other. The footnote on the terms and the information in the leded should give enough background to readers on the situation.DCmacnut<> 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur on that one. In fact, even if someone is certified the winner this next week, the certification will be put on hold until all court cases have been settled (which after further reading today could be months).
I'll take a look and try to make sure the article reflects that. If it doesn't or I miss something, then someone feel free to correct it. Davidpdx (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Al Franken is the senator-elect by the presently certified count. If Coleman contests the election results and a new count shows that Coleman actually received more votes, then the article can be edited to reflect these new facts. But the outcome of the election isn't wide-open right now; Franken won, and Coleman is going to sue to challenge Franken's victory. --Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the point you are missing is until the certification is signed, the result of the election is not final. The candidate has the right (as much as I personally dislike it) to sue to contest the results. The numbers only been certified as complete, but the SoS and governor can not sign the certification until the court case is decided. Like I said over on the Franken talk page, Coleman's term has ended and he should be referred to as a former senator and his term should be shown as expired. In terms of Franken, he should be left as the nominee until such time he is certified as the winner. Davidpdx (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Lock

As I have stated in several places, I think locking this article was unwarrented. There is no edit waring going on, unlike on the Franken article. Can we please unlock this? Davidpdx (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary Source of Coleman's Views On the Israel/Palestinian Conflict

I have tried several times to give a link to a coleman speech given in the twin cities this january. since it is a primary source, which does not have anyone's opinion on it but coleman's (and perhaps a palestinian protester that broke in to the rally), i feel that it is an honorable enough source to go into the external source section of the article the link is right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t9NouWg_7o&feature=channel_page Ashreipinkus (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose Does not meet WP:EL guidelines for inclusion.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
it does, according to WP:EL, a link that should be added is: An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media... video feed is other media of norm coleman giving his personal views on the conflict. Ashreipinkus (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
No it doesnt. It violates a number of policies and guidelines, but probably the easiest one to explain to you is: WP:UNDUE. It gives undue weight to one particular speach and issue that is not particularly representative of Coleman overall nor is it a speach of particularly significant importance/news generating. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
it is extremely representitive of norm coleman, he is one of the chief advisors for the NATIONAL Republican Jewish Coalition. im not sure if you live in minnesota, but the survival Israel is one of his main political passions. the video is extremely important because it is a very recent statement of his views of the crisis in the middle east (he has kind of been caught up with the whole recount thing, so he hasnt had a lot of time to speak).i am just wondering do you live in minnesota?

whats so funny about your logic in deleting the link is that none of norm coleman's views are neutral. so does that mean no information about his positions should be posted up? if you had a personal statement of coleman, saying he supported israel, that would get cited on the coleman page. but if its in video format, it cant? Ashreipinkus (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

redpenofdoom should really stop trying to take that link off. its almost as if he's being a wiki tyrant. i am in agreement that this vid should be included in external links. thats 2 to 1 red pen, so stop taking the link off

76.17.150.93 (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is not referred to in the article, it is clearly WP:UNDUE and only expresses a POV. Therefore, it should be removed. Actions of 76.17.150.93 (talk) and Ashreipinkus (talk) are just vandalism, numerous other editors (apart from The Red Pen of Doom) agree, see history of Norm Coleman article. BjoernZ (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
yes, it is not directly reffered to. however if someone wanted more information about norm coleman's views on his #1 subject, that would be a very good reference. i support the link being up. 76.17.165.241 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your claim that Isreal is coleman's #1 issue is not supported by the content of our article. His position on Isreal is mentioned only in passing while close to a dozen other issues are subject to illumination in their own subsection. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Compromise proposition to 76.17.165.241 (talk) (and Ashreipinkus (talk)):
- Propose a section on Coleman's views on the Israel/Palestinian Conflict on this talk page, don't vandalise the article with it.
- Try to find out if there is any consensus to really include it into the article (I would suppose there isn't).
- If, and only if, this is the case one may include such a remark in the article, supported by impartial references (rather than the youtube video) and without expressing a POV.
For now, please stop vandalising Wikipedia by continuously reinserting your video. Wikepedia is an Encyclopaedia, not a forum for political POVs, see The five pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks. BjoernZ (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Coleman's Position on Life issues

Norm Coleman is against euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion, as well as cloning and embryonic stem cell research, so I see no reason why his position was changed to "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life". If this continues, then I will change all pro-choice references on wikipedia to "pro-abortion". President Bush is "anti-abortion", but "Pro-life" encompasses more than just opposition to abortion.


Indeed the term "pro-life" does encompass more than just opposition to abortion, but Bush is hardly a good example to use since he is so enthusiastic about the death penalty. Ninahexan (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing Successor in the info box

It seems that several unregistered and a few registered users are reverting and listing Franken as the winner of the race. This is why both pages were locked. I asked for this page to be unlocked because most of the problems seemed to be happening on the Franken page. I now regret doing that.

As much as I personally want to see the outcome of this race for Franken, I think leaving the sucessor box TBA at this point is a wise move. The election is not official until the SoS and Governor sign the certification. Coleman has 7 days to contest the election and it appears he has already filed a suit, therefore the certification can't be signed until the outcome of that suit.

We need to show some restraint at this point and not continue to revert the article or it will get relocked. Davidpdx (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have once again reverted the changes in the info box. I urge people not to revert this until Coleman concedes or the court decides the case before them. Davidpdx (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's started up again. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who won the election?

PLEASE Minnesota wrap this up sooner, rather then later. IMO, we shouldn't be listing anybody, as neither Coleman or Franken have been declared elected. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While an interesting sentiment, it is quite likely that the contest will drag on at least a couple of more months. At this point, the only way that it would be done much sooner than that is if Coleman conceded, and that is unlikely. Regardless, the state of Minnesota can't do much about it. Courts cannot act too quickly. Crumley (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What would Franken's status be? Some have argued that he's the Senator-elect. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
'Cause in my opinon, there should be To be determined in the successor section of the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's another one too: http://politicom.moldova.org/news/canvass-board-says-franken-senate-winner-174733-eng.html - Shall I keep going down the list? Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.keyc.tv/node/15705 read it and weep. Oh and here's another one: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-minnesota-senate6-2009jan06,0,6185810.story?track=rss Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: these sources don't say where Franken was declared elected by the state of Minnesota. Being the Recount Winner, and being the Election Winner are different things. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They also don't say he was certified as the next senator from Minnesota. All they say is that he was ahead after the recount, but that there will be a contest before there is an official winner. One is not a senator (or senator-elect) after winning the recount; one is a senator after winning an election. The result of the election is still in doubt, and will not be known until the contest phase, including any appeals, is over. -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg anybody to produce a reliable source that declares Al Franken elected Senator from Minnesota. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the successor section in the Infobox is ment for a new Senator, Senator-elect or Senator-designate. Franken, is neither of those & therefore shouldn't be listed there. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I looked right then according to Minnesota law, neither of them is the declared winner of the ELECTION because there are challenges against the RECOUNT (that means against the voting itself), so there can't be named any winner. So Franken is just the winner of the RECOUNT but NOT Senator-elect. In the infobox? Surely To be determined. Let's wait for the courts for the changes. Cassandro (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both you and GoodDay, we need to knock off the revert wars with the info box until the outcome of the court cases have been decided. People may not like that this is taking so long, but it has been clearly stated in many articles that the election is not over and certified UNTIL the challanges are dealt with.
Just now I have fixed the link to the "To be determined" which has gotten screwed up time and time again because of the numerous reverts (mostly by unregistered IP's) Davidpdx (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the comments section of youtube, please don't start these threads of meandering opinion. Ninahexan (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

move the election information out of the intro

the second paragraph of the intro should be moved down page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.224.61 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet fraud/leak?

There is some momentum in a story regarding the Coleman campaign attempting to inflate the site's popularity artificially, and then accidentally reveal thousands of contributors' credit card information which was being illegally kept by the campaign. How might this be best represented in the article?

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Senator_Norm_Coleman_complaint_to_Minnesota_Attorney_General_by_Tony_Webster%2C_11_Mar_2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.48.36.236 (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This information should definitely be added, as it is definitely newsworthy. Coolgamer (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No winner?

How has this not been resolved yet? I keep checking this page, thinking I just missed it on the news, but five months and counting and Minnesota still only has one senator. KingJohn23 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It has not been resolved because it is still in a court of law. Coleman is appealing the decision by the court today, and this is likely to go all the way to the Supreme court or to the US Senate for final consideration. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1339615720090414Hunnydaisy (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Still disputed

There's been some attempts to declare Al Franken the winner in this article. It's close but the election is still disputed. For example, from Reuters: The contest, however, is far from over. Coleman has already said he would appeal the widely anticipated ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court and possibly to federal courts. Practicably speaking it's over but we still need to pay attention to technicalities. And before anyone accuses me of bias, I voted for Al Franken...fwiw. RxS (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fair and unbiased, I commend you for that. Ah a fellow Minnesotan, glad to meet you. I'm sure you're as tired of the whole affair as I am then. Yes I too voted for Franken b/c I was fed up with Coleman and wasn't impressed with Barkley. But I agree with you that to be fair to the other side, only formalities remain. But for all intents and purposes, thank God it's over. 12.203.0.250 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Concession

Coleman's on TV right now congratulating Franklin on the election results. This article needs to be updated now.--Tim Thomason 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana issues

Can someone review the sources for the Marijuana issues section? the names of the sources look sketchy at best and I cannot get access to them to make a final analysis myself. Thanks!-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Norm Coleman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Humiliating butt-kicking

I don't think the article adequately reflects the humiliating butt-kicking Norm received from Gorgeous George Galloway in 2005. It's the only thing he is famous for! --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to say... this article does need that content. "Humiliating" "Butt-kicking" aptly describes it. I put the actual quote into the George Galloway article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC82:B600:3822:E3C0:B0F0:1943 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Policy Violation

The section pertaining to Norm Coleman's vote on the defense appropriations bill is clearly biased. Senator Coleman clearly stated that the reason he voted to invoke cloture on this bill is that he believed than even though it included the ANWR provision, which he did not support, he believed it deserved a fair up or down vote. Several Democratic senators voted to invoke cloture on Samuel Alito's nomination, not because they supported the nomination, but because they didn't think a filibuster was warranted, and Norm Coleman didn't think a filibuster was warranted either. Coleman DID later vote to remove ANWR from the Defense Appropriations bill, and the amendment passed 48-45. Here's the link to the vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00365). Please correct this error, otherwise I will continue to dispute the neutrality of the article, because although the Sierra Club interpreted Coleman's vote as a vote against ANWR, they are not a neutral organization!!!

Additional Link

Hi there volunteer monitors - guessing you're watching this page more closely than usual, and you may have already done this but i recommend that http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm be added as an external link to this and other relevant pages.

Proposed new Intro

I think that since this article is getting so long, the intro should be severely pruned, and a short bio section added. Here is my proposed introduction:

Norman Bertram "Norm" Coleman Jr. (born August 17 1949) is an American politician and a member of the Republican Party. He has been a U.S. Senator from Minnesota since 2003. He was mayor of Saint Paul, Minnesota from 1994 to 2002. Previously a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Coleman switched to the Republican Party of Minnesota in 1996. In 1998, he unsuccessfully ran for governor of Minnesota against the DFL candidate Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III and the victorious Independence Party (then known as the Reform Party of Minnesota) candidate, Jesse Ventura.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norm_Coleman/Archive_2&oldid=1137049228"