Talk:Bill Maher/Archive 1

message: The bulk of this article is about Maher's controversies. The 'Controversies' section is even put ahead of his 'Worldview'. Both the flow of the article's structure, as well as the imbalance warrant this article to be checked.Opertinicy 23:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Is the data on the vehicles he owns relevant? 
Especially the mention that he might use a limo to get to his performances seems to be a roundabout way of unfairly characterizing Mr. Maher as hypocritical on the environment.  (i.e.: possible weasel statement.)  We don't list this data for other stars, do we?
:The reason this is worth pointing out is because Maher is pro-conservation on his shows. If he weren't constantly talking about saving the environment, then you're right, this wouldn't be worth pointing out. 69.203.64.174 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: If the image is courtesy of HBO but lacks information on its source, should we continue using it? HBO probably owns the copyright on this photo if that's indeed its source.  Otherwise, we should see an attribution of some sort or remove the image as a copyvio.  --ABQCat 06:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Deleted the following quote:  On the US military: "A 19-year-old who is in that army because he probably couldn't find other employment."
The actual quote was “I think the point he's trying to make is that a 19-year-old who is in that army because he probably couldn't find other employment-”  It should be stated that he was simply stating what he believed Mr. Belzer was trying to state. This was not a belief of Mr. Maher.  Source:  http://newsbusters.org/node/4503  & http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49341
This isn't wikiquote - I think we need to decide which quotes to keep and which to remove.  At last count, there are seven quotes of moderate length (i.e. long sentences).  And more keep being added every few weeks.  I vote to keep "Response to Dinesh D'Souza's ... it's not cowardly.", "We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." and "But isn't there something wrong when I'm the ONLY guy in the country that got fired for 9/11?".  Any others?  The rest should be moved over to wikiquote. --ABQCat 07:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave the 'who's your real friend' quote in too, as being basic to the whole 'bill maher summed up in one paragraph' thing. Gzuckier 22:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I realized I didn't justify the reasons I wanted to keep the three that I listed.  The first is the justification for him having lost his show with ABC, the second is funny and I could life without, but sums up his wit (he is a political comedian, after all), and the third is his respons to having been fired.  Any reasons to keep the others and not move them over to wikiquote?  --ABQCat 23:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't see any of the added/reverted quotes as being particularly illuminating as to Bill Maher, vs. say Jay Leno. Gzuckier 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: User:24.45.37.152  removed "His overall position seems to be generally center-left, much closer to that of Bill Clinton than libertarianism." without discussion.  IS Maher's position closer to Clinton than libertarianism?  I think it's a statement that can't be determined either way, so I'm unsure why it was in there in the first place, but I wanted to document its removal in case there was some sentiment that it DID belong. --ABQCat 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for removal? 

message: I have a problem with labelling any person in their opening description as something which they wouldn't describe themselves as. Bill Maher, so far as I know, has never considered himself a left-winger, so the distinction between what he calls himself and what other people call him should be made. It should also be noted that, of the 13-14 things listed as evidence of him being a "far-left" "Social Democrat", elsewhere in the world at least eight of them (government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, environmentalism, minimum wage laws, gun control, income redistribution through higher taxation, socialized health care) are supported by the "right" as well (even the "far right"). Where there are differences between right and left here (Canada), it is only in matter of to which degree these things are supported in light of other priorities, not the support of the issue itself. I can't imagine the political culture down south is so much different from here that supporting any degree of public school access or guaranteeing peanuts for unskilled labourers automatically classifies you as a "far left" "Social Democrat". -- Matty j 03:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I was thinking something along the same lines.  Maher is never really referred to as "left-wing" or "liberal" when he's introduced on the news networks (they DO introduce politicians, commentators, etc in that manner).  Instead, he's referred to as a comedian.  Isn't it a bit POV to be making judgements about a person rather than stating what they believe in?  I've reverted the edit that he is "left-wing" on those grounds.  A skimming of the article reveals many of his political and social beliefs which he himself has publically supported.  It is not for a single (or even multiple) wikipedian to make a political spectrum judgement about a person unless they are citing the person themselves for such a judgement.  User:Judson doesn't seem to have added to this article, but has rather removed information which seems to be the justification that Maher himself gives for his political and social positions on issues.  If someone wants to remove substantive info, at least do the favor of discussion on the talk page before.  I've reverted all of Judson's edits.  --ABQCat 05:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  i don't think what Maher labels himself is really relevant.  the only relevant fact is whether his expressed views fit the philosophy of the left, or of liberals or libertarians. Streamless 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have that entirely wrong. You are implying that we should make the judgement as to where in the political spectrum he fits. On the contrary, we should simply summarize verifiable sources. Maher himself is one. So we should summarize what he calls himself, and what others call him. We should not make a decision on our own. Please review WP:NOR. -Will Beback 01:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i have no problem with your assertion that "we should not make a decision on our own", but i disagree with "we should simply summarize verifiable sources. Maher himself is one".  many people, most, i dare say, are inconsistent and err in defining themselves.  put more succinctly, if maher is in favor instances where goverment coercion and/or violence affects private actors, he's not a libertarian, even if he refers to himself as one.  Streamless 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the subject calls himself a "X", then we should mention it. If he's not really "X", then we should be able to find some reliable sources which say so, in which case we also mention those viewpoints too. We should not say that the subject calls himself "X", but that we, the editors of Wikipedia, disagree. -Will Beback 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i don't really see why sources (other than maher's own statements) are necessary if we're talking about expressed inconsistencies.  for example if a person refers to himself as a pacifist but expresses views incongruent with pacifism, do we, as wikipedia editors, have to cite to a source before we assert that his self-description is inconsistent with his other expressed views? Streamless 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course we do -- otherwise it's WP:OR.  Wikipedia is not a vehicle for editors to assert their judgements, about inconsistency or any other matter. -- Jibal 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, if she won, you'd be saying how liberal she/Bill is, because she WON IN CALIFORNIA! Gzuckier 14:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You have missed the point. If Maher says "Im a banana" we do not indtend to refer to him as a banana, rather to simply quote him as having said "Im a banana". Futhermore any issues with the Ann Coulter wiki page should be addressed on the Ann Coulter wiki page. By the way, I dont know that Bill Maher has ever said "Im a banana", I just said something rediculous to make my point.--Edy52285 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you've stumbled upon the danger of labels, and the reason I feel that to label ANY person on wikipedia unless it's a cited opinion that matters (wiki-editors, by definition, should not be the source of that opinion) or the individual labeling themselves is unfair and dangerously POV.  You attack my rational position on the basis of the fact that I haven't stood up for Ann Coulter.  Very true - I know next to nothing about her and would be a TERRIBLE contributor to her article in any form except grammatical.  You, however, seem to know plenty about her.  PLEASE - go stand up for her and try to remove imposed labels on her political positions.  Don't attack the attempt at balance and NPOV here because of a perceived inequity elsewhere.  Use your expertise and passion to correct the problems of articles you're passionate about.  I'd value that contribution very much, even if that person's politics aren't in line with my own.  As I say, however, I don't know enough about Ms. Coulter to contribute well to her article.  --ABQCat 08:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: i hope you don't mind that i took your comment out of subject header formatting.  i'm not talking about maher's guests.  i'm saying that while maher claims he's a libertarian, he has views that betray such an assertion, no different than a "pacifist" who beats people up or a "christian" who doesn't believe in jesus. Streamless 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-wing politics 

message: I have reverted (twice) changes to the article which deleted useful information without discussion.  I was pretty sure that the reasons for the reversion were understood, but I'll make the reasons clear here, as a result of a message from Crevaner: "Why the hell do you keep messing with the Maher article. The edits Judson and myself made are completely reasonable, accurate, and unbiased. Could you please stop f*cking those usefull edits up. -- Crevaner 18:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "seemed to give credit to" is a POV statement.  Support it with citations from his own show (then it's not "seemed to", it's "said Bill Maher") or support it with citations from media writeups about the show (then it's not "seemed to", it's "said THIS SOURCE"). --ABQCat 22:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree wholeheartedly.  The exception I see here is if you're quoting the individual themselves and they are self-described as "liberal" or "conservative" (or equally reasonable: "apathetic" "libertarian" or "green"). --ABQCat 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree, however I do not beleive we should concider it 'an exception' when someone refers to themself as a liberal. Calling it an exception opens the doors to wiki-editors saying "He is a liberal" rather than "He refers to himself as a liberal". I think its very important that we make distictions from what a person calls themself, and what they are. We can obviously quote people calling themself whatever they call themself. However from that point on we should simply state their positions on issues and becarful that we ourselves do not refer to them as liberal (or any other label) simply because they do it.--Edy52285 08:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable changes, reversions 

message: I reworded a bunch of stuff in here to make it read a little better.  (At least I hope it reads better...) and added a bit about him believing in God.  (It's true.  He said it on Larry King at least twice).
Yeah, I do remember him saying that he's Deistic.  I reworded the "correction" a bit, because him being agnotsic does not mean that he doesn't believe in some sort of God.  He can hold both views (correct me if I'm wrong!).  
With all due respect, and humbly I submit, that you are wrong on this fact.  This is analytical.  Agnostic means 'one who does not know'.  You can not believe and be agnostic.  You can not 'know' and 'not know' at the same time in the same way.  
:Well firstly, the arguemtn that "You can not 'know' and 'not know' at the same time in the same way." makes no sense when refering to agnostics. Agnostics believe it cannot be know, not simply that they do not know. Secondly, knowing is not the same as believing, so yes, he can believe in god and be an agnostic at the same time. Finally, this is not a wikipage about agnosticism or anythinf of the sort. We can cite sources where he says what he is, and where he says things he believes. If their is an obvious conflict (like saying 'Im agnostic', then saying 'I know god exists') then those should be shown. However in this case there is no obvious conflict so simply cite the sources for whatever his beliefs are and be done with it :) --Edy52285 08:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: Maybe at your house, I certainly don't have the room. Gzuckier 14:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about hosting Amazon.com's 10th anniversary? 

message: It's not accurate to say that Libertarians are against government regulation of corporations:  Corporations are, after all _created_ by the government - specifically through a businesses' purchase of a "corporate license", through which the government confers upon the business certain protections - the most outstanding of which is "limited liability".  
In fact, in a Libertarian "free market" system, there wouldn't be any corporations at all:  The government wouldn't step in and protect business (through the issuing of "corporate licenses") any more than it would step in and protect consumers.  I'd imagine in some transitional system, in which we don't yet have a free-market, a Libertarian would have no problem with government regulating the actions of corporations any more than the actions of other government-created organizations (e.g. the IRS).
:You must be referring to his long sentence:
:* However, he also holds many Social Democrat positions that are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance reform (which he has since repudiated, saying "OK, we tried it, it didn't work"), environmentalism, supports affirmative action, supports minimum wage laws, supports strict gun control, supports income redistribution through higher taxation as a means for the wealthy to pay for some of the advantages they enjoy as Americans, supports government funding for abortion, supports equal rights for homosexuals, and supported Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.
:I think it is problematic to use this article to try to define which stands are libertarian and which aren't. In some matters, even the libertarians cannot agree amongst themselves. In addition, the sentence doesn't actually tell us what Mahers' positions are on some of these issues. I suggest that we drop the "are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology" clause, and rewrite it so that we know what his positions are. -Willmcw 00:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
===Many libertarians===
*In fact, many libertarians consider him to ideologically be a member of the far-left.
Cany anyone give us the names of some notable libertarians who have called Maher a member of the far left? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must they be notable? If you're a libertarian, you're a libertarian. As a libertarian, Maher is a member of the far-left. End of discussion. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not end of discussion.  A notable Libertarian can be quoted in the article.  An un-notable Libertarian such as your self can not be used as a source. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an environmentalist, and I think Bill Maher is a ninja. Therefore, I move we add to the article the following statement: "In fact, many environmentalists consider him to be a Ninja."--148.87.1.171 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Haizum, please see WP:NOR, WP:CON, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE -- Jibal 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians on "regulating corporations" 

message: *In fact, many libertarians consider him to ideologically be a member of the far-left.
Cany anyone give us the names of some notable libertarians who have called Maher a member of the far left? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must they be notable? If you're a libertarian, you're a libertarian. As a libertarian, Maher is a member of the far-left. End of discussion. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not end of discussion.  A notable Libertarian can be quoted in the article.  An un-notable Libertarian such as your self can not be used as a source. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an environmentalist, and I think Bill Maher is a ninja. Therefore, I move we add to the article the following statement: "In fact, many environmentalists consider him to be a Ninja."--148.87.1.171 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Haizum, please see WP:NOR, WP:CON, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE -- Jibal 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Many libertarians

message: The atheist thinkers category should be removed, he has never stated he does not believe in god and instead clings to an agnostic view that god may or may not exist, which is beyond the reason of man to know. Atheists are positive in their belief that god does not exist.- Brodey
*Actually, the position you state is that of 'strong atheism'.  Atheism itself is best defined as 'a lack of belief in a god or gods'.  Maher is a Deist by his own admission. SuMadre
:No, atheism is a belief in the lack of a god or gods. Using your logic, one could define theism as a lack of belief in the lack of a god or gods, but that just doesn't cut it. -Soga
*What do we do what the admission that he admitted that he hates all Religion and he hates people who worship and even insults on Real Time? should we even bother? this guy doesn't seem normal to hate people who worship? - Gio
:*Huh? -- Jibal 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an Atheist 

message: It should be mentioned in this article that Maher was thrown off of Craig Ferguson's show for making an ass out of himself by making light of child molestation.Politician818 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maher on Ferguson 

message: I'm shocked to see absolutely no mention of Bill Maher's vehement support of Christine Maggiore, the woman who went to her grave denying that HIV was in any way connected to AIDS. In fact, the woman even gave the disease to her daughter through breastfeeding, and later denied that the disease was responsible for her death at age 3 years!  Maher needs to be held accountable for his role in promoting this woman's crazy ideas, and is in some ways responsbile for all of the damage she and other HIV-Deniers created by confusing and miseducating people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maher needs to be held accountable?  If he ever is, and it is accurately reported in a reliable source, feel free to introduce that into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV/AIDS Denial Absent from Article 

message: In the past day or so the news included Maher critique of Obama as being obsessed with being a celebrity and suggesting, that Obama just get down to work. This accurate assessment of Obama is typical of Maher ability to accurately comment on broad range of subjects and should be considered as a section for the article.
source Maher Obama critique on youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7GXq4S9KA
/s/ michelle o'obama44 sr  69.121.221.97 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maher Critique of Obama 

message: The chapter with the title "Accusations of Anti-Catholicism" is utterly irrelevant and seems to me to be breaking the Wikipedia NPOV policy. How can you be accused of not agreeing to a form of religion. Religion is an organization to which you belong or not, AT YOUR OWN WILL. You are not obliged in any way to respect or agree to any of the religious dogmas present in our world. You can doubt and criticize (even harshly) any form of religion, as long as you keep it in a decent language, and present logical argumentation. Therefor I do not understand how you can be "accused" of "anti religion", i.e of criticizing a religious point of view, if you bring logical arguments and use a decent language. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The more insidious fact is that criticizing individuals in the church gets equated to being "anti-Catholic". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph hasn't reappeared, but someone slips in the "Anti-Catholic" catagory tag occassionally.  He's no more anti-Catholic than he is anti-Protestant.  He's already in the "Agnostic" catagory, so that covers all the other anti-"insert religion here" catagories by default.  I've removed the anti-Catholic catagory tag again. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of Anti-Catholicism 

message: The new info that was added about Maher's criticism of Catholicism doesn't need its own heading. It should be in the religion section. Also, those criticisms need editing. They could be stated more effectively in half the space. 
I don't understand the "Insanity by consensus" charge by Maher; shouldn't it be "Sanity by Consensus"? I mean, isn't he trying to claim that religion is overlooked as a neurological disorder only because there are so many religious people? 71.76.135.102 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct, and Maher may be using English in a semantically incorrect manner, but I think the point he was trying to make is perhaps more obvious by using "insanity" vs. "sanity".  It's a matter of clarity vs. correctness, but in either case, Maher's quote is correct.  --ABQCat 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 71.76.135.102, are you questioning whether he said it?  If not, there's no relevance -- this page is for improving an encyclopedia article, not for debating the views or statements of the subject. -- Jibal 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dinesh D'Souza has challenged Maher to hold a debate on Politically Incorrect: "I would love to debate him on his show, and can easily show that Maher’s self-image as an intellectual is largely bogus. It is only in the company of obvious charlatans and simpletons that Maher comes off as the bright guy." (Why Bill Maher Made Me Laugh by Dinesh D'Souza) Asteriks (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that even National Review considers D'Souza to be an idiot, that would be an interesting debate. If it actually happens, be sure and get back to us. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference from this article, since its only purpose is to promote this D'Souza character. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I never heard of him until today, which shows what a scintillating figure he is on the national scene. And that would be part of the point. There have been endless debates between Maher and others. Zeroing on in this particular one is for only one purpose, and that is to promote this D'Souza guy. In wikipedia terms, that's called "coat-racking". If they actually do have a debate, maybe it would be worth mentioning here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted in the wikipedia article (which is the only info I know about this Souza guy) that he once dated Ann Coulter. Apparently she had the good sense to leave him. And Ms. Coulter has actually appeared on Maher's shows, yet she's not even mentioned in the article. So the only point of putting Souza's isolated "challenge" in this article is to try to puff up that guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "which shows what a scintillating figure he is on the national scene" -- no, it only shows the limits of your personal knowledge; D'Souza is well known to literate persons. -- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I've removed "...as opposed to a call for more personal responsibility and less dependence on the federal government." and "...rather than denouncing the idea of that even being the government's role in the first place as most libertarians believe it is not." from the political views section since they seemed to be more argumentitive with Maher's views rather than informative.
:Oh, you mean "balanced." --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 06:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our purpose in an encyclopedic article about Bill Maher should be (in part) to "report accurately" Bill Maher's views, not report them and then debate them in an attempt to be "balanced". Debate over the validity of a given political viewpoint belongs on the page for that particular viewpoint, not here. --Leperflesh 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What you have found or what you question are not matters of interest to Wikipedia readers or editors. -- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some small sections. 

message: Citation is needed for the claim that Maher is a libertarian who celebrates Larry Elder and P.J. O'Rourke.  I personally doubt this as being true, one reason being Maher's left leaning postions on a variety issues as opposed to libertaran leaning positions.  Bill Maher agrees with Larry Elder on Social Security and most likely the legalization of drugs, but that doesn't amount to "celebrating" him.  Larry Elder is also a critic of Bill Maher.  I was wondering if someone could find a reference of Maher "celebrating" either Larry Elder or P.J. O'Rourke, otherwise I don't see why the entry should include it. Thorburn
:Well, I can't quite remember last week's show too well, but PJ O'Rourke WAS on Real Time, and I'm pretty sure Maher expressed the fact that he admired PJ. I'm not sure, though.
:: Unfortunately I deleted the episode frm my tivo after watching but I recall the introduction was something like "A man who has influenced many comedic minds, even if they dont know it". I really dont know what you want to define 'celebrating' but it would seem if Maher does indeed celebrate O'Rourke, it may be for his humor, not neccessarily his political views.--Edy52285 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Elder and P.J. O'Rourke