Talk:Bill Maher/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Automatic archiving

This is getting a bit long, so I've set up automatic archiving after a thread hasn't been touched for 45 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact vs Opinion

Lines like this: "Maher likes his bachelor status and does not want to get married." ... Please. How do you know this? Do you know him personally? Why would you say this? No support is offered. It may seem like a small thing, but to be completely objective, it should be presented more along the lines of: "Maher seems to enjoy his bachelor status, and is quoted as saying that he does not want to get married." Then you need to provide the quotes where he, in fact, says this. Sound good? Bigdatut (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He actually said this on one of his shows last season. It called Bill Maher. I don't know which one of the shows it was in his series. It's on HBO though if that helps. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vaccine link?

Is there any objection to me inserting a link to the article Vaccine controversy at the end of or into the 'Views on health care' section?--U5K0 (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Maher Jewish?

Sbrianhicks added the category "American Jews". I know that his mother was Jewish and I know that conservative and orthodox traditions require the mother to be Jewish (although Reform and Reconstructionist do not). Even if necessary, is it sufficient? He was raised Catholic, never was bar mitzvahed, etc. Is there a source that he states that he is Jewish (vs. stating that his mother was Jewish and didn't find out until he was 13)? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is important to remember that Jews aren't just a religion; they are an ethnic group as well. If Maher had, say German anceastry, he would be listed in the categories as a German American. So it only makes since that he be listed as a Jew. Jews are just as much a genetic and cultural ethnic group as the Irish that he also belongs to. Religion is irrelevent. For example, Noam Chomsky is listed as an atheist and a Jew. That is because his religion and ethnic group are seperate. It is the same with Bill Maher.

Sbrianhicks talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Actually, Chomsky does not call himself an atheist and neither does Wikipedia. As for Maher, I think that since he does not identify himself as Jewish then we shouldn't either -- regardless of the finer points in your argument about religion and ethnicity. In fact the two are not separate but rather inextricable: "ethnoreligious group... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated" PrBeacon (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Though Maher was neither raised a Jew (which means many in the Reform tradition wouldn't consider him Jewish) nor self-identifies as Jewish, the only reason to state that he is Jewish is to accede to the Conservative and Orthodox views. But Judaism isn't monolithic (by definition since it isn't hierarchical) and to conclude that Maher is Jewish is making an editorial decision that is reflecting the Conservative and Orthodox point-of-view which arguably is contrary to WP:NPOV. Find a reliable source (published, mainstream, known-for-fact-checking) that states that Maher is Jewish or that Maher self-identifies as Jewish. Otherwise, it is prohibited |original research. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia previously had Chomksy listed as an atheist, perhaps they no longer do (which is good because he has denied being an atheist). And Therefore, how is this original reseach? Maher has two ancestries: Irish and Jewish. That means that he is both Irish and Jewish. Wheather or not he has self-identified as such is irrelevent. Take Stephen Colbert. He is listed as being a German American despite the fact that he has stated on his show that he is "100% Irish." Why? Because he is German. He simply is. Ethnicity is not just self-identification. Me for example: if I were to say that I'm not English, would that make me so? No, of course not. I can't change that fact that I am an English American. No matter what I say. So how is that original research?

And PrBeacon, a person can be Jewish without being a religious Jew. Jews are an ethnic group. One definition of Jew from Marriam-Webster: "a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew)

sbrianhicks (talk) Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking for is a reliable source that states he is Jewish or that he self-identifies as Jewish. That is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Without verification, you have original research. That said, I finally found such a source:

So the fact that I’m half Irish and half Jewish, they both contributed to a sense of humor.[1]

So, I'm presuming that you aren't asserting he is Jewish in the sense the Orthodox would say he was Jewish -- that would raise POV problems -- but that he identifies himself as half-Jewish. Given that, I withdraw my objections. If you put back the category, be sure to mention the talk page in the edit summary. You may want to wait for others to chime in. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to cross the T's etc. -- if his dad was Jewish and his mom was Irish, you would also categorize him as Jewish since he would still self-identify as half-Jewish? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why wouldn't I? What would be the difference?Sbrianhicks (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Orthodox/Conservative traditions would not consider him Jewish -- the source of my POV concerns. We are all working in good faith here. Thanks for your well reasoned arguments! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of the more recent editors to remove Maher from the 'Jewish' categories, I won't argue to keep him out of that category subsequent to Therefore's discovery of a relevant source. The source should probably be used in the body of the article, because I'm sure this issue will pop up time and again. As an aside, I found the above linked Merriam-Webster definition to be a bit baffling. A person can voluntarily self-identify (read: convert) oneself into a Jewish descendent? Does Wikipedia have categories that differentiate between converted Jews and bloodline Jews? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Xeno. I still think it's best to leave the Jewish label off since it is unique in several ways we've discussed here, and possibly more. So he's "half-Jewish" by ancestry yet non-Jew by choice -- don't BLP guidelines side with the latter distinction in these sorts of cases? To compare it with Irish or German or whatever other type of heritage is like apples&oranges. I think we'd need to see other examples (of WP BLPs) to make the decision.PrBeacon (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A similar BLP I found yesterday was Madeleine Albright who was raised Catholic and self-identifies as Episcopalian but had Jewish parents -- a fact she didn't know until much later in life. She is categorized under Czech-American Jews. Maher self-identifies as half-Jewish by his heritage but isn't religious. That isn't a contradiction. Many Jews who are atheists (e.g., Woody Allen) consider themselves Jews -- see Jewish identity. Maher identifies himself as "half-Jewish" and considers it as part of his identity. I would defer to the source in this case. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so if I add "Category:American Jews" back to the article, will any one have any objections now? Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it after looking for more of a mainstream source. Maher to Larry King: "I never even knew I was half-Jewish until I was a teen-ager." [2]. It seemed like a trickier issue since he's so anti-religion. I'd vote for Category:American Jewish people like another editor suggested [3] since the semantic difference seems more appropriate. PrBeacon (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You could, for that matter, add in Category:Jewish atheists which is well populated. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For any claim such at this, Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources making the explicit claim, or a statement by the subject himself that he is Jewish. In this case we have neither; rather, we have the subject stating that he is "half-Jewish", which is not the same thing. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine the ethnicity of various celebrities; rather, we have reliable sources do that. Feel free to add the category Category:Americans who identify as half-Jewish, but please don't assign any labels to Maher that are not backed by reliable sources, and that he himself apparently does not accept. WP:BLP is very, very strict in these matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian

As the article states, Mahr once considered himself a libertarian, thus the category was added. He disavowed that belief publicly on the May 21, 2010 episode of Real Time. The transcript of the quote is on his IMDB bio, referenced in the article. If you don't believe IMDB and wish to hear him say it for himself, the link is at this place. There is no provision to place references to categories on WP. But this, once accurate category, is no longer appropriate for this article.Trackinfo (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, Maher considers himself a libertarian, thus the category was added. He has not disavowed any of his personal beliefs during his May 21, 2010 comedy routine, nor during subsequent comedy routines. Please re-read the quote from a comedy routine that you are citing as a source for an assertion of fact. It does not indicate that Maher has changed his political philosophy (not that we would cite a comedy routine even if it did). He made a quip that it is a "strange moment in our history to be pushing libertarianism", but nothing about him changing his libertarian views. I wasn't aware that someone had squeezed that synthesized content back into the article after it was removed. I have removed it again, so the problem should now be resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Mahr once considered himself a libertarian. His views are fairly clear and do evolve. To dismiss what he says on the air as "part of a comedy routine" belittles the span of his public expression. You can easily tell his jokes from his pointed remarks. All might have a humorous slant, that is his nature, but there is a great deal of reality and his personal opinion within what he says on the air, certainly when he is not doing the stand-up monologue or "new rules." I take what he says in that context at face value. I'm not bothering to revert your edit, but you are hammering on an unnecessary point against what the guy is saying currently. There is a lot more to the quote.Trackinfo (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote doesn't sound like a disavowing, it sounds more like a lament; that Wall Street and BP have let him down, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about Mahr. But as for Bill Maher, if he ever decides to drop his libertarian views, I am sure he'll let us know. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Emails to Blitzer

I removed some content cited to, among other non-reliable sources, NewsBusters. The content was apparently derived from an appearance Maher made with Blitzer on CNN. When asked if he thought Palin had a future as a presidential candidate, Maher expressed serious doubts. The content added to this BLP, however, centered only around Maher's use of the phrase, "but I would never put anything past this stupid country", as if it were somehow significant to his point and merited inclusion in this article. Maher routinely refers to stupidity displayed by the general American populace; it is a trademark of his, guaranteed to provoke a response and get the phones ringing, and its use is even mentioned elsewhere in this article already. However, to inflate that into "widespread controversy" or "sparked controversy" or "media backlash", you'd need some serious reliable sourcing to push that angle. There is a big difference between Blitzer getting a few emails during a commercial break, and the New York Times running an investigative report on the supposed "controversy" and "backlash" surrounding a quip by Maher. In that same discussion, Maher also quipped, "So, within this large country, there are tens of millions of very bright, intelligent people..."; perhaps we should also add content that Maher is now a pro-American propagandist? No. We should follow Wikipedia policy and stick to what high-quality reliable sources convey, and refrain from trying to interpret primary sources such as videos and video transcripts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up on Maher religion section?

This section seems to have become a dumping ground for every quote that Maher has ever made about religion. Does anyone else agree that we should shorten and consolidate this section? I think that it would be sufficient to simply explain that Maher is apartheist (or whatever he claims to be currently) and leave the matter at that point. Right now, the section reads vaguely like one of his comedy sketches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The section, as well as the rest of the article, could use some work. Stringing a bunch of quotes together in an attempt to convey a persons views is shoddy, at best. Reliable secondary and third party sources should be used, instead of primary sources, as Wikipedia policy directs. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - this article does not conform to Wikipedia policy, but is mostly filled with a selection of primary, first-person quotes by Maher, which constitutes Original Research by editors. This does not conform to Wikipedia policy, which calls for sources to be reliable third-party material about a topic or subject of an article. I have deleted much of the material based on primary sources, as it constitutes OR.Parkwells (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with OR

The article is marred by Original Research (OR)- selections of first-person quotes by Maher to prove various points. This is prohibited by Wikipedia policy, as all articles are supposed to rely on third-party sources about a topic or person. I have deleted major portions that are supported by nothing other than Maher quotes.Parkwells (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have misinterpreted the concept of WP:OR. Maher did not write this article, as best can be determined. But as an outspoken top celebrity with a couple of decades of weekly television appearances (at least when his shows have been "in season") he is responsible for many quotes. Many of the things he has said are controversial and are thus quotable. Both the things he has said to cause the controversy and his response to the controversy are completely relevant, quotable items. I haven't analyzed all the edits you made in great detail (with so many edits, you make the cumulative effect more difficult to analyze), but in a quick look; it appears you have eliminated several important quotes, that are meritorious of appearing in the article (on this ill-conceived pretense). There have also been subsequent edits that seem valid, that should remain. I urge you to go back and replace the damage you did with such massive edits until can be discussed and a consensus for their removal is achieved. Trackinfo (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is OR for editors to rely so heavily on quotes by Maher (which constitute a primary source) to develop an article rather than to use valid, third-party commentary and sources. Just because Maher has made many comments does not mean that editors are supposed to go directly to his quotes to create the article; rather, they are supposed to use valid, third-party sources who have written ABOUT Maher. As Wikipedia says in the "No OR" article, section Sources: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." It goes on to say (under Primary Sources), "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." Parkwells (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be OR if the substantive content for the article were based on his own quotes. If HE said he was a top level comedian and had a series TV shows that essentially are the basis of his fame, then those would be sources of his generation and not reliable. Now that the facts of his notability are established, and the fact that he says controversial things is established (all of which I believe we have reliable, independent sources verifying), then the controversial quotes are relevant content. Because they caused controversy, which seems to be the story of his life, the subsequent reaction (other sources) and his reaction are relevant. None of these things has a thing to do with OR. Trackinfo (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors made statements about him, which were unsourced, but then supported/followed by his lengthy quotes.

We can disagree on the article. I think this, like many of these articles about current people, was overloaded with quotes by the subject and with attention to quotable controversies, rather than using sources and material about his overall impact and style, that provide context and evaluation. As you noted, he's had several controversies- but he's also had many seasons of shows. Why did he win those awards? Not just because of quotable controversies. Why was the writing considered good? Nothing of that is covered in the article. I think it is UNDUE WEIGHT to give so much attention to the controversies and lengthy quotes (rather a fan mag and daily journalism approach), and not to have any discussion about why the shows were well-regarded. Did he manage to discuss issues, did he get people to say insightful things - what else was going on other than his talking? He preferred his second show because it was more serious and allowed real discussion about politics and issues - did commentators discuss how the issues got covered, how did they think his discussions compared to other talk shows? There should be some sense of comparison, of what he actually did, not just what he said in his most outrageous comments or sound bites.Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Rather than having so many quotes by Maher, so that we know what he has to say on very many topics, the article would be strengthened by having material from journalists or institutions that discusses WHY he and his shows have been nominated for and won so many awards. What did people/commentators/evaluators think he was doing well? What did he do that others did not? What needed improvement? Virtually none of this is covered in the article. Surely the total record of his many seasons is more important than one or two controversies, no matter how "quotable" they might have been. Since he has been a major media figure for some time, more people must have written about him. That is why he is notable, not because of his private views, even if he is on the board of PETA, etc.Parkwells (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

O'Donnell

This article needs to make some mention of Maher's airing of the videos of Christine O'Donnell admitting to having been a "witch." It was a major news story for weeks and probably cost her the election. He also exposed that other candidate who was caught dressing as a Nazi.69.112.90.253 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

First for clarification: The other candidate mentioned was Rich Iott, who failed to win a seat in congress in his race in Ohio. While those pictures of him wearing a Nazi uniform were fun fodder for many comedians and journalists, we would need to establish that Maher personally had something to do with their initial release, otherwise he was just another player in the media storm. As for O'Donnell, as I was researching my response here, I found enough information to justify what I included in the article. I duplicated that to his Real Time article as well. It was already part of the Politically Incorrect article. Trackinfo (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Maher broke the Iott story.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.90.253 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source and we can include it. Trackinfo (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the Iott story was first reported in The Atlantic [4] by senior editor Josh Green, who then brought it to Maher's show the same day [5] (Oct. 8, midway through). I suppose it could be argued that Maher provided (alot) more attention to the story.. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Witch Doctors

Had noticed all the mention of Witches on news channels recently, and wanted to point out the fact that Witch Doctors are not considered Witches. With all the talk of Witches, there was never mentioned Sorcery. Scary movies and superstitions can make people sad. Kabbalah can help in learning about balanced forces. It would be nice if networks would redeem themselves... Wizard, Witch, Merlin, Sorcerer, Magi. Shalom75.204.9.141 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The definitive work on this subject was written by Ross Bagdasarian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks Trackinfo (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya think the IP might suspect he's being made fun of? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

I just reverted two IP edits adding "atheism" as opposed to "scientific knowledge." It seems obvious from the article that Maher has stayed away from specifically declaring himself an atheist, so it is introducing someone else's POV to insert that term--something that is repeatedly happening in some form to this article. More importantly, I think it the scientific knowledge more accurately explains Maher's repeatedly expressed position. In the same step, I reverted the same IP editor's removal of "famous" from describing the Hollywood Walk of Fame. While puffery, I think the walkway can live up to that adjective. The word does not add a POV to the article and removing it doesn't seem necessary. Trackinfo (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

revisiting: 'half-Jewish'

This issue has re-surfaced in a couple of recent edits so I thought I'd point out the previous (archived) discussion, Talk:BM/Archive 4 - Is Maher Jewish? along with two sources mentioned there:

• [6] "So the fact that I’m half Irish and half Jewish, they both contributed to a sense of humor."
• [7] "I never even knew I was half-Jewish until I was a teen-ager."

Then and now there are editors who think the article should have a category like American Jews or Jewish Comedians, but as another editor said earlier, his 'half-Jewish' self-designation may not be enough for these categories. (Previous discussion stopped at that point, so I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions). -PrBeacon (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm probably reaching a non-WP:AGF conclusion, but I think those editors seem to be trying to place their own agenda and POV into the article. Maher does not self-identify as Jewish in any of his material. A Jewish comedian would be Herschel Krustofski. It was a one off mention that he didn't even know about his heritage until he was a teenager, far different from the anti-religious nature of his frequently repeated, normal content. In fact, the arguments over whether to call him an "atheist" or "agnostic" are more relevant. Because he is controversial by the nature of his content, he attracts fanatics of all sides. I still suggest many of these editors are trying to inject THEIR POV onto Maher's opinions. I have been criticized for my POV, but I suggest Maher's positions are best expressed by Maher himself. He expresses his opinion well and regularly. A good quote would settle the matter in a lot of these cases. But because of the poor choice of quotes in the past, I think we need to find a way to do this rationally. Again, a "gotcha" one-off mention in the middle of a joke is completely different from the well expressed, pre-written commentary or oft repeated phrase he might use. Trackinfo (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Position on israel palestine

Someone has deleted maher's position on the israel/palestine conflict. It was very well sourced, infact sourced better than almost anything here, considering that it was not an oral speech like most references I see here, it was a written and published editorial. Here's the source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/i-love-being-on-the-side-_b_25375.html. His opinion that "There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom" is very controversial and highly relevant to today's politics. It needs to be in his article. If someone didn't like the wording then they should change that, but I see no possible reason other than bias to take out the information. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"no possible reason other than bias" -- gee, you think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.25.142 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think so. Certainly no logical reason has been given. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for laughs

He was also on Just for laughs stand up does that count as T.V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Sarah Palin Joke

A section discussing his use of the word "twat" in a joke about Sarah Palin has been added to this page several times. However, the references provided only indicated that it happened, not that there was a huge uproar over it. A quick google search doesn't reveal anything outstanding in terms of public protest. Any thoughts on the section? Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it's not important enough to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox News had a hayday over it, so it is notable IMO. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not notable, for the same reason cited by Toa Nidhiki05. If a reliable source ever decides to give context (the Why, reason, and how it is important, etc.) then we can revisit it. Until then, it's just a comedian cracking a joke about a public figure -- no news there. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Bill Maher made a politically incorrect statement about a public figure! News flash!

You're right, it's not notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Errors

Maher has from time to time made public errors of fact.

First case.

I heard him state on one of the Sunday Morning Political shows that Brazil had solved their oil problem by their use of ethanol.

That was a gross distortion of the facts. In fact in addition to a successful market based ethanol strategy Brazil is drilling for oil off shore as fat as it can. As far as I can tell there are more wells being drilled offshore by Brazil than in the Gulf of Mexico Brazil offshore production is expected to surpass Gulf production soon.

I believe there are other examples.

This issue clearly needs more specific information, that I don't have, although the information should be available and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteinmetz70112 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for rebuttals, it's an encyclopedia. If there are any reliable secondary sources dealing with controversy around Maher, those may be added to the article if sufficiently notable. Otherwise, it's not the place of an encyclopedia to provide point and counter-point. Besides, he talks a lot. Dayewalker (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics? Conservative? Libertarian? Socialist? Liberal? Libertarian-Socialist maybe?

There seems to be a lot of debate about his political views and he has expressed praise for European style Social Democracy or Socialism but the politics section just claims him as a libertarian without any mention of this. I understand in the States libertarianism and socialism are usually seen as polar oppositeness so I would have thought that a self described libertarian praising socialism would've gotten a mention. Here a link to a site with some mention of the issue http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/lawrence-odonnell-definition-socialism-bill-maher-hospitals-schools-prisons-military-pinhea/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is one thing Maher is good at, its stirring up debate. He's also difficult to pin down with a specific political label, because his political leanings can range from one end of the spectrum to the other end, depending on the specific issue being considered. The link you've provided shows Maher defining an -ism, but doesn't provide any detailed information about his personal politics; it tells us much more about O'Donnell. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a current trend to describe Maher politically with "Maher previously described himself as a libertarian. Although he has since renounced the economic aspects of Right-Libertarianism and on Real Time with Bill Maher has identified with more social democratic economic policies." If he's actually renounced libertarianism, that's something that should be properly cited and put in the article. However, identifying him with social democratic policies (or anything else, really) seems to be original analysis of him unless we've got a proper source. Dayewalker (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, before pinning any political affiliation upon Maher; he is not a politician, he is a professional comedian. Stealing from the definition of such--"Stand-up is an art form that is openly devoted to getting immediate laughs from an audience above all else . . ." His brand of comedy does take a political stance, but he has never said he has the solution to the world's problems, he has never been a candidate for political office and he has no authority to do anything other than speak from a platform on a TV show or a theatrical stage, from which he express his one person's opinion, which is frequently short sighted in pursuit of his professional obligation--to make people laugh. Unless he himself chooses to state a political affiliation, he's just like any other person on the street with an opinion. Its subject to personal interpretation. We on WP should not get into the game of categorizing him into a box he deliberately avoids placing himself in.Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Described himself as "progressive" 00:21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obEQE4CtI1Q though he backs Ron Paul --TheAmericanizator (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Influences list seems arbitrary

What evidence is there that his notable influences include Chris Matthews and Christopher Hitchens? --Javaweb (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Whoa! Why does Wiki say Maher is of "Irish" descent and not "Jewish"?

Bill Maher's mother is Jewish. That makes him eligible for citizenship in Israel. I see no connection whatsoever with being Irish, especially his contempt and hatred for Catholicism. MickeyDonald (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the section "Early life and education" and you will see he didn't even know about his mother's religion or perhaps former religion until he was a teenager. He was raised Irish Catholic, giving him plenty of exposure to the religion and an educated reason for the "contempt" you suggest he has for it. From the things I have heard him say, he does not have a specific contempt for the Catholic religion. He has said "All religion is bullshit" and things to the effect that more wars have been fought, more people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. That doesn't seem to be singling out any one religion. Trackinfo (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even the Irish prime minister attacked the Vatican and he is Irish. --Javaweb (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

OK, So Bill Maher has contempt and hates Jews and Judaism too. I get that, but the article should state that he's Jewish in an addition to being Irish.MickeyDonald (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says his dad was Irish-Catholic and in his teenage years he learned his Mom came from a Jewish background. These are backed up by reliable sources. Looks fine to me.

Being an atheist and a comedian, he sometimes makes jokes about Judaism. Please produce the reliable sources that prove that he hates Jews, including his own mother. --Javaweb (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The whole idea that he "hates" anybody, followed by MickeyDonald's multiple Jewish categories, sure seems like he is pushing an agenda, not based in anything of Maher's doing. Maher clearly calls attention to the the hypocrisy of all religion. When he singles out a particular religion, he shows the ridiculousness of their story. He shoots holes in their beliefs, usually with biting humor. Maybe that offends you, but never have I heard him say anything about his hatred for anybody. Trackinfo (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see your point there on that. It just doesn't seem accurate to list him under categories relating to inherited biological descent for "Irish" from his father's side, but not include similar and equal one's from his mother's Jewish side. (This is a totally different issue from Maher's stances against all religions whether they be Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. and the ridiculousness of their stories.)MickeyDonald (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

American people of Jewish descent is already there. However, I am assuming you would like to add American Writers of Jewish descent as well as comedian or delete the corresponding 2 Irish descent categories. I don't see his writing/comedy coming out of either tradition so perhaps American writers/comedians of Irish descent should be deleted. In any case, he is as much descended from one group as the other. --Javaweb (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Death Penalty

This sentence seems to imply that abortion and euthanasia are forms of a death penalty.

"Maher supports the death penalty, the legality of abortion and euthanasia. "

I believe this is quite misleading. What do you guys think?

Janechii (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the medical issues to "Health Care". --Javaweb (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Santa Maria Sensationalism

I think this article is generally on-point. I object to the segment which discusses Maher's personal life, in which Cara Santa Maria is given the title of "neuroscientist." Santa Maria has an M.S. in neuroscience and works as a lecturer at the highschool and baccelaureate level. Santa Maria is not a professor of neuroscience; nor does she work as a researcher; nor does she hold a Ph.D. I believe Santa Maria should be called an "educator in neuroscience," or simply a "science teacher."

For the sake of accuracy I think this article should challenge rather than reiterate the sensationalism the media has stirred around Santa Maria by calling her a "neuroscientist" and thereby implying she is a known entity in the field. Santa Maria is a young woman who earned a master's degree in her early twenties. Nothing so unusual about that. Sarayan (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

She isn't "given the title of neuroscientist", she is described as a neuroscientist (note the wikilink). I checked that wikilink, and the description appears applicable. The definition does not state that one need be a Professor, or that one be a "known entity in the field" to be a neuroscientist. Nothing at the Cara Santa Maria bio, as well as her personal web site, gives me any pause in referring to her as a neuroscientist; I see she also self-identifies as such. I don't understand what prompts you to equate descriptions of her as a neuroscientist with "sensationalism the media has stirred around Santa Maria". Is there something I'm missing here? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox info removal

With this edit summary:

(rm re previous edit summary - most US comedians riff on these subjects. Too generic)

information was removed from the infobox. I don't understand the editor's reasoning behind the removal of accurate, sourced information based simply on the fact that others (not all) share similar traits. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To say he talks about American politics, current events, pop culture and religion in no way differentiates him from other comedians and so it makes the info box subjects redundant. The boxes needs to convey meaningful information. Span (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Maher "riffs" on a great many subjects to varying degrees, but that can be said of most comedians, pundits and commentators. However, Maher's most significant "notability" is due to his endeavors in specific arenas such as politics and religion, hence the notations in the infobox. I won't argue that others (I disagree with your "most" characterization here) haven't dabbled in those areas, but if you were to name individuals "known" for it, Maher would be on a short list. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that I don't disagree with your trimming of the subjects in a previous edit, but removing all subjects of concentration, as if he were another generic stand-up without a topic focus, seems a bit misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian?

It really needs to be emphasized that Maher's views do not actually fall under libertarianism, but rather into progressive politics. It could also be emphasized that he may be referring to left-libertarianism, which is similar to in ways to American Libertarianism but falls into the left. - Sausboss (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase he has used to describe his ideal politician is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." Keeping the government out of his pocket book (he has long criticized the Bush administration for destroying the economy and running up the debt for two wars on the credit card) AND out of his bedroom (off his property might be a better way of phrasing it) sounds pretty libertarian to me. Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than debate the merits on the talk page, search for what published sources say about the issue.

• Journalist Brian Sack says "The Libertarians like to call themselves America's largest third party and in fact might be, though it's really hard to say. Lots of people, like TV host Bill Maher, claim they're libertarian but in fact appear to be fair-weather libertarians who instead identify with only one or two popular libertarian ideals. In Maher's case, hookers and weed."[8]
• Scholars Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young say "Host Bill Maher does indeed see himself as a political maverick and likes to support controversial positions. But these are usually ones that could be described as radical individualism, libertarianism, or egalitarianism. His opinions sometimes coincide with those of the political left or centre, seldom with those of the political right."[9]
• Professor Jeffrey Jones says "Whereas Maher proclaimed himself a libertarian with Republican sympathies when Politically Incorrect first aired in 1993, by the time he started his HBO talk show, his politics were largely anti-Republican..."[10]
• Science writer and mathematician Martin Gardner (December 2009) Skeptical Inquirer, volume 33, page 22. "Bill Maher: Crank and Comic": "Politically, Maher is an outspoken liberal with many libertarian views, such as favoring legalization of prostitution and marijuana."[11]

These views should get the point across that Maher is left-libertarian if he is libertarian at all. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than search for "published sources" to support a preconceived notion, why not rely on "reliable sources for the assertion of fact" regarding political definitions instead? And if we can't find one of those which examines all of his current political stances and makes a factual determination, defer to his self-identification. We shouldn't dig up "views" from non-experts on political definitions, like a non-journalist Glenn Beck protege, a pair of religious studies scholars from more than a dozen years ago, or a screed from a mathmatician magician. And even those three "published sources" acknowledge Maher's libertarian views. The Jones source linked above is better, since it is at least from a political science field. He indicates Maher's "libertarian with Republican sympathies" had grown anti-Republican by 2003, as Maher realized his license to ridicule those in power at the time (read: Republicans) and became a political gadfly to president Bush. Then 4 years ago, he was ridiculing Obama. He has endorsed Ron Paul, Bob Dole, Barack Obama... but I've also heard him say Republicans have gone downhill over the past decade. Two weeks ago, "The Five" on FOX News were accusing Maher of being "conservative" after he criticized California liberals over taxes. Since his "leaning" is different depending on the actual political issue, but he does still espouse libertarian views, and most recently he has also indicated a "progressive" shift, but actually hates political labels, perhaps we should convey that. I'd suggest something along the lines of:

Maher eschews political labels, referring to himself as "practical". In the past, he has described himself as a libertarian and has also referred to himself "as a progressive, as a sane person".

OT: Does anyone know what political affiliation he has registered under? Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I expected more than questioning the expertise of the reliable source authors, more than once again starting into original research and debating specific issue points. Gardner is specifically writing about Maher, analyzing him. Nathanson and Young are not outside their area of expertise in their observation of Maher. Even Sack may be quoted per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. All of the selections I gave above are usable in this article; all meet our requirements for reliable sources.

Your suggestion to look further is a good one. We cannot go wrong by hunting down some more published analysis of Maher's political position. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We've heard these arguments in the past with people trying to impose their own WP:POV labels on Maher sourced by external opinions. I'll repeat myself. Rather than take anybody else's word for it, listen to his own words. He has called himself a libertarian. He redefines what that means and his "positions" continuously with comments on his weekly TV show. I quoted (unsourced, but it could be sourced) his ideal politician. As Xeno points out, his positions have evolved with time. And most importantly, before pinning Maher down to anything, please remember that while he does take political stances on controversial issues, HE IS A COMEDIAN. His first and foremost responsibility is to make a joke--to make people laugh, which he does successfully. Trackinfo (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You have joined the others here in original research to analyze on your own what Maher's political stance appears to be from your vantage point. Wikipedia relies on published sources, not Wikipedia editor analysis of Maher's own words. Again, I would like to say that I welcome a broader search for published analyses of Maher's political position. The article should summarize all major observations. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has joined Sausboss in original research (since he's the only one to advance an analysis based on his own vantage point, I assume you meant him/her -- did you mean outside of this recent discussion?). Binksternet has suggested using non-expert opinions from non-germane sources (with the possible exception of Jones, but I'll reserve further comment until I see the exact proposed content to be cited to him). Trackinfo has suggested using Maher's own descriptions and self-identifications, which is standard. I have suggested finding high quality sourcing that examines and describes Maher's political positioning, or failing that, deferring to Maher's self-identification. While Trackinfo and I have made observations regarding Maher, I don't see where either of us have proposed inserting our observations into the article. While WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is fine for general Wikipedia articles, we're dealing with a WP:BLP here, which brings with it an additional set of editing requirements, not the least of which is the requirement that we "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", rather than rely on merely "published sources". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

Not seeing a general criticism section for Maher, seems that a man this controversial should have a place to sum up the general criticism of him. I'm going to play around with this and see what I come up with, seems to be some backpedaling going on in the health section that should be cleaned up. I'll try to get this done in the next day or so.Sgerbic (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; I think the article will improve with a relevant criticism section. I'll keep an eye out to make sure the section satisfies WP:BLP guidelines about keeping strictly to high quality sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding implementing a specific criticism section, I was under the impression that Wikipedia generally frowns on piling a bunch of disparate negative information in one section: "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section"; for instance, the section on his views on health & health care. This is especially true in biographies of living people. But there's nothing wrong with well sourced and relevant criticism; the guy seems to thrive on it, so I'm sure there's plenty. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking around tonight I found this lecture at about 14:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIiznLE5Xno. Also some by the SGU podcast and Science Blog. Looking for more. The Swiss video seems the strongest, but not sure where to put it as he is just anti Maher in general, not for a specific reason.Sgerbic (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, hope everyone is okay with the changes I made.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the addition, tightening the prose and summarizing a quote. I removed a bit that was cited to youtube. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet, but I don't think there is a problem with the YouTube link. I use this all the time, it is more noteworthy than most articles as it is from the mouth of the speaker. Magician Jamy Ian Swiss had this to say about Maher from the podium at The Amazing Meeting in 2012, (Maher is a)... "anti-science, anti-vaxer, dangerous ignoramus, promoting toxic anti-scientific nonsense that kills people!"Swiss, Jamy Ian. "Overlapping Magisteria". JREF. Retrieved 3/20/2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Sgerbic (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV#Impartial tone. We should not insert an inappropriate tone by choosing specific quotes. The tone should be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet, I see your point. I will rephrase Swiss's comments and present differently. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Sgerbic (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a number of edits to the recent content additions:

• All of the recent content additions refer to criticism on Maher's health care and medicine views, and we already have a section on that, so I merged the sections to remove the redundancy. Please see above where it says, "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section".
• I removed the uninformative ad hominem rhetoric and hyperbolic bombast quotes ("anti-vaccine wingnut"; "Fortunately he has no children he could let die..."; "the guy is a hopeless crank"; "belief in nonsense"), and replaced them with legitimate criticisms. The ranting and name-calling only makes Maher's detractors sound less credible, and is unencyclopedic. Please see above where it says, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."
• I could not find the sentence, "Paul Offit writes about how dangerous, 'celebrity antivaccine ideologues' like Maher are, who have so much media attention", in the cited source, Deadly Choices, page 304. There aren't 304 pages in the source (there are 270), and a word search for "ideologues" in the sections of the source that do discuss Maher (165-168, 202) came up empty. Is it perhaps from a different source? I replaced it with relevant content from the cited source.
• I contracted the criticisms from several sources where the criticism was the same, with the exception of the colorful language used to express it.
• I replaced the deleted mention of "FOX News" as one of the many cable networks where Maher has frequently given commentary (He's been on O'Reilly's "The Factor" program numerous times).
• I added a section from Maher's published response to many of the earlier critics & criticisms.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The very length quote gives undue legitimacy to a fringe viewpoint so I removed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

PRISM

"On June 7, 2013, Bill Maher said on his show that the 2nd and 4th amendment was now obsolete and expressed support for the Obama administrations PRISM surveillance program's wiretapping of Americans phone calls and obtaining private date from the internet."

A few problems:

• The second amendment has no bearing on liberties lost due to this program.

• This fishing expedition isn't unique to Obama, though he most likely tossed out a bigger net.

• It's not wiretapping, but probable cause for wiretapping can be obtained as a result.

If this chatter is notable enough, someone might look to address these concerns. Grammar could use some attention, too. Thanks. †TE†Talk 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MRC "award"

I've removed problematic text from the article about a "dishonor award" pending discussion. It was previously removed by an editor as "irrelevant". I've looked for reliable sourcing to establish the encyclopedic relevance of the text, but can't find any. The text was introduced with a citation to "CNSnews", which appears to be a MRC press release website, rather than a reliable source -- and the text certainly lacks the "high-quality" reliable sourcing specifically required by WP:BLP policy. (See: RSN) Dropping Streisand, Maher and "Dumb Ass" all into the same sentence without context or explanation is poor article content at best. Additionally, the text was recently re-introduced with the creation of a "Criticism" section, something we strive to avoid in Wikipedia articles (See: WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CSECTION), without even describing what the criticism was. What encyclopedic information are we trying to convey to the reader with this content? I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is the following included seemingly under Personal Life: "In 2012, Maher purchased a minority ownership interest in the New York Mets.[109]" is it a sort of Mahler type of humor to lump it under his choice to 'purchase' girl friends in his (seeming) campaign to avoid marriage? Mossy8888 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Paisley

Why shouldn't Bill Maher be included in the “Jewish atheists” or “Jewish agnostics” categories?

Directed at Xenophrenic specifically. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Better question: why should he be? There are several discussions on this Talk page (and in the Talk archives) that already explain in great detail why categorizing his as Jewish or Atheist (much less both at the same time) would be inappropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I've checked. First of all, the Jew section overemphasized Jewish religion and didn't pay enough attention to Jewry as an ethnicity, and to make matters worse, the debaters falsely assumed that Bill Maher doesn't self-identify as a Jew. Even if he didn't identify himself as a Jew, I wouldn't become Indian simply by rejecting my Slavic identity. The atheist section, it argues in favor of Maher qua an agnostic, ignoring that an individual can be both an atheist and an agnostic. ∴ Therefore concurred that we can add Bill Maher to the Jewish atheists category, but if you feel uncomfortable with that, we can add him to the Jewish agnostics category only. I can't wait to see your counter arguments. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Even if he didn't identify himself as a Jew

He didn't. He once jokingly referred to himself as "half-Jewish", so maybe we are in need of a totally different category. As for the "Atheist" part, he has specifically denied being one, so perhaps there needs to be further debate on the definitions of Agnostic, Atheist, Apatheist, etc. Until then, do you have a strong reliable source describing him as a "Jewish Atheist" or "Jewish Agnostic"? Or are you just synthesizing that out of what you have read? He has also pointedly said he doesn't subscribe to the various labels. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. First, let me say this straight: I don't know how this works. As the talk page archive witnesses, you have already participated in these debates before. Previously, not in this section, someone has provided primary sources where Bill Maher says he's Jewish. Are his own statements unsatisfactory, and is one expected to provide a third-party source? I'm not sure there are any reputable sources dealing with investigating people's ethnicity. Take Ayn Rand, for example. She's listed in the Jewish atheists category. Were any third-party sources provided to verify that she'd been Jewish?

Now, about the atheist part. In his own words, “Have you seen my show?” I'm pretty sure I remember someone on the talk page providing a source where Maher refers to himself as an atheist. Even if we can't add him to the atheist category, I can't find a good reason why can't add him to the agnostic category.

Finally, as to “he doesn't subscribe to the various labels.” To me he doesn't sound very consistent on the whole labels thing because I've caught him saying things like “I've always thought I was a libertarian.” Anyhow, I wouldn't stop being male just because I would deny labels. Labels are one thing, but there are actually meanings standing behind those labels. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He's already in an 'agnostic' category, as well as a category of 'Jewish decent'. As for sources supporting adding other categories, perhaps you could provide them here (in this section)? I'm not seeing the "primary sources where Bill Maher says he's Jewish" in any archive, only the "half-Jewish" comments. As for labels: yes, there are meanings behind labels, but please note that there is also context behind these short quote snippets. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a source given where he states he is an atheist. None that give him as an agnostic. Re WP:V why state he's an agnostic? Span (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. There's a source given where he states he is an apatheist. Shall we add him to a Wikipedia Category for that? I added one of many locatable sources that describe him as an agnostic. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"As for the "Atheist" part, he has specifically denied being one" Except that he called himself a "celebrity atheist" on his show on September 14. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't identify as a Jew; it's quite clear! See: "...the third thing I think we have in common is that people think we’re Jewish and we’re not. We were both raised Catholic..." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/jewmentia-jewish-bill-maher-cant-figure-out-why-people-think-hes-jewish/. Someone should go ahead and remove him from all Jewish categories, except from ones relating to Jewish descent. BigBaldur (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)BigBaldur

Overciting

Seven citations for being raised Catholic and not knowing till his teens that his mother is Jewish is clearly overciting. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm for fans. Serious trimming needs to be done there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)