Talk:Bill Maher/Archive 2

Halloween 2006
Adhering to Wikipedia citation rules it seems that a citation would be beneficial in this case. I don't doubt the veracity of the picture or the potential controversy, and I'm not trying to defend the purported action by Mr. Maher, but can someone provide a source talking about the controversy? --ABQCat 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin Costume Photo
I deleted the photo from the page because simply mentioning the controversy is enough.
 * That's very POV. Did it offend you that much?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Crock
Every noteworthy conservative, or shall I say "non-liberal," has a big fat controvery section filled with obscure "controversies." Maher is getting a complete pass here relative to his prominence. WP:NPOV has just imploded. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * please feel free to add a "controversies" section, in which you list specific controversies, citing notable references which demonstrate that each controversy was in fact controversial. NPOV demands that controversies listed on any living person's page be approached with care and caution, to ensure that they are described accurately, heavily referenced, and not there solely as a partisan attempt to discredit. Off the top of my head, I recall that the manner in which Maher's "Politically Incorrect" programme was cancelled was controversial: perhaps you could start there. --Leperflesh 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "another crock" = user banned indefinitely due to inability to be civil or work with others. -- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Zionism
It should additionally be added that Maher is an ardent Zionist who rationalized Israel's terror against Lebanon last summer.Backdash


 * Are you kidding? The same person who lost his TV show for saying that fanatical Islamist terrorists weren't cowardly for flying planes into buildings is a Zionist? Take your "Jewish World Conspiracy" mularkey elsewhere. TheQuandry 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As cowardice usually involves avoiding pain or death, how does saying that people who kill themselves are not cowards indicate one's political views? In this case, Maher was just agreeing with fiercely pro-Israel conservative Dinesh D'Souza (another fellow, along with Maher, who had a relationship with Ann Coulter) who said "we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards....Not true. Look at what they did. First of all, you have a whole bunch of guys who are willing to give their life. None of them backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete....These are warriors. And we have to realize that the principles of our way of life are in conflict with people in the world. And so -- I mean, I'm all for understanding the sociological causes of this, but we should not blame the victim. Americans shouldn't blame themselves because other people want to bomb them."


 * And kindly follow Wikipedia policies concerning civility. -- Jibal 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoid outburst in trying to deny the influence of world Zionism is contrary to the facts. Bill Maher has spoken for himself when he called the entire world "anti-Semitic" on the basis of the UN's opposition to Israel's terrorism last summer. He has slandered the Lebanese political party Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization." Maher's assessment of what constitutes courage and cowardice in regard to the attacks in New York and the Pentagon does not even begin to show where he stands on affairs in the Middle East. Backdash 19:11, 2 February 2007


 * Oh boy. You think calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization is slander? No good can come of this discussion, therefore it is over. TheQuandry 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah is unquestionably a terrorist organization. It's not even debatable. 76.21.45.13 10:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Hezbollah is just a 'political party' that happens to fire rockets across the border in to Israel. Oh, no, wait, that would be a terrorist organization!165.176.123.2 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He is a Zionist? He said he gave up on his Judaism religion? This guy doesn't know what he is.possibility Ethic bias.hmm I saw the Interview with Former Israeli PM netathyu(sp?) on Real Time. But I have to say no one cares about the palestinians and in some instances they are hard handed yet they have a right to defend themselves. plus saying what he said about 9\11 wasn't smart at the time even if he uses "free speech" as his defense. - Gio (just trying to balance argument


 * If you ask me - the right place to argue the why/what of terrorism is definitely not in Bill Maher's talk page but that's just me :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZBrannigan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * What are you talking about? Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the United States government. If Bill Maher said that, he was just repeating what America has classified that organization as. dposse 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are considered a terrorist organization by the US, and with plenty of justification, but this still isn't the place to debate the proper definition anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.218.56.230 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


 * As the most valuable Jew in todays world, I would expect him to be pro Israel.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

bad grammar in the 2nd paragraph
"He is a big supporter of legalizing marijuana, and additionally for his support of prostitution and stance against marriage."

The last half of that sentence makes no sense at all. -Josiah (non-registered editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.32.46 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


 * You don't have to be registered to make improvements (although it's a good idea, and it's easy). -- Jibal 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

image
I added a celebrity image of Bill to the page. It is an image given to the Georgia Tech library —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZBrannigan (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Stuff not included in article
This article should include the whole Dick Cheney controversy, as well as what happened when Maher was on Ferguson's show. 76.21.45.13 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * as an encyclopedia article I personally find points such as these particularly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.71.225 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're an encyclopedia article!? faithless   (speak)  15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

can someone clarify this

 * Maher and republican media voice Ann Coulter confirmed a short lived relationship on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, that occurred in 1994 while Maher circuited in California.*


 * Is this suppose to be a joke? What kind of relationship are we talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lynch04 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).


 * He says in the following video that they didn't date, and that she was a friend and was on his show: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/02/13/lkl.maher.long.cnn mmortal03 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clarify why my edit are consistently being reverted? I'm only addressing facts, i.e. his nickname which is Bill Geek, because he looks like a billy goat but is a geek, hence Billy Geek. I better not see my edits changed again!!!! 70.135.208.178 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) John Fredrickson

Was that a joke, or are you serious? What you think his nickname is completely irrelevent. Do you have a real source for this nickname, or just you? (69.140.166.42 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC))


 * For what it's worth, this is what Maher has to say about a relationship with Coulter: "The idea that I would f**k a Republican is just so—please. [Laughs] I’ve gotta eat with this mouth. But she was a fantastic drinking buddy. She was a really fun, witty girl. But she said things in the last few years—you know, “John Edwards is a faggot.” Why? ’Cause he combs his hair? Even the conservatives have sorta said, “We don’t know what this bitch is on."Maher wars. (I'd say she might be a little too upscale for him.) -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * or too pale. PrBeacon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Ten Commandments
The views on religion section claims Maher said "of the ten [commandments], only two (the prohibitions on murder and theft) apply to American law". Either Maher was wrong or the (uncited) source was wrong—bearing false witness (perjury) is also an element of US law. — Mohrr 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maher's wrong about a lot of things, but that's not our concern. -- 98.108.196.153 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
The paragraph on intelligent design is incoherent. "In reference to a statement..." is vague. "In contrast.." does not contrast with anything. The paragraph appears to function primarily as a plug for ID and Ray Comfort. Should be rewritten or removed. 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis/Marriage
Just to note: I don't know whether that should be in the lead or not, but just wanted to find the references. Mackan79 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Judaism/Catholicisms
can someone provide a citation on his mother/father's religious affiliations as well as their names? I was told he was raised catholic, if this is true can it be noted/cited? Axedmt 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Humor on Irwin
I move here this comment on Irwin's family:
 * Irwin was survived by his wife Terri, a young daughter (Bindi) and an infant son (Bob).

I think that information doesn't matter. Is the reason to have it to imply that you should abstain more from making humor on a dead person that had a family? That's funny.--BMF81 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher Animal Rights Activist
Why doesn't this article say anything about Bill Maher being an animal rights activist? He has been for many years. He was a board member of PETA. Whether you agree with his stance on that or not it's obviously been a very important part of his adult life and it should be included in an article that is supposed to a biography of him. That article is totally slanted. I'm not going to get into politics but a totally biased biograhper is a bad biographer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peefy (talk • contribs).


 * It is there. Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

THe links to Peta are just not there. Whether or not he is an animal rights activist remains to be cited, both citations regarding PETA do not have any reference to PETA in them. I have removed the section on this entry regarding PETA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydeparkrob (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the link to the interview with Larry King, Maher says:
 * MAHER: Larry, I'm a PETA board member. I don't go to see movies where they put a bit in a horse's mouth and get on his back. Anyone who gets on a horse's back deserves to be thrown off.
 * I am going to replace the section, but I do note that it is old, and his affiliations and views certainly may have changed since then. I'll see what I can dig up. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is this photo...
 * And USA Today says he's a board member of PETA, here
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable POV, must be removed at once!
The following line from the first paragraph is completely unacceptable: "He is a big supporter of legalizing cannabis and additionally is known for his stance against marriage." This is wrong on such simple terms, I can't believe I even have to point it out! He is not against marriage, he's PRO-GAY marriage, which in your right-wing neo-con agenda SOMEHOW got translated into ANTI-marriage! He had clearly stated that he thinks gay marriage is as worthy of discussion as any conservative, but the difference is that while he may have his opinions, he's not trying to force it into law for any other to follow; While the neo-cons are.

And please, linking sources to conservative blogs and personaly run websites? Just because you found it on the "interweb" does NOT make it an acceptable source for any Wikipedia entry. Discuss. 24.89.245.62 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "his stance against against marriage" refers to Mr. Maher's jokes about sexless heterosexual marriage, not gay marriage.

In any case, the line quoted above is vague and further clarification would be helpful.


 * I think the statement is semi-correct but worded poorly. I believe he is against state-recognized marriage . This could be interpreted as anti-marriage or pro-gay-marriage depending on your political views.68.228.35.75 (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Iraq War Views History
The article is wrong in stating that Maher was originally opposed to war with Iraq. Years ago on Politically Incorrect he asked "Why don't we take this guy out?" in regards to Saddam Hussein. Immediately after 9/11 he seemed to be in favor of war, stating that he thought it'd be easy just like in 1991, but some time after he remained so: According to this chat transcript:, in mid 2002 he was enthusiastically in favor. Only later did Maher come to turn against it. He for a long while implied that it was an oil grab that wouldn't be worth what he believed was increased terrorism, but later said it was a "60/40 thing" (with he being 60% against, 40% for). Maher a number of times claimed he had been consistent on that view from the beginning. He eventually came to drop most of the oil criticism (apparently understanding that Saddam Hussein controls the oil if no one else does), even, once the war started, going so far as to call it "treasure" for the Iraqis. As soon as the war started he settled into a very conciliatory mood arguing that regardless of one's feelings before it began, once it did we should all "root for it to work". He reexamined his defense of the French when they opposed lifting sanctions after Bush advocated it and was extremely vocal in his criticisms of the handling of the postwar. Maher curently believes that the war could have worked in making Iraq a stable model Arab/Muslim state with a positive influence on the region "Had everything been perfect".

My point in all of this is that Maher's views on Iraq have fluctuated wildly and been rife with contradiction in a way that the article does not communicate. Some kind of update noting his views regarding Iraq (while not going on excessively) is in order if the subject of Iraq is to be mentioned in the first place.

Actually on his old website, an old chat interview, in where he is asked if he was for the War? He said that Liberal stands for liberate, so we was for the War. After he got the HBo gig, things changed. And I believe that the interview was taken down.Firmitas 03:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wanting Dick Cheney Dead Comment
Has someone mentioned his controversial remark about wanting VP Cheney dead? If no one has, then we should add it in. I just wanted to ask in case there was a reason it wasnt included.Arnabdas 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * don't you want Cheney dead? I think it's important.--BMF81 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want him dead though I do want him out of office. Regardless of what we feel about him, he is America's VP. If he doesn't deserve that title due to illegal activity, then an organized impeachment campaign needs to be issued. If it fails or isn't, it was due to lack of evidence, and we shouldn't villify anyone without irrefutable proof.
 * As for this entry, I included his Cheney mention.Arnabdas 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's said controversial things his entire career. One article really doesn't seem to be enough to justify mentioning it here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Ann Coulter has her article mentioned with her controversial remark, it should be mentioned here. Also, I don't know why you took out her and Maher having a relationship in the past.Arnabdas 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no tit for tat, each incident should be judged individually. Something in the Coulter article does not force us to add something here.


 * Sorry I did not comment on the removal of the other material, but please provide a source for this information and leave out the "ironically" bit if you think it should be in the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think ironically is appropriate considering that it is established as fact that Maher is very liberal and Coulter is very conservative, both being very controversial and both having made what others believe as hateful remarks. As for the Dick Cheney comment, it can be considered hate speech and should be noted.Arnabdas 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some offhand remark is fairly trivial and does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Besides I am so sick and tired of people coming up with any type of rationale they can pull out their ass to push a political agenda on Wikipedia. Start a blog, or something, dude. We don't need it here. Leondegrance 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually on his old website, an old chat interview, in where he is asked if he was for the War? He said that Liberal stands for liberate, so we was for the War. After he got the HBo gig, things changed. And I believe that the interview was taken down.Firmitas 03:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher movie
Poemisaglock 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Bill Maher stated on Larry King Live that he has a movie coming out called "Religulous", that would discuss some of the problems with organized religion, although he was not very specific.

Response to "fake libertarianism"
"Mahar has stated that he considers himself a libertarian while differing with the Libertarian Party's stance on several issues". Davidkevin Why in an encyclopedic article would you rely on a political party's stance to define a term? Maybe when Marher stated that he was a libertarian he meant it literally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User60521 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article used to have a good section on why Maher's political views were not Libertarian. i.e. He supports gun control, he opposes home schooling, etc... Currently his political views merely touch on the fact that some people doubt his Libertarian credentials. I think this needs to be flushed out with a full section in the controversy section. JettaMann 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's better left at just saying he identifies himself as a libertarian. (Consider the Identity section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, though it doesn't address this head-on.) People who identify themselves as libertarians, socialists, and communists are often criticized as not really being those things because of divergence from a theoretical ideal. Any libertarian can be argued to be "not a true libertarian," because they still want some publicly-funded services. Self-identity as a libertarian doesn't mean one believes all doctrines of the U.S. Libertarian Party, just as self-identified Republicans or Democrats (the U.S. political parties) often differ from on certain party positions, and self-identified religious followers often differ on certain religious doctrines. While there are critiques saying he's not a true libertarian (including the cited Salon editorial), these seem to be trying to disparage his positions and credibility, painting him as hypocritical or inconsistent; it's an effective technique in political debate, but I don't think it's appropriate here. -Agyle 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, by that criteria there should be no criticism sections at all on Wikipedia and everyone should be able to write their own Wikipedia entries based solely on what they say. Yet there are criticism sections. The fake Libertarian issue is a central part of Maher and needs to be explained fully, as it once was in this article before a Maher fanboy removed it. JettaMann 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RealTimeBillMaher.JPG
Image:RealTimeBillMaher.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Controversies" Section
Just wanted to point out that the "Controversies" section is not really all controversy. It's some controversy mixed with a decent amount of furthering the story of his career. Probably should be split up since it makes much of the article look controversial? But that is just an outsider's opinion to those who are regular editors on this page. Thanks! Scotty --Scottymoze 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher incident
He kicked some 9/11 conspirators out of his show which interrupted it live for about 3 1/2 minutes. You can see the youtube video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDcY2NK8bKE

Or the Fox News story here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303761,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.201.68 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has already been added. faithless   (speak)  01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

9/11
I guess the same people who heckle Maher like to vandalize his wikipedia page. Anyway, the section doesn't have to be kept completely separate from other sections but when restructuring the controversy section I wasn't sure where else to put it. Halond 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Morality Ethics and Humanity section
This section has a few misspellings and no reference. Recently-added and seems unnecessary. --Naddahnaut 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be fine to leave in. It needs to be rewritten neutrally though. 216.57.91.34 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I erased this section twice because it was horribly biased AND had misspellings. Whether you think Bill Maher is ill-informed because he said it was ridiculous that the Democrats passed a resolution about something that took place 90 years ago is irrelevant. He was simply stating that it didn't seem like it was of utmost importance in a time when there are far more pressing issues facing our country. This does not make him ill-informed or against morality, ethics, or humanity. It's simply not needed.--72.206.122.16 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The same editor added almost identical sections to several biographies. It appears o be a campaign. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fired?
I saw a video on Youtube recently of a clip that was pulled from the HBO website in which Bill Maher says the word "cunt". The video description claims that he was fired for saying it. Any news on this? The video was posted 22 hours ago (as of this post). No news sources are saying he's fired, but who knows. Link to the video: Davidovic 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only hope that you are correct here. As a woman, it is not surprising to me that Bill Maher has never had any long-term relationships with women! Four men making fun of Hillary Clinton last week was pretty nasty, even when you are a Republican like I am.


 * Although Bill Maher probably sees himself as some kind of "progressive" thinker, he definitely succumbs to political correctness in every way. Have you ever seen him make fun of Obama? Although it may be funny to laugh at Hillary, we all know that you can't say anything bad about black people. Boab (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's HBO; they're not going to fire someone for saying "cunt," especially not someone who drops about fifty "fucks" in an average broadcast. Boab, you're more than welcome to your opinion, but this isn't the place for it. Wikipedia is not a forum, and especially isn't a place for point-of-view pushing. Cheers,  faithless   (speak)  05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Also, Beware of TIGERS. - CheshireKatz (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean Bill never makes fun of Obama? He makes fun of him all the time. 71.66.230.44 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ant-Catholicism
The, Quote that says he said, "I have hated the church way before anyone else", on May 7 2002. I think it is a fake because I checked the footnote and it's not there also there was no edisode on May 7 2002, So I removed the quote, but if you can provide evidence I'll put it back up.--Fire 55 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do remember him saying that, but in a much more recent episode. I believe it was within the last few seasons. I personally don't care enough to find it, though. In the end, it's trivial, at best, and purposefully incendiary, at worst. It seems that many have nothing better to do than troll Wikipedia in an attempt to propagandize it. Sadly, this is exactly why Wikipedia cannot, will not, and should not ever be a reliable scholarly source. Nonetheless, it is a wonderful tool to gain elementary knowledge and to spearhead sources for such scholarly pursuits. 66.207.82.44 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Religiulous
No mention of Maher's movie Religiulous anywhere on Wikipedia - can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.195.92 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Easy mistake: I think you may have been confused by the way the filmmakers chose to spell the made-up word "Religulous." Rangergordon (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Minarchism
I removed the portion that claimed he was "a reliable proponent of minarchism," which followed by a quote where he claims that government is there to do what people cannot do for themselves. The quote remains, but I removed any reference to Minarchism, because the quote seems to go against what minarchism stands for, in addition to there being no citation. 75.27.238.176 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

POV in Political Views RE: Palin.

 * "Maher has been very critical of John McCain and Sarah Palin; He has called Palin (who he has been more critical of) an "extremist" and unsuitable for such a high position. Maher has also taken to being very critical of the situation involving Palin's 17 year old daughter's pregnancy, who Maher believes is being forced into a loveless marriage. Maher has also expressed his belief that Palin's down's syndrome infant is actually Bristol's first child. Maher, who believes the Republican Party is generally populated with liars and hypocrites, believes Palin is capable of such deception. He also called her a "Category 5 moron" who was not even qualified to be the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. [15]"

This whole secction should either be reworded or just deleted. Links to where Maher actually believes Palin's daughter is being forced into a loveless marriage. What I heard was a joke. The writing gives the impression that Maher made such comments as a statement of fact. He did not. This entire paragraph reads as incendiary, seems to contain original research ("Maher has been more critical of Palin), and takes on a POV tone. Also, don't use also in 3 out of 5 sentences, it is unnecessary. Also, it is redundant and also an example of poor writing.


 * "On September 12, 2008, Maher continued his criticism of the Palins by launching a web site called freelevi.org. On the site, Maher declared that Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's unborn child, was "America's number one political prisoner" and offered to turn control of the site over to Levi should Johnston wish to use the site as a way of raising money to purchase his freedom.[16] The site has been criticized by some-- most notably members of the stand-up community-- for its inexplicable resemblance in design and content to SavingBristol.com, a web site created by Doug Stanhope exactly one day prior to Maher's, where Stanhope has offered $50,000 to help Bristol Palin pay for an abortion and start a new life that would be free from her "tyrannical" family. The site also encourages visitors to donate to LilithFund.org, a Texas-based organization dedicated to helping women get abortions if they cannot afford them.[17]"

This does not need to be in Political Views. This reads as someone plugging Doug Stanhope's site. Supporting LilithFund is entirely irrelevant to Bill Maher and to the story. It talks more of Stanhope and his venture than of the actual "controversy" or anything at all related to Maher. There are no links to support any of the "the site has been criticized by some -most notably members of the stand-up community-" statement nor of an established timeline when the two sites went up. In fact, nothing at all other than a link to Doug Stanhopes page serves to validate the entire second half of the paragraph (citation [17]). The link to Stanhope's page isn't even hotlinked in References. (neither is Reference [16]) 66.207.82.52 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments comparing breastfeeding to masturbation
I'd like some input about a minor disagreement re: Bill's comments comparing breastfeeding to masturbation, as follows:


 * Compared breastfeeding to masturbation


 * In September 2007 on his show HBO Real Time, he introduced one of his "new rules," which he titled "Lactate Intolerant." He went on to comment about a public controversy when a nursing mother in a booth at an Applebees restaurant was asked to cover up. He argued against allowing women to breastfeed in public, saying the "wait staff got tired of hearing, 'I'll have what that kid is having.' " He compared nursing in public to public masturbation.

There have been five recent revisions to the article about this quote from his Real Time show. First, Shamrox removed it without any comment or discussion; then an anonymous IP user removed it, commenting in the Edit Summary, "misquoted source, unimportant with rest of article"; and Henrymrx again removed it, stating that "the 'comparison' was a joke, this could violate WP:BLP."

The deleted item contains a verbatim quote, and a summary of another quote:


 * "The wait staff got tired of hearing, 'I'll have what that kid is having.' "(Real Time on YouTube :03:34)


 * "Breastfeeding activists... say this is a human right, and appropriate everywhere because it's natural. Well, so is masturbating but I generally don't do that at Applebees." (Real Time on YouTube :04:20)

The proposed paragraph above is factually accurate, not reflecting anyone's POV; it's verifiable; and it's not original research, the three hallmarks of WP:BLP.

The standards for WP:BLP state, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The deleted section does not qualify under this standard. It is extremely well-sourced, it does not invade his privacy, and it is not "sensationalist" or "titillating." His statements on breastfeeding are far less sensationalist than his references to the Pope as a Nazi, already included in the article.

As to its importance, it is a good example of Bill's propensity for seeking controversy by making outrageous statements designed to provoke his audience and garner his show attention; it illustrates his strongly held views that are often outside the mainstream; and amplifies his avowed desire to remain a bachelor his entire life and not have children. If this particular segment about breastfeeding is to be considered a joke, then by extension his views on religion, also expressed during various New Rules segments, are also a joke&mdash;yet his statements on religion are taken seriously by many. There was enormous backlash in response to a New Rules segment in which he said the Pope "used to be a Nazi." How can it be said that one New Rules segment is a joke and another is not?

TV Guide says Real Time is "A talk show about current events", not a comedy. CommonSenseMedia says Bill is a "political commentator" who provides "serious analysis of important events and laughs.". If he's taken seriously, then his views on mainstream, controversial and notable issues like public breastfeeding are entirely relevant.

Perhaps others can give us their take on this particular Real Time segment and whether it is important or should be regarded as a joke. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I'm one of the people referenced above, I'll respond. This one comment, made on one show, does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be granted its own section of the article.  Maher made the comment (which I still think was a joke) and then went on making more points on the subject of public breastfeeding.  It would be more significant if he said "breastfeeding is just like masturbation and here's why" and then made supporting points for this comparison.  That's the difference between a real comparison and an offhand comment or joke.


 * You've mentioned his discussions of religion. The difference is that Maher has repeatedly and consistently criticized religion.  He didn't do it once.  He's done it over and over again.  He recently made a film on the subject.  He's made repeated statements and supported his argument with supporting points.  It wasn't a single comment on one show like this one.


 * You also said that this topic was not "sensationalist" or "titillating." I'm going to have to disagree.  Any mention of masturbation would be regarded by most people as both sensationalist and titillating.


 * According to this article, there have been 141 episodes of Real Time over the last 6 years. A single comment about one subject on one episode simply does not rise to the significance required to get its own section of the article.  Henrymrx (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Bill Maher is a Freemason
I won't be able to answer this question, but I have read conspiracy theories by Henry Makow and others that claim that Maher is a Mason. If anybody knows anything about this, he ought to feel free to add information, as long as sources are correctly presented. I am not willing to make any early judgements on this, it's just that many Masons have the same ideologial and social profile as Maher, in that they are often celebrities and they are also radical freethinkers and rationalists. ADM (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, most Freemasons are not "radical freethinkers and rationalists" and do not have the same ideological and social profile as Maher (in that they are required to have a belief in God). User:Blueboar 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"staunch supporter of Israel"?
In the latest episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, Bill Maher stated "I'm no supporter of Israel". Perhaps his stance of Israel has changed since the sourced Huffpo article was published in 2006? 194.46.235.66 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the episode with Barney Frank and Fareed Zakaria, Maher's exact words were, "I'm an Israel supporter." faithless   (speak)  07:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer Agnostic?
I know http://www.avclub.com/articles/is-there-a-god,1413/ is generally taken as a joke (i.e., Conan o'Brian considers himself a devout Roman Catholic and Trey Parker was joking, possibly, as well), but is there any truth to Maher saying "I think there is. We did a show last night about God and religion with Dave Foley, who I love, and we were arguing against this one woman who had a book called I Like Being Catholic. Someone said, 'Oh, boy, a lot of atheists on this panel.' I said, 'I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion,'" or was he just pulling the interviewer's leg (it is the Onion, after all, that asked the questions). 74.5.111.155 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bill Maher has himself a set of odd definitions. He doesn't like to call himself or be called an atheist. He believes atheism mirrors the certitude of religion. He calls himself an agnostic, and has said in his movie and in many different televised occasions that he doesn't know whether there's a god or not, and neither does any one else. If that's true about himself, he is an atheist. An atheist by definition is anyone who rejects the theistic claim of a God. That doesn't necessarily mean going a step further and saying "I KNOW there's no god". Basically, when asked about whether you believe in God or not, if you say "yes" you're a theist. Anything else, including "I don't know", you are an atheist.

To answer your question though, I don't suspect he's turned his back on his years of previous contemplation of this subject. If he did, it's extraordinarily recent, as I've seen every Real Time with Bill Maher in the last couple years, and pretty much every interview he's ever done that made it on YouTube.Aelius28 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An atheist asserts that there is no God. If Maher says he doesn't know if there is a God or not, that makes him an agnostic, not an atheist. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. An atheist (from the Latin "atheos", a = without; theos = a god) is anyone who lacks a belief in a God. Theism and atheism address what you believe, gnosticism and agnosticism address what you know or claim to know. They're not mutually exclusive, you can be an agnostic atheist, where you don't believe in a god but don't claim to know whether one exists or not. You can be a gnostic theist, where you believe in a god and claim to know it. You can be a gnostic atheist, where you don't believe in a god but claim to know (as certain as one is when they say they know there's no unicorns) that there's no god.

The fact that people don't understand the definition and perceive words to mean what they don't does not change what the word means. Most people don't know what a pedophile is. Most people think a pedophile is a child molester/rapist. That's not true at all though, a pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to children. Most pedophiles don't commit any crime against children. However, most people aren't aware of the correct definition, but I'm sure you'll agree that doesn't mean we change the definition of the word.Aelius28 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly correct, either. The meaning of words does indeed change, through popular usage.  There are countless examples of words (and their derivatives) that mean something completely different today than they did 300 years ago.  The word "nice" was derogatory, meaning foolish, ignorant or incapable.  The word "pretty" used to mean clever, tricky or cunning.  The word "silly" used to mean humble, weak and low status.  The word "gay" ... well, you get the idea.  You may be correct about the origin of the word "atheist", but you are incorrect to state that someone using the word to mean "belief that dieties do not exist" is wrong.  Contemporary usage has indeed popularized that definition -- and definitions DO change. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, I am not wrong. Words are not cast in concrete, they evolve. The term "agnostic" has come to mean someone who has not formed an opinion on whether God exists or not. The original definition is of no relevance beyond historical interest. Current usage is what matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand this, of course, my point is precisely that it does not represent the current usage of the word among professionals. Almost any poll, survey or census done in the world with respect to religion, refers to all non-believers as "atheists". Even our very own Wikipedia page refers to an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a deity, not exclusively one who asserts that there is no god. Similarly, agnostics are generally treated a sub-group of atheists. Agnostics are generally considered people who don't believe in a god but maintain that no one knows either way. The wikipedia articles reflect this as well.

Certain uninformed individuals may hold a definition for a word that doesn't match the academic standard, even if the majority of people have this definition. This hearkens back to what I said before about pedophiles. Just because most people use a certain definition of the word doesn't mean the academics in the relevant field of psychology don't have a different definition. As is custom on Wikipedia, we reflect the academic view.Aelius28 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Xenophrenic and Baseball Bugs. We are not going to identify Maher as an atheist when he self-identifies as an agnostic (or "apatheist" at times).  If you need scholarly work delving into the differences in the terminology, then Google Scholar has plenty.  But we aren't going to settle it on Bill Maher's Wikipedia article.  -- >David  Shankbone  20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But do we really categorize individuals by what they consider themselves? A lot of Christians, for example, don't claim to be religious because they have their own little word called "spiritual" and consider "religion" to mean an organized institution. But again, in censuses, polls and even Wikipedia articles, they're still considered religious because we categorize them based off of our definitions, not the individual's. With that said, why isn't Bill Maher categorized under American Atheists? He is an atheist, he fits the definition we have in the atheist article, he fits the scholarly definition, and we also have other "agnostics" in the American Atheists category. I'll add him to the category if there's no objections.Aelius28 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not an atheist, and adding him to that category amounts to POV-pushing and original research on your part. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling you didn't even read what I wrote, and I hate to repeat myself, but your comment seems to indicate that what I said either wasn't read or understood. Do we categorize individuals by what they consider themselves? I think not. Likewise, there are many other agnostics that are in the American Atheists category. We would expect that agnostics in the American Atheists category would be removed if your argument was sound. However, as there are many agnostics in the American Atheists category, and since Wikipedia's definition of atheism unequivocally is applicable to Bill Maher, I'd argue that it's quite POV to exclude Bill Maher from American Atheists, as doing so would clearly make Bill Maher's page an exception to the norm here on Wikipedia.Aelius28 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
 * In addition to what BB says above, what you suggest violates our Biographies of Living People policy, and the one that we hold the strictest standards for. It states:

* The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; * The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. The same rationale found above does not just apply to categories; it also applies to calling in any way a person "athiest" who does not self-identify as such. In matters of personal beliefs, mental and physical health, sexuality, etc., we accord the subject's say of prime import. So Larry Craig is not going to be categorized or called LGBT, and Bill Maher is not an atheist. Now I hope that you will take the suggestion to consider this closed. Three long-time editors have told you in both polite and policy terms why what you suggest will not happen. If you wish to discuss it further, take the philosophical/semantic debate to WikiProject Atheism, where they will be happy entertain you, with academic citations. I think this thread can be archived now. -- >David  Shankbone  23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Overall I think the article reads well. But some of the comments attributed to Maher should be quoted, I think, especially contentious terms (e.g. on Palin, other candidates, religious zealots).

Also, the bio section Political views seems to gloss over Maher's commentaries on the 2000 election -- perhaps more noticeable because of the other elections mentioned, especially Bush's re-election in 2004.

The link to 'Monica Lewinsky scandal' might be better labeled 'Clinton-Lewinsky scandal' since the context immediately before it refers to adultery and impeachment.

Lastly, the religion section appears to be overly repetitive -- for example, Maher's disbelief in the afterlife.

Fhue (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements, etc.
An editor has added content stating Bill Maher endorsed/supported John Edwards for president until he dropped out of the race, and then he supported Obama. He cites this to a Youtube video of a "Real Time" show interview of Edwards. Maher doesn't endorse anyone in this video, he merely interviews Edwards, often agreeing with him. He even makes an excuse as to why he isn't endorsing anyone. He observes that there are many strong democrat candidates in the race that year. He does make a joke about how he would donate money to Edwards if doing so wouldn't end up hurting Edwards, but that doesn't translate to "almost supports." I'm removing any conclusions drawn from that video as WP:OR. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This Stupid Country Comment
He recently showed up in the Situation Room on CNN. He said Palin was hopeless as a candidate but then followed that by commenting that Palin had a chance because of "this stupid country." When asked to clarify, he responds "I don't need to" I feel this should be added (you will have to look up sources, I am sure there will be reports all over) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.75.51 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's worth mentioning? faithless   (speak)  17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Should not be categorized as atheist
Atheist = one who either asserts and believes that there is no god, or lacks any belief in a god. He has said countless times and it's clear that he lacks belief in a god.

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. Absence of, or rejection of, belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The belief that there are no gods, the denial of the existence of God or gods.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism#English

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Random House Dictionary (2009)

1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2009)

To have him simply classified as an "agnostic" is misleading. The majority of the world is truly agnostic if you actually know the context of the word. You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist.

It's pretty clear which of those he is. To simply categorize him as an "agnostic" is to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the term and context.

He called himself an apatheist, which would also qualify him as also being an atheist. While the quote "I'm not an atheist, though, because the belief that there is no God only mirrors the certitude of religion. No, I'm saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings." is brought up, it only shows that he has a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. He asserted that is the belief there is no god, which only one "branch" of it would ever take. Apatheists show indifference to the belief of a god, logically that would incline one to lack belief. Atheism = lack of a belief in god. How would he not fit in this category? Because he himself misunderstands what it actually means to be one? 98.168.204.179 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He has stated that he is not an atheist. His definition that atheist = "belief that there are no gods" is accurate by both common usage and Wiktionary, as noted above.  He does not qualify for the atheist category. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He does, and he did before. He categorizes himself as atheist in the following video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fySf45xUHf0 (a bit after the 4:20 mark.)  It's pretty well-established that to be an atheist you merely have to lack belief in all deities, which he also did before, rather than believe there is no god, which you falsely asserted to be the sole identifier of atheism.  This video proves him to be.
 * I watched that video (not a reliable source for a BLP, btw), and he says "no one knows for sure what's out there", and "you know where I stand in this, I always say 'I don't know'". The part you refer to is where he says as a matter of symantics, we are all atheists because we don't believe in a deity - but he never "categorizes himself" as an atheist.  Selective hearing of parts of that video. That video peoves he isn't an atheist. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, are you kidding? "We are all atheists" and acknowledging he doesn't have a belief in a deity isn't categorizing himself as an atheist?  Wow.  Basically, from what I gather from you, is that atheism is a belief, not a lack of, both of which do fit under the umbrella term of atheism.  He DID call himself an atheist, since people don't say "we" speaking of others, which seems to be what you assumed from that statement.  He is very clearly an agnostic atheist - and it's straight from his mouth.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That, and it's impossible to merely be an agnostic. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities, not an affirmative believe asserting there not to be any.98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Of the several definitions of atheism, one is the "belief that there are no gods".  Perhaps you should make your argument to change the definition at the Atheism page? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you admit that your incessant editing is you using the narrowest possible definition of it? I don't see why I should have to change the definition of the atheism page, since he clearly falls under the "it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities" sentence after your selective quote.  Am I to gather that you just can't comprehend how one lacks belief in something and can automatically be categorized as something?  Which would be a fundamental misunderstand of what atheism is.  Atheism is an indentifier/label for what one is not - a theist/deist, rather than what one is. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost me after the personal attack, sorry. Was there a question about the improvement of this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Political Views
"Although he told Libertarian candidate Harry Browne at the end of a Browne appearance on Politically Incorrect that Browne would have his vote, ultimately he said he instead voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election." Mahar did in fact make both statements, in different episodes -- the latter statement in more than one episode. Before ABC-TV cancelled the program and the official website, these could have been verified on the website as it contained transcripts of each broadcast. Does anyone know of a current site which would have program transcripts? Davidkevin 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw the transcript of Browne's appearance on Maher's show, and I noticed that the only issues which were talked about were the ones where Maher would agree with libertarianism. Issues like guns and campaign finance reform were not discussed. I consider Browne to be a lightweight for not taking Maher to task for being a faux libertarian. However, Maher being a "libertine socialist" and not a libertarian explains why he voted for Nader and not Browne.Politician818 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mahar has stated that he considers himself a libertarian while differing with the Libertarian Party on several issues. He's also said that despite those differences, he considers libertarianism enough of a "big-tent" to have room for him even if he isn't ideologically pure.

well he may call himself a libertarian on the bases of the legalization of drugs...back in the 80's you didnt have, or at least didnt hear from, groups like the green party. who the one ideology he found where they argue for the legalization of drugs was probley libertarianism. Yet Bill clearly believes that government should do alot of things, like help the poor, and now he even argues for government mandated health coverage, so he clearly doesnt qualify as a libertarian by any reasonable definition..but i suspect he likes to call himself that because he thinks it sounds cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.52.167 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Davidkevin 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, is this an encyclopedia article on Bill Maher or a treatise on how he's a fake libertarian? The section on his world view should be rewritten to eliminate the sense that it is the latter.
 * It's neither. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 06:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles that question Bill Maher's nonsensical assertion that he is a libertarian. Bill Maher may say that he is a woman but he does not fit the definition of a woman. And to state thus, is not a point of view.Firmitas 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Maher saying he's a Libertarian is ridiculous. He's a social democrat, a welfare liberal, a socialist, or whatever you want to call it - but definitely not a libertarian. He's either a liar about this or delusional.JettaMann 07:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to inquire why Maher is in the "Libertarians" category. Just because he calls himself one, doesn't make it so. For example, Hitler called himself an "arch-democrat," but that doesn't mean he is one. Sorry to use a Godwin, but that was the best (okay, scratch that; the ONLY) analogy I could come up with. Josh (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

-Oh for the love of godless. I suggest all the people here whom seem to think the U.S./Canada "Libertarian Party" represents pure libertarianism do their homework. Bill is obviously a Left Libertarian, seemingly somewhere between "geolibertarianism" and "libertarian socialism". These are terms I suggest you all look up, google them and also find them here on wikipedia. This ultra laizzes faire capitalist market Libertarianism is the fake libertarianism, or at least if it is not fake then it is at least thievery of a idea and term that existed before they creation of this quasi-right wing libertarian party came along in the 1960'70's. The first people to call themselves Libertarians were anarcho-socialists, anarcho-collectivists, and so on. Someone on here called bill a libertine socialist, that is what libertarianism really was in the beginning. The first person to use the term in print was along these lines of socio-political thought. Now these libertarians have embraced other form of left leaning to perhaps moderate libertarianism- ranging up to geolibertarianism. But make no mistake about it, Libertarianism is not this laizzes faire ultra capitalist b.s., true and original libertarianism was and is left-leaning for the most part, it is in the thougths of Mikhael Bakunin, Thomas Paine, Noam Chomsky{whom calls himself a Libertarian Socialist}, Bill Maher, and the likes. Even through much of the world today where people use the temr Libertarian{say in many places in europe} they are of these types- not the U.S. brand Lib party baloney. The time for the hypocritical libertarian party of U.S. and Canada{and americanized places} to aknowledge their theivery of this term and ideal. The evidence is indisputable that they stole and trademarked this term when it was beeing used by true libertarians of the types of thought I mentioned above as much as a century before the creation of the American 'Libertarian Party". Google it, wikipedia the info as well, this is the facts people. As for Bill, I'd say his views show him to be somewhat of a "Geolibertarian", maybe inbetween this and Libertarian socialism. He is also a fan of some of these Lib Party types, I like some of them too{Ron Paul is ok, the slightly more left-ish Mike Gravel is better IMO,etc}- so maybe he supports the party to a small degree, but holds back on this support because maybe he knows the info I have just relayed here.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maher often makes statements that he himself later disagrees with. I suspect his view on partial privitaization of social security has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When has the last time Maher has called himself a liberatian? I haven't heard him say it since Clinton was president. His views have changed a bit the last eight years. He's called himself a liberal plenty of times in recent years. See here: (about 00:16 in) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L8KEP2ngJo&feature=channel_page Dan20001 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has referred to himself as a Libertarian as recently as last month. He has also frequently referred to himself as liberal and conservative, depending on which political issue was being discussed.  Everyones views can change over time, but I see nothing in that video clip that demonstrates that Maher's views have changed. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maher’s political views haven’t changed over the Bush years? He voted for Dole in 1996. Now he likely wouldn’t have voted for McCain even if he had promised to turn Christmas into National Pot Day. (And Dole and McCain have some things in common, esp the war hero angle.) He backed Nader in 2000. Four years later he literally got on his hands and knees and begged Nader not to run. Dan20001 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Maher calls Himself a "libertarian". He was recently quoted as favoring the Democrats ramrodding this unpopular health care bill proposed by the left wing of the Democratic Party. A true Libertarian would obey the will of the electorate and not try to force unpopular legislation. Maher has more in common with fascism.--Scipio-62 14:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)


 * I suggest you read the comments by (talk) above, Scipio, for a historically accurate description of "libertarian" as a political term. I used to be very active in my state's Libertarian Party (U.S. definition), back in the 1990s, which I now realize is really mostly just an extreme version of liberalism (as the term is used in the UK, Europe, and just about everywhere else except for the U.S., or as U.S. Libertarians themselves say, "classical liberalism"). Almost ever since socialism came on the scene, the liberal parties in those countries have been mostly considered to be "on the Right-wing" and in coalition with the conservative parties (so in other words, internationally speaking, the opposite of a conservative party is not a liberal party, but a socialist party). Libertarian, however, was first coined as a term for the more individualist-leaning strains among anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, and other extreme leftist-socialist-collectivist types.  At about the same time, however, a strain of pro-capitalist or "propertarian" anarchism (e.g. Lysander Spooner) was developing in the U.S., albeit with a very small number of adherents.  Since the 1990s, however, it is this kind of "anarchism" which seems to be growing the fastest in the U.S., probably because it doesn't require anything more than hoarding all your money and refraining from using government for anything. I think Bill Maher is very eclectic in the variety of views he choses to espouse (many of his views are for welfare statism or the mixed-economy, but he also has the very conservative/populist veneration of all U.S. military troops/veterans and gets violent when confronted with 9/11 conspiracy proponents; I'd best say he is somewhere between being an eccentric eclectic individualist and a libertarian "liberal" ("socialist")-leaning populist. Calling him a fascist makes you look like the extremist; in most respects, Bill is very much the opposite of a fascist (far more so than most U.S. Republicans), and his fans can see this. Fascism is more than socialism; it is a right-wing, traditionalist (often corporatist or even quasi-monarchist), usually religious and moral authoritarian militarism which practices violent intimidation, torture, and imprisonment/summary slaughter of its outspoken opponents.  In economic terms, it may be thought of as a way for corporations to use the machinary of the state to steal from the people via the taxpayers; in other words, much like the presidential administration of George W. Bush. Shanoman (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a twisted view of what Fascism really is. If you just read it's history in Italy, Germany and Spain, that governance philosophy had very definite Socialist and Liberal roots. Where the state has outright ownership of heavy industries and at least a degree of universal health care is provided. Volkswagen means People's Car translated from German. A Right Wing American Conservative would never dream of starting and Socialist enterprise of that nature. Also recall that Ernst Rohm, who was one of Hitler's top Storm Troopers (the SA), was a gay pedophile. I'm not bashing gays, but putting at a gay pedophile in such a high position back in the 1930s was a very Liberal idea, given it's day. For you to imply that George Bush has something in common with those Fascist ideals is warped, stupid, and twisted to say the least, with no basis in fact. --Scipio-62

Maher's views on vaccinations and diseases
Maher has been clear about this & the referenced article by a reliable science writer is cited. Maher's direct quote is given. Anyone disputing that Maher holds this opinion, and wanting to remove the reference in the article, must provide a reliable counter refeerence. But there appear to be none available. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece you have provided is not a reliable source for a WP:BLP; and is furthermore misrepresentative of the subject's views. In addition, you have inserted your own personal interpretation of the quotes you cite.  In fact, your views you have tried to insert have been recently laughed at, here (listen to Maher at the 7.00 minute mark).  When inserting dubious information about living people, we need to exercise a little additional care.   Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on fringe science (not an “opinion piece”) is a reliable source. As is the periodical itself, which has been around for a long time & has a good reputation for accuracy. The author, Martin Gardner, is a distinguished science writer known for his care & exacting research. The quote is genuine. As for “misrepresenting” his views, he does seem to have backed off in the 22 Oct interview. That should be reflected in the article. As for laughing at the views… well, yes…. I laughed at them too…. ;-) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece is not a reliable source for factual assertions in a WP:BLP, regardless of your views about the author or the periodical. As for him "backing off" his views, in the link provided, he clearly says he has been reading the stuff printed about him on the internet (specifically, your content), and "they are making stuff up about me". That isn't "backing off", that is clear refutation.  Please cease inserting misrepresentations of Maher's views into this article.  Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Remaining discussion not directly related to article improvement moved to DyadTriad's talk page for continuation, per WP:TALK...)