Talk:Bill Maher/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Trivia 3 Height 4 Image 5 Quotations 6 Reason for removal? 7 Left-wing politics 8 Questionable changes, reversions 9 Libertarians are against the death penalty? 10 Religious views 11 What about hosting Amazon.com's 10th anniversary? 12 Bill Maher on Larry King Live 8/11/05 13 Libertarians on "regulating corporations" 13.1 Many libertarians 14 Category 15 Not an Atheist 16 OriginalResearch section template message added 17 Left-Wing, Right-Wing... 18 Maher is not Liberterian. He's a Third-way Socialist/Progressive 19 Amazon Fishbowl 20 Quotations 21 References!!!!!! 22 Maher on Ferguson 23 Maher Not a Libertarian

NPOV

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

Trivia

Is the data on the vehicles he owns relevant? Especially the mention that he might use a limo to get to his performances seems to be a roundabout way of unfairly characterizing Mr. Maher as hypocritical on the environment. (i.e.: possible weasel statement.) We don't list this data for other stars, do we?

The reason this is worth pointing out is because Maher is pro-conservation on his shows. If he weren't constantly talking about saving the environment, then you're right, this wouldn't be worth pointing out. 69.203.64.174 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"rides in limousines to and from his stand-up concerts" is not sufficiently noteworthy just because "Maher is pro-conservation". It does not show any noteworthy hypocrisy, especially since the preceding line also mentions his day-to-day vehicle is a hybrid. Limiting limo use to concert travel is consistent with "pro-conservation", especially for a famous person of controversy. Other performers and staff, plus special friends can be more easily accommodated, especially if flexibility in after-concert plans are needed. Not to mention our american cities and lifestyles revolve around the auto. Is there some other, more "conservationist" yet still appropriate way for a famous commentator to get to a concert performance?

Neither the hybrid ownership nor the limited limo use are relevant to helping the reader understand who Mr. Mahrer is. I say we should remove them both. - Ace Frahm 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Ace Frahm says. They aren't relevant. User:Timmer42 13:31, 11 July 2007

Height

Bill Maher is 5'8, google it.

Image

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

Quotations

Deleted the following quote: On the US military: "A 19-year-old who is in that army because he probably couldn't find other employment."

The actual quote was “I think the point he's trying to make is that a 19-year-old who is in that army because he probably couldn't find other employment-” It should be stated that he was simply stating what he believed Mr. Belzer was trying to state. This was not a belief of Mr. Maher. Source: http://newsbusters.org/node/4503 & http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49341

This isn't wikiquote - I think we need to decide which quotes to keep and which to remove. At last count, there are seven quotes of moderate length (i.e. long sentences). And more keep being added every few weeks. I vote to keep "Response to Dinesh D'Souza's ... it's not cowardly.", "We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." and "But isn't there something wrong when I'm the ONLY guy in the country that got fired for 9/11?". Any others? The rest should be moved over to wikiquote. --ABQCat 07:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd leave the 'who's your real friend' quote in too, as being basic to the whole 'bill maher summed up in one paragraph' thing. Gzuckier 22:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Again, this isn't wikiquote. An anon editor added an extensive list of quotations to the page. See The differences between revisions to see the entire list. I reverted it and will see which are already in Wikiquote and which should be added, but we need to decide here if we want to keep the quotes we have or include a few of these at the expense of a few we already included. --ABQCat 22:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Reason for removal?

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

Left-wing politics

I have a problem with labelling any person in their opening description as something which they wouldn't describe themselves as. Bill Maher, so far as I know, has never considered himself a left-winger, so the distinction between what he calls himself and what other people call him should be made. It should also be noted that, of the 13-14 things listed as evidence of him being a "far-left" "Social Democrat", elsewhere in the world at least eight of them (government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, environmentalism, minimum wage laws, gun control, income redistribution through higher taxation, socialized health care) are supported by the "right" as well (even the "far right"). Where there are differences between right and left here (Canada), it is only in matter of to which degree these things are supported in light of other priorities, not the support of the issue itself. I can't imagine the political culture down south is so much different from here that supporting any degree of public school access or guaranteeing peanuts for unskilled labourers automatically classifies you as a "far left" "Social Democrat". -- Matty j 03:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the same lines. Maher is never really referred to as "left-wing" or "liberal" when he's introduced on the news networks (they DO introduce politicians, commentators, etc in that manner). Instead, he's referred to as a comedian. Isn't it a bit POV to be making judgements about a person rather than stating what they believe in? I've reverted the edit that he is "left-wing" on those grounds. A skimming of the article reveals many of his political and social beliefs which he himself has publically supported. It is not for a single (or even multiple) wikipedian to make a political spectrum judgement about a person unless they are citing the person themselves for such a judgement. User:Judson doesn't seem to have added to this article, but has rather removed information which seems to be the justification that Maher himself gives for his political and social positions on issues. If someone wants to remove substantive info, at least do the favor of discussion on the talk page before. I've reverted all of Judson's edits. --ABQCat 05:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i don't think what Maher labels himself is really relevant. the only relevant fact is whether his expressed views fit the philosophy of the left, or of liberals or libertarians. Streamless 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have that entirely wrong. You are implying that we should make the judgement as to where in the political spectrum he fits. On the contrary, we should simply summarize verifiable sources. Maher himself is one. So we should summarize what he calls himself, and what others call him. We should not make a decision on our own. Please review WP:NOR. -Will Beback 01:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

i have no problem with your assertion that "we should not make a decision on our own", but i disagree with "we should simply summarize verifiable sources. Maher himself is one". many people, most, i dare say, are inconsistent and err in defining themselves. put more succinctly, if maher is in favor instances where goverment coercion and/or violence affects private actors, he's not a libertarian, even if he refers to himself as one. Streamless 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If the subject calls himself a "X", then we should mention it. If he's not really "X", then we should be able to find some reliable sources which say so, in which case we also mention those viewpoints too. We should not say that the subject calls himself "X", but that we, the editors of Wikipedia, disagree. -Will Beback 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

i don't really see why sources (other than maher's own statements) are necessary if we're talking about expressed inconsistencies. for example if a person refers to himself as a pacifist but expresses views incongruent with pacifism, do we, as wikipedia editors, have to cite to a source before we assert that his self-description is inconsistent with his other expressed views? Streamless 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course we do -- otherwise it's WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for editors to assert their judgements, about inconsistency or any other matter. -- Jibal 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just followed the link here from Idiotarian which lists him as someone on the political left along with Noam Chomsky of all people. Having seen him on TV and having read this article I'm convinced this guy would only be considered left-wing in the USA. By any reasonable standard, supporting "government regulation of powerful corporations" and some measure of gun control does not make someone a "social democrat" as the article says of Maher. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed left-wing to libertarian in the opening paragraph. Bill Maher consistently describes himself as Libertarian, and his views are generally in line with that political world-view, though he isn't a "Party Line" Libertarian, as many famous Libertarians are not. (I've not heard him talk about privatizing Interstate Highways, but someone else can correct me on that ;) ). Just because others, on both the "right" and the "left" might call him a "leftist" or a "rightist", respectively, doesn't trump his own stated political label. And if there's a debate on this, it should be on whether this statement should even be in the article at all, not that it should be anything other than what it is now. --NightMonkey 08:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This is flat out laughable. Bill Maher is LEFT of left wing.

But, before I get to that, it's interesting to note how much importance Wikipedian's attach to who or what Bill Maher's thinks he is as.

This sensibility is reflected in the following comment from Matty - "Bill Maher, so far as I know, has never considered himself a left-winger"

and this one by Abqwildcat:

"It is not for a single (or even multiple) wikipedian to make a political spectrum judgement about a person unless they are citing the person themselves for such a judgement."

Oh really, funny how ANN COULTER isn't accorded the same treatment in her entry!

At the Ann Coulter entry talk page, a lot of discussion about including a Time Magazine cover photo of her she publicly dissed has ensued but for Ann Coulter the wik editors came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion, to wit - It DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ANN COULTER THINKS.

But, when it comes to a far left winger like Bill Maher, all of a sudden his sense of self must be of serious consideration.

Now, for those of you who don't think Bill Maher is a far left winger, you show your bias.

He is most in simpicato politically with Arianna Huffington. That's almost his idealogical soulmate. He endorsed her gubernatorial candidacy and they agree on almost everything...especially their irrational abject HATRED for most Republicans.

Now get this...When Arianna Huffington ran for governor in California, one of the most LIBERAL states in the USA, her views were so wacky left that she only got 2% of the vote.

TWO FREAKING PER CENT.

Now you could argue she did so poorly for reasons other than her politics. Her lack of experience...her background was more Hollywood than Sacramento etc. But look who beat her!

Case closed.

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

Maher is the most vicious and villainous of lefties.

But, because I'm not your typical biased left wing Wiki editor, I don't suggest we include that in his encyclopedic entry.

But, at least acknowledge what's obvious to almost everyone...he is a libertarian liberal.

BTW, just because he holds a tiny fractional amount of less than liberal views doesn't discount this characterization.

William F Buckley is for legalized drugs and Bill O'Reilly is for gay adoption. Does that mean we tag them as liberals???

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

Big Daddy 13:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Stiven 01:04, 14 febuary 2006 (UTC) ARE YOU SMOKING ROCK? his overall position is libertarian. how could you mistake that for leftist? on his show is mostly leftist guests but thats because its LA? he wants to get people from the right on his show but its callifornia. If you listen to Bill speak you would know his is a libertarian...I mean him saying I'm a libertarian 12,000 tims could have beena clue.

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

A few points:

What a person considers him/herself is not the end of the story. I doubt Aldof Hitler would describe himself as a "Mass Murdering F*** Head" (as Eddie Izzard calls him). That, does not mean, however, that he was not a "Mass Murdering F*** Head". All of the dead jews, poles, etc., show that his self assesment was probably off target.

I also agree that we need to be cautious about editors getting to label people. Alternatively, one can compare the person's self assesment to the the overarching philosophies associated with the position and show where a person was in line with that view and where they were not.

Likewise, there are many people who would claim Maher follows some other philosophy. That should be noted and tested too.

Reality is that Maher is not consistant with any major label. In fact, he is not consistant with himself and simply insults positions he can not out argue. This too needs to be pointed out. Again, "in fact", you do not really explain Maher, unless you show this tendency. There is a world of diference between William F. Buckley and Bill Maher and you do both of them a dis-service not to make that clear.

Finally, the word "bigot" should be added to the description of Bill Maher. Wikipedia's defenition of bigot follows: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of closed-minded. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, Materialism, nationalism, Rationalism, or homophobia."

Bill Maher's statement that all religious people have neurological disease that results in their inability to think places him within the category of Bigot. --- Bill Maher actual statement was "I hate religion. I think it's a neurological disorder." Considering there is much evidence to back Maher's point that religion makes people act crazy... Just look at all the crazy religious stuff lately...opposition to gay marriage (which is in of itself bigotry, caused by religion), suicide bombers (basically crazy religious people), rioting over a cartoon (That one is just kind of funny)...to name a few. Furthermore Bill Maher often has religious people on his show, and hardly treats them in an uncivilized matter or is intollerant of their opinions. So calling him a bigot, is basically nonsense.

I'd be interested to see any evidence that shows a causal relation between neurological disorder and religion. Briefly presented anecdotal statements excepted. Saying Bill Maher has religious people on his show is the pseudo intellectual equivalent of "some of my best friends are black...or gay...or Islamic." His statement, even as you quote it, is still out there. If we are beyond the basic analytics of the transitive principle (If A=B and B=C, then A=C), we can not hope to have meaningful discourse.

This is simply sophistry.

Questionable changes, reversions

I have reverted (twice) changes to the article which deleted useful information without discussion. I was pretty sure that the reasons for the reversion were understood, but I'll make the reasons clear here, as a result of a message from Crevaner: "Why the hell do you keep messing with the Maher article. The edits Judson and myself made are completely reasonable, accurate, and unbiased. Could you please stop f*cking those usefull edits up. -- Crevaner 18:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

Setting aside the obvious problems with wikiconduct here (wikilove anyone?), I feel that perhaps I should address here the reasons that edits which remove explanatory information without discussion on the talk page are unacceptable.

If you're making a substantial change to the page, some discussion might be needed. Be bold, but also be smart about edits. Crevaner is not making edits in an NPOV manner, but instead interjecting his own personal politics into the mix (see User:Crevaner). Addressing each change individually:

See the differences between revisions.

1. Removed note that Maher and Coulter are friends. This is, to the best of my knowledge, true and appropriate in the context.
2. Is it an "accusation" to call someone a far-left Democrat? This is a strongly POV word, and one citation is not the same as "many" - I favor removing this entirely, not making it more central to a questionable case about what Maher is or is not.
3. Removal of Maher's justification for higher taxes on those who earn more - this IS Maher's justification for his taxation beliefs, and is appropriate in the context.
4. Am not opposed to moving "Prior to the election..." segment into another paragraph, but to group it with these other edits ends up with it being reverted in kind.
5. "even if he was not a perfect candidate" wording may be removed as it's POV, but perhaps would be apropriate if the article states that Maher supported Kerry even though he didn't consider him a perfect candidate.
6. I haven't found any citation for reasons Maher supported Bob Dole in 1996, but would not object to inclusion of the given reason IF a reasonable citation can be given.

If Crevaner and others can comment on these points (using fewer expletives and in a mature manner, perhaps?) I would be very willing to discuss them. I don't favor unilateral changes which make substantial changes to the article. I sincerely hope there can be mature conversation on this topic. --ABQCat 18:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul: Why the revert?

Because "seemed to give credit to" is a POV statement. Support it with citations from his own show (then it's not "seemed to", it's "said Bill Maher") or support it with citations from media writeups about the show (then it's not "seemed to", it's "said THIS SOURCE"). --ABQCat 22:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Giamilton: I suggest we not use labels like right or left, liberal or conservative, but instead simply state the position the person takes on each issue. Liberal has been co-opted by some and now has a negative connotation and should not be used. Conservative is also misleading and should also not be used. Persons should be described politically by their position on individual issues. Many words like liberal and conservative have a different meaning depending on the person reading and may not convey the subtle position shifts an individual may have on a particular issue. Sept 14, 2005

Agree wholeheartedly. The exception I see here is if you're quoting the individual themselves and they are self-described as "liberal" or "conservative" (or equally reasonable: "apathetic" "libertarian" or "green"). --ABQCat 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, however I do not beleive we should concider it 'an exception' when someone refers to themself as a liberal. Calling it an exception opens the doors to wiki-editors saying "He is a liberal" rather than "He refers to himself as a liberal". I think its very important that we make distictions from what a person calls themself, and what they are. We can obviously quote people calling themself whatever they call themself. However from that point on we should simply state their positions on issues and becarful that we ourselves do not refer to them as liberal (or any other label) simply because they do it.--Edy52285 08:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are against the death penalty?

That part in the article needs to be removed because it's not true. Libertarians very much believe in the death penalty. These people normally lean conservative and they believe the purpose of government is to provide safety to the public, so they favor a strong defense and getting tough on crime. Neil Boortz is a good example. Sure, they have the reputation for being strict constitutionalists, but they believe as so many legal scholars do, that "cruel and unusual punishment" means torture only. Please, someone, revise that part of the article. -Amit

If you know anything about libertarians, you know they are not a monolithic movement. Some are pro-death penalty, some are anti-death penalty. --Golbez 16:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think you have both made the same point. Being anti-death penalty is conventionally a Liberal position, in general, not necessarily a Libertarian position. However, the Catholic Church also officially opposes the death penalty, and they certainly don't qualify as a Liberal organization. And O'Reilly's position on the issue is not the Catholic pro-life stance, but rather that execution is basically "getting off easy", whereas he favors a life sentence of hard labor ("Row well, and live!" --Ben-Hur) so he's not a Liberal on this position, either. Maybe you need a category called the "O'Reilly position" on issues. We report, you deride. :) Wahkeenah 17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians are divided on the issue of the death penalty. I think it's inaccurate for the article to claim that most libertarians oppose the death penalty. Rhobite 18:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Religious views

I reworded a bunch of stuff in here to make it read a little better. (At least I hope it reads better...) and added a bit about him believing in God. (It's true. He said it on Larry King at least twice).

Yeah, I do remember him saying that he's Deistic. I reworded the "correction" a bit, because him being agnotsic does not mean that he doesn't believe in some sort of God. He can hold both views (correct me if I'm wrong!).

With all due respect, and humbly I submit, that you are wrong on this fact. This is analytical. Agnostic means 'one who does not know'. You can not believe and be agnostic. You can not 'know' and 'not know' at the same time in the same way.

Well firstly, the arguemtn that "You can not 'know' and 'not know' at the same time in the same way." makes no sense when refering to agnostics. Agnostics believe it cannot be know, not simply that they do not know. Secondly, knowing is not the same as believing, so yes, he can believe in god and be an agnostic at the same time. Finally, this is not a wikipage about agnosticism or anythinf of the sort. We can cite sources where he says what he is, and where he says things he believes. If their is an obvious conflict (like saying 'Im agnostic', then saying 'I know god exists') then those should be shown. However in this case there is no obvious conflict so simply cite the sources for whatever his beliefs are and be done with it :) --Edy52285 08:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--24.100.82.59 23:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And then again, during a rant about evolution and "intelligent design" he also said "I think God designed us in his image, but I also believe that God is a monkey." which quite does sound like a sarcastic statement implying he doesn't believe in a god at all. --193.11.222.179 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maher has stated many times in many different places that he believes in God. He just doesn't believe in organized religion. Big difference.

I edited the part about Maher's views on morality. I changed "consumption of pork" to "having an abortion," since Maher has never said anything about consuming pork and if anything probably does consider that immoral, being that he's involved in PETA.

What about hosting Amazon.com's 10th anniversary?

Maybe at your house, I certainly don't have the room. Gzuckier 14:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bill Maher on Larry King Live 8/11/05

Yes he believes in Animal Rights and is a board member of PETA, but he stated twice that he is not a vegetarian let alone a vegan what someone posted in his Wikipedia biography. And he doesn't agree w/ all of PETA's philosophies.

12.221.158.143 - I changed the article to reflect his quote, but I am not certain if he was ever vegitarian. I've seen his show many times and he has shown support for vegans. I dont know if he ever was a vegan/vegitarian and recently quit or if he has always been a meat eater. Can somebody please address this.

• Bill Maher Chatroom transcript http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_chattranscript_071602.htm

Excerpt from chat transcript: "Yid_Vicious: ARE YOU OR AREN'T YOU A VEGAN?

Bill: Am I vegetarian? Yes, except for the meat. Actually, I don't often eat meat, but to me, the issue isn't mostly about that, although for sure large quantities of meat are not good for you, to say nothing of the cow. I try to eat food, even if it is chicken, fish or even steak, that is pure - that is, not poisoned the way almost all our food is, with hormones, steroid and antibiotics. What an open scandal in America that no one makes a peep anymore about this country's poisoned food supply, the preservatives, the pesticides, the chlorine in vast amounts necessary to make the water that comes into your house not kill you immediately. Just to get food that isn't fundamentally compromised is a major effort, and thank God I have a small army of people out doing it for me."

• Bill Maher was never a vegetarian, let alone a vegan. If people have this impression of him it's because he's strongly pro-vegetable and for eating healthy. That doesn't mean he was a vegetarian. I'm pro gay rights, but I'm not gay...

• I've deleted the "Many people believe he is vegan..." part because no one cares how many people think he is one. It's irrelevant, misinformation, and causes confusion. So leave it out.

Libertarians on "regulating corporations"

It's not accurate to say that Libertarians are against government regulation of corporations: Corporations are, after all _created_ by the government - specifically through a businesses' purchase of a "corporate license", through which the government confers upon the business certain protections - the most outstanding of which is "limited liability".

In fact, in a Libertarian "free market" system, there wouldn't be any corporations at all: The government wouldn't step in and protect business (through the issuing of "corporate licenses") any more than it would step in and protect consumers. I'd imagine in some transitional system, in which we don't yet have a free-market, a Libertarian would have no problem with government regulating the actions of corporations any more than the actions of other government-created organizations (e.g. the IRS).

You must be referring to his long sentence:

• However, he also holds many Social Democrat positions that are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance reform (which he has since repudiated, saying "OK, we tried it, it didn't work"), environmentalism, supports affirmative action, supports minimum wage laws, supports strict gun control, supports income redistribution through higher taxation as a means for the wealthy to pay for some of the advantages they enjoy as Americans, supports government funding for abortion, supports equal rights for homosexuals, and supported Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

I think it is problematic to use this article to try to define which stands are libertarian and which aren't. In some matters, even the libertarians cannot agree amongst themselves. In addition, the sentence doesn't actually tell us what Mahers' positions are on some of these issues. I suggest that we drop the "are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology" clause, and rewrite it so that we know what his positions are. -Willmcw 00:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Many libertarians

• In fact, many libertarians consider him to ideologically be a member of the far-left.

Cany anyone give us the names of some notable libertarians who have called Maher a member of the far left? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why must they be notable? If you're a libertarian, you're a libertarian. As a libertarian, Maher is a member of the far-left. End of discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not end of discussion. A notable Libertarian can be quoted in the article. An un-notable Libertarian such as your self can not be used as a source. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an environmentalist, and I think Bill Maher is a ninja. Therefore, I move we add to the article the following statement: "In fact, many environmentalists consider him to be a Ninja."--148.87.1.171 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

You seem to be under the impression that libertarians are far left. Clearly you know very little of the nature of the political spectrum. Far-left is socialist. Liberals, and some libertarians, are left. A lot of libertarians are right of center. (69.140.166.42 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

Category

I've added Bill Maher to the category:Libertarians. It's really altogether irrelevant if some of you don't think that he's libertarian enough for your tastes. The fact is that he calls himself libertarian and that's good enough to place him in the category. From the wikipedia article itself:

Maher describes himself as a libertarian and celebrates libertarian figures such as Larry Elder and P.J. O'Rourke.

207.6.31.119 08:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• That reasoning is completely ridiculous. Hitler might have considered himself a populist, that didn't make him one. I'm also going to use a statement from the article itself:

"Maher does support many stances which are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology...including government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance reform, environmentalism, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, gun control, income redistribution through higher taxation and government funding for abortion."

He is ideologically the exact opposite of a libertarian, which is a socialist. That's why I'm deleting him from the libertarian category. -- Judson 09:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Judson. So, in your world, when a Republican is Pro-Choice, or a Democrat is in favor of responsible gun ownership, they have actually become their political opposite, and can no longer be described as affiliated with the party to which they still belong or ally? Cannot the Libertarian tent include those who, on some individual, but core, issues, differ with the formal Party stance? Think Zell Miller (extremely conservative Democrat), Rudy Giuliani (pro-choice Republican), Tony Blair (war Liberal)... There are many public Libertarian figures who don't "toe the party line" on every issue. For most people, it seems enough to state what political tent they place themselves in, and that should be enough. While many might criticise him for this, that criticism, in and of itself, shouldn't negate his own stated affiliation, for Wikipedia purposes, until they are actually kicked out of their party. --NightMonkey 11:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Libertarianism isn't about a "party line", its about having a specific political philosophy of maximizing individual freedom in both the personal and economic realm. And Maher clearly doesn't have the philosophy. His philosophy is one authoritarian socialism. It's as simple as that. Put it this way, if Bill Maher is a libertarian then Fidel Castro is an anarchist. -- Judson 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion. I think that, for this articles purpose, we should defer to Maher's own self-categorization, but cover the contreversy. --NightMonkey 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

i agree with Judson. one's self-description should not control. history is replete with self-descriptions that are logically inconsistent with behavior and expressed views. further, while there might not be consensus among libertarians for certain views, there is a definition of libertarianism, and maher deviates from it from time to time. Streamless 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote regarding another section on this page but it applies, I suggest:

A few points: What a person considers him/herself is not the end of the story. I doubt Aldof Hitler would describe himself as a "Mass Murdering F*** Head" (as Eddie Izzard calls him). That, does not mean, however, that he was not a "Mass Murdering F*** Head". All of the dead jews, poles, etc., show that his self assesment was probably off target. I also agree that we need to be cautious about editors getting to label people. Alternatively, one can compare the person's self assesment to the the overarching philosophies associated with the position and show where a person was in line with that view and where they were not. Likewise, there are many people who would claim Maher follows some other philosophy (ie. leftist). That should be noted and tested too. Reality is that Maher is not consistant with any major label. In fact, he is not consistant with himself and simply insults positions he can not out argue. This too needs to be pointed out. Again, "in fact", you do not really explain Maher, unless you show this tendency. There is a world of diference between William F. Buckley and Bill Maher and you do both of them a dis-service not to make that clear. Finally, the word "bigot" should be added to the description of Bill Maher. Wikipedia's defenition of bigot follows: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of closed-minded. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, Materialism, nationalism, Rationalism, or homophobia." Bill Maher's statement that all religious people have neurological disease that results in their inability to think places him within the category of Bigot.

It is not our place to decide if Maher is a libertarian, a bigot, or anything else. We're just here to summarize what other people have said. If notable people have called Maher a "bigot" then we should include that here. If they haven't then we shouldn't make that judgment on our own. -Will Beback 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that I am not "a notable person"? How notable do I need to be and who gets to decide? My point really is that if George Bush or Bill Clinton believes he falls into a category, does not make it so. It is testimonial evidence, and has a place, but it does not replace all forensic evidence. Further, by making the test rely on who is notable, we slip into a popularity contest of "notable" commentators. I am not suggesting Wikipedia make the judgement call, only to provide the facts required for a reader to come to a conclusion. I strongly suggest that if we do not evaluate things againts standard positions and definitions than Wikipedia becomes, not a referrence tool, but an op/ed piece. The first rule of determination is to compare statements and actions of a person or group against existing definitions.

Despite the fact Wikipedia says, about itself, that its "Editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view" under which notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth." It also qutoes, in the same article, and in defence of its methods, that "Wikipedia's authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."[9]. Therefore, its very methods and instructions are challenged. If the experiment is to work, Wikipedia must move away from "notable" persons and to objective truth. The point of Wikipedia, and the thing that makes it promising, is that it avoids the bias that can, potentially, exist in the "experts" and "notable" voices.

If Bill Clinton said "Maher is a Nazi", that'd be interesting information to include in an article. We don't really care if it's true or not, only if the quote is verifiable. You are notable if you have an article on Wikipedia, otherwise it is up to debate. We can certainly list his known beliefs and let readers decide where in the political spectrum he belongs. Regarding your "anti-notable", it comes down to Wikipedia:reliable sources, Wikipedia:verifiability, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Everybody has a bias, but we try to convey the information without biases. Thanks for participating. -Will Beback 08:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - don't forget to sign your talk page contributions. Thanks, -Will Beback 08:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

if bill clinton said "Maher is a Nazi," that would certainly be worthy of inclusion in an article. but, we would not add Bill Maher to Category:Nazis based on Clinton's accusation. that's the distinction some of us on this talk page are trying to make. the fact that Maher claims to be a libertarian should be included. however, to note that Maher's expressed views are inconsistent with libertarianism isn't original research. Streamless 17:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You say it isn't "Original Research", but you fail to back up that assertion, I'm afraid. It does violate WP:NOR if the information is not presented with cited reputable sources, and much of article has the tone of declaring opinions as facts, rather than a neutral presentation of other reputable sources' verifiable opinions. Why does an article about a talk show host/comedian have a digressive discussion of why he is not a capital-L Libertarian? In fact, the article makes the case against him and his identification with libertarianism without external references, which is, by making an argument against other sources without citations or reference, "Original Resarch". It's right there in the WP policy. As I've said previously, if a capital-D Democrat or capital-R Republican does not agree with some of their declared political party's official positions, are they instantly to be attacked in a Wikipedia article for their apostasy, without external reference? Is Rudy Giuliani to be summarily declared a Democrat in his WP article because he is Pro-Choice?

Additionaly, right out of the box, WP:Verifiability states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The argument "It's a Fact!" doesn't gain purchase here; it isn't enough to merit inclusion in a WP article. Additionaly, another specific component of the same official policy is applicable here: "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." As I stated before, if there is a substantive, widely reported controversy (remember, Bill Maher is a comedian and social commentator, so "controversy" is part of his stock and trade), it should be covered to reflect what is reported elsewhere, outside Wikipedia. But all else which stands in direct opposition to WP policies should be removed, or redacted and provided with good citations to better comply with WP's stated policies. Pretty much all three major WP policies are being trampled here, and it should be corrected, and corrected quickly. --NightMonkey 20:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

you raise many interesting points indeed and i'll try to address them in the order you've made them. let me begin with my characterization of this dispute: what we have is an attempt at an NPOV article that does not contain OR about bill maher (whom i admire very much). the issue is that maher refers to himself as a libertarian when he expresses views that are inconsistent with libertarianism.

1) i don't consider noting inconistencies between the maher's expressed views and self-labelling an "attack"--it's not an "attack" to assert a person is not a libertarian.

2) the info in this article is in fact backed up by other sources' verifiable information, for example, the website "is bill maher a libertarian". indeed, i believe the article cites examples when maher itself notes that his expressed views depart from libertarianism.

3) also, i submit that the departure from political party dogma is not analogous to this situation. a person is a member of a political party, but to say "i'm a 'liberal'" or "'communist'" or "'conservative'" is to make a declaration of your political philosophy. in other words, the issue isn't whether maher is a member of a Libertarian Party, the issue is whether he's an actual libertarian (exemplified by 'behavior' and 'expressed views' and not mere declarations). i think a more accurate analogy would be to note, in an article about a hypothetical famous self-described Catholic who did not believe in god, christ, or anything written in the bible or prescribed by the Catholic church, certain inconsistencies between the expressed views and self-description.

4) why do we discuss whether he is a libertarian? because it's interesting. this type of dispute isn't limited to comedians and talk show hosts. i once heard of a court case about some local government action where the ACLU and the state civil liberties union took opposite sides. well-meaning self-described libertarians often note that sometimes, government action against non-violent citizens might lead to the greater good. it is neither an "attack" nor original research to note departures from a declared philosophy. Streamless 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Catagories help page, read #8 under the Guidlines section. The issue of Bill Maher being libertarian or not is obviously controversial, and therefore this article should absolutly not be placed in the Libertarain catagory.--Edy52285 09:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an Atheist

The atheist thinkers category should be removed, he has never stated he does not believe in god and instead clings to an agnostic view that god may or may not exist, which is beyond the reason of man to know. Atheists are positive in their belief that god does not exist.- Brodey

• Actually, the position you state is that of 'strong atheism'. Atheism itself is best defined as 'a lack of belief in a god or gods'. Maher is a Deist by his own admission. SuMadre

No, atheism is a belief in the lack of a god or gods. Using your logic, one could define theism as a lack of belief in the lack of a god or gods, but that just doesn't cut it. -Soga

• What do we do what the admission that he admitted that he hates all Religion and he hates people who worship and even insults on Real Time? should we even bother? this guy doesn't seem normal to hate people who worship? - Gio

• Huh? -- Jibal 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not an antheist, but a free thinker. Is that a catedgory? Agnostic works too.(69.140.166.42 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

OriginalResearch section template message added

I've added an OriginalResearch tag to the "Political Worldviews" section, per my criticisms above. I'll continue to work on reducing this aspect of this section, and encourage you to pitch in to help make this a better encyclopedic article. --NightMonkey 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section:

However, Maher does support many Social Democrat stances which are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology or associated with modern liberalism, including government regulation of corporations, restrictions on corporate entrepreneurship, foreign aid, an internationalist foreign policy, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmentalism, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, gun control, income redistribution through higher taxation and government funding for abortion.

We can't make this sort of blanket statement of opinion here, in a tone that appears to state this as fact. Work still in progress. --NightMonkey 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, did a decent first pass of edits. I still feel more work needs to be done on the tagged section, and I'll work on it more over the next few days. --NightMonkey 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NightMonkey, i'm not going to revert that removal because that kind of thing isn't cool, but if you're interested in improving the article, which i believe you are, why not read some of the transcripts on Maher's website and see if you can support anything asserted in the removed section? it's not OR to cite the subject of the article. Streamless 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is improved. And, to paraphrase the quoted policy above, it is the duty of the editor who is adding content to provide reputable, verifiable citations of sources, not for the editor that is pruning it. The section I cropped from the article above is Original Research, since it makes a conclusion, after mashing toghether a bunch of purported stances (and selectively leaving out others), that is not reflected in the more reputable sources. --NightMonkey 23:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure that one could cite to Maher's talk show comments, books, and stand-up shows to support some, if not all of the removed paragraph. i also urge you to read the Dan Halem article cited at the bottom of the article. Streamless 17:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sure some could indeed be cited. However nightmonkey is only saying that citing those sources would have been the job of the person who added the statements in the first place. If citations can be found for what nightmonkey removed, the statements should be reverted and the citations added. Until we have those citations, the statements do not belong in the article. Would you pritty much agree with that?--Edy52285 09:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Left-Wing, Right-Wing...

Okay, we all know that there's debate over whether or not Maher is "comfortable" being referred to as a liberal, but we all know that he's much more of a leftist than a Republican. His show attacks "religious conservatives" with much more ferocity than the left-wing. This should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. There's no need to keep it "neutral" when Maher doesn't attack them neutrally himself. -- Drew, 04/13/06.

Actually there is. And who is to make this judgement? you? me? another wikipedian? The real key to dealing with these polarizing political figures (agree or disagree - he does polarize people when you ask about him) is to ensure that you are constantly being vigilant to quote the person themselves accurately, quote other notable people or articles (if the washington post or fox news ran a piece on him, for example, that's clearly notable), and to do our best to NOT "know" things and thus reflect them in the article content.

"We all know" is a dodge for finding citations from Maher himself or other people talking about him. Maher's not scared of who he is - you can clearly find evidence for what he supports and who he identifies most closely with politically. No original research, and let's try to make sure that we don't do original judgements, either. Neither is apropriate for any wikipedia article. --ABQCat 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only contention was that if you simply watch Maher on television and hear him speak, it's clear where his preferences lie. "Libertarian" or not, he attacks the right-wing with more tenacity than the left - FACT. I'm simply stating that I believe the earlier opening for this article was more accurate than this new, "neutral" perspective. -- Drew, 04/16/06.

You, again, miss the point. Your contention is clear. It is, however, completely inappropriate for inclusion in the article as the "FACT" you claim it to be. "I believe" is again a clue that you're missing the NPOV attempt here. If you can find citations for your beliefs and "facts" or at the least can point to some facts that you believe may be wrong, you'd be doing us all a huge favor here. It's the burden of someone who adds information to prove it, but it's much to the advantage of those questioning statements included in the article as fact if you were to request a citation. I'd truly welcome some specific insights or questions about this article, as I truly think that's the best way to make sure articles are complete and accurate. NPOV is a good guideline towards that end, and if you have issues with the article's neutrality or facts included, please, point them out. Thanks, and I look forward to working with anyone who feels they can contribute! --ABQCat 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may interrupt. It is more important that we accurately describe the subject's stated beliefs than to try to pigeonhole him or his positions. It's not for us to decide if he's a libertarian or liberal or anarcho-capitalist. Let's just verifiably summarize reliable sources using a neutral point of view. If he calls himself a "___ist", or if others do, then we can go with that. But we should not try to deduce it on our own. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, you're right on the money. --ABQCat 07:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Drew, what is clear to you simply by watching Maher on television and hearing him speak is irrelevant; we are editors of encyclopedic material, we are not writing a book about our personal impressions, something that far too many participants in Wikipedia fail to grasp. -- Jibal 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maher is not Liberterian. He's a Third-way Socialist/Progressive

Third-way Socialism/Progressivism is built in the principle of the common good. You can find that theme in probably all of his opinions.

1. Bullying and talking down the Democratic party; it's primarily a liberal party, especially among the established candidates.
2. He's okay with phone wiretapping; privacy of the individual is not as important as the well-being of the collective America. If you're a liberal or liberterian, this is simply unacceptable as the right to privacy is extremely important. The prominent third-way socialists of Göran Persson and Tony Blair approve of wiretapping people's phones.
3. It's okay to execute someone if it benefits the common good of reducing the earth's population. Liberals and liberterian believe that taking someone's life is wrong as it infringes on their most valued property (their own body).
4. He has a general scepticism towards corporations. Liberals and liberterians have varied scepticism, as they don't generalize all corporations. They differ a bit here though as liberals believe the govermnent is obligated to make rules for security of the individual (labor laws, etc).
5. I'm not saying atheism equals socialism, but socialists tend to have a more disregard for organized religion because it's the product of the capitalist/individualist society.
6. Privatizing Social Security was something that the Social Democratic party (third-way socialist) did in the early 90s in Sweden. Liberterians don't believe in that at all. Liberals waffle on the issue, but tend to support it more than not supporting it.

Anyways, that are a couple of examples that I could think of. There are of course differences, as most socialists today do not believe in the death penalty however. Mastgrr 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't debate any one of these points, as I have heard him make a large number of them on his television show. One thing worth noting, however, is that he's a comedian. I don't think it's necessarily going on, but it's possible that he's using a little bit of hyperbole to make a point from time to time. I don't know that I can say for certain, unless he repeatedly makes a point, that anything he says on one occasion on one show is really how he feels. Just worth noting, I think, if we're going to be making such factual, definitive lists. --ABQCat 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No disrespect meant, but all I can say is: who says so? This sort of personal opinon isn't really appropriate to the article. If you can find reputable sources that are on-topic and relevant, then we can think about citing that in the article. But, primarily, this is, as you've presented it, original research, and has nothing to really offer towards improving the article. This isn't the place to convince others of your personal opinon of Maher. Remember, "It's a Fact!" isn't reason enough for inclusion in an article. See WP:NOR for more info. --NightMonkey 08:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

he's a comedian.

So is Michael_Richards. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Fishbowl

Maher is hosting a show on Amazon.com called "Fishbowl." Perhaps the article should mention this.-5-27-06

Added today -5-30-06

Quotations

Two of the quotations at the end of the Political Views section that need citation come from the episode of Real Time that came after Bush won the election, and was the last episode of that season. It was the same episode where he got into the big fight with the old man over homosexuality and religion, I forget the old man's name. 6/7/06

References!!!!!!

I added many references on the Political Views section of Bill Maher. There are many more views stated in the videos posted on the website You Tube. Please help find more references in the videos posted to take off the sign of the supposed "Un-Verified Claims" which is not true. Many of the things that are denied are in fact actually true,( If you take the time to watch the videos of "Bill Maher" on the website You Tube.

Claim - Maher not a libertarian a Socialist? No he is indeed a libertarian and not a Socialist.

There are many Quotes in the videos.

Maher on Ferguson

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

• On 3 May 2005, "Late Late Show" guest Bill Maher (whose Real Time with Bill Maher is also produced at CBS Television City), in a riff on the Michael Jackson trial, made light of child molestation, causing Ferguson to cut off the interview early.[3] - Gio

For those who want more information on this: [1] ImmortalDragon 03:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferguson has been on Maher's show since then and they appeared to be friends, or friendly. June, 7 2007

Maher Not a Libertarian

Bill Maher is definitely not a libertarian. I'm also tired of hearing that a person can disagree with libertarians on some issues and still be a libertarian, just as Rudy Giuliani can be pro abortion and gun control, yet he's still a Republican. "Republican" is a term for a political party. "Libertarian," although a political party, much more commonly refers to the political philosophy (ideology) of libertarianism. The libertarian philosophy is much stricter than conservatism and liberalism in that you really can't disagree with the philosophy at all and still be considered a libertarian. Maher is also definitely not a member of the Libertarian Party, so he can't be called a libertarian in either manner. Maher is for gun control. That violates libertarianism. Maher has said that each person should only be able to own one gun. Maher has said that hunting should be banned. That's not libertarian. Maher would retort that hunting "hurts others." However libertarians don't consider animals to be "others." Libertarians are against hurting other human beings, not animals. Therefore, it's possible for a libertarian to be pro life. Maher also believes in a minimum wage. Libertarians do not. Maher supports the federal department of education. Libertarians do not. Maher is for banning home schooling. Libertarians most certainly do not want it banned. (However, referring to a comment made by someone else in here, it doesn't violate libertarianism that Maher is for some privatization of social security. Libertarians would rather that there be no social security of any sort, but they'd settle for privatization over the way that it is now. It also doesn't violate libertarianism that Maher is for the death penalty. The notion that libertarians would be against the death penalty because it violates one's property to kill him is nonsense. Once you commit murder, you forfeit the right to your "property." The death penalty doesn't violate any principles of libertarianism, and it's certainly not cruel and unusual punishment, even to the strictest of constitutional constructionists. (The founding fathers who wrote the constitution were for the death penalty.)) (Also referring to that person, liberals are not for privatization of social security.) (Also, we don't need to mention that Maher or anyone else is a bigot in Wikipedia. Let the readers decide.) Maher is mostly only on agreement with libertarians on "libertine" issues aka "sex, drugs, and rock and roll." He's too anti-intellectual to pass for a libertarian. True libertarianism is much more thoughtful than Maher. He's just in it for the wanton sex and drugs. So it's pretty obvious that he's not a libertarian. I mean, if he were a libertarian, why didn't he vote for Harry Browne in the last two presidential elections? It's obvious that he's not a libertarian. It's ok to print that he claims to be one, but certainly list all of his inconsistencies in the article (cited of course). We can't just accept his word that he's a libertarian.Politician818 01:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I also forgot to mention that Maher disagrees with libertarians in his support for affirmative action and campaign finance reform. Libertarians actually have no problem with a private business hiring only minorities or even only white people. However, they don't believe that it should be mandated by government. They also totally oppose public sector affirmative action, as it violates the fifth (federal level) and fourteenth (state level) amendments. Campaign finance reform is opposed by libertarians as it violates the first amendment as well as the principle of freedom to do whatever you want. I also find it odd how Bill Maher claims to be "pro death" yet wants strict gun control to "keep people from dying." Bill Maher's support of government regulations for environmental benefit, such as with the global warming issue, is opposed by most libertarians. I'd like to see Bill Maher debate Michael Savage, a trained scientist, on the "science" of man-made global warming. Savage has challenged any liberal "global warming" believer to debate him on his show. Ray Comfort has also challenged Maher to a debate on evolution. It seems to me that Maher can't debate. Rather, he just accepts what other people say on issues. Getting back to banning hunting, Maher did say that in an interview with Playboy. So, in conclusion, Maher is no libertarian. It's laughable for anyone to claim that he is.Politician818 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have reputable sources for your assertions, then it is fine fodder for the article. It would be fine to cite and reference reputable articles about Maher and his political beliefs, but we can't just come up with a conclusion here independent of the sources. Remember, WP:NOR. Thanks. --NightMonkey 08:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Maher is definitely not a libertarian. You don't need any references for proving that. The article already shows he's not, by being an environmentalist, supporting PETA and not liking pharmaceutical companies. No libertarian believes animals have rights. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Bill Maher faults the federal government and FEMA for not responding well enough to Katrina. Libertarians would agree that the government didn't do a good job. Carlson agrees that it's a government failure, but takes the libertarian position in favor of personal responsiblity and makes the conclusion that people shouldn't have been dependent on it in the first place. Bill Maher takes a liberal stance on it and faults the government for failing like Carlson, but thinks that it would have worked better under Clinton and should and could work better than it does now. No libertarian would want to fix FEMA or believe FEMA could have worked better, because no libertarian would believe that it is the government's role nor that it could ever be that effective in the first place. Bill Maher on FEMA and Katrina. I think having some sort of note that his libertarian label is clearly inconsistent is needed. Thorburn 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do need references, according to Wikipedia policy. Everything else you say here is personal opinion, regardless of how sure you are that it is true, and is thus irrelevant. -- Jibal 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher is also very much pro tax. He constantly defends the estate tax and says that the people "owe" the government for whatever success that they attain in life. Libertarians most certainly do not agree with Maher's philosophy on that issue. I don't have proof of Maher's statements, but somebody else here can dig them up and place them into the article to show where Maher contradicts himself. I'm just stating the issues so that others will know what to look for.Politician818 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that various people who claim to know all about libertarian believes don't appear to be aware that:

Libertarian perspectives on animal rights: A small number of libertarians grant basic rights to animals (they count as individuals and therefore have the right not to be subjected to coercion), while others see animals as property, and think their owners are free to treat them as they wish.

I'm not saying that Bill Maher is a libertarian but clearly his support for animal rights is not intrinsicly inconsistent with libertarian beliefs (of course some aspects of his support for animal rights could be) Nil Einne 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)