Talk:Bill Maher/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Aslan comments

I've moved a recent problematic addition here for discussion:

Reza Aslan, a frequent guest on Real Time has criticized Maher's stance on Islam as "frank bigotry"[78] although he also said that Maher himself was not a bigot. He also characterized Maher's views on religion as "not very sophisticated."[79] Aslan argued that Maher's conflation of different Muslim groups and societies was misleading and simplistic, for example citing the issue of female genital mutilation, an issue cited by Maher as a reason to be uniquely critical of Islam,[80] as an issue which is treated very differently across the Muslim world.[79]

This addition is sourced to a Salon article and two YouTube videos; one of a comedy bit, and another of a Young Turks commentary. These are not "high quality sources" required by our BLP policy (in fact, the text cited to the TYT YouTube bit references incomplete news interview snippets which omit context). What, exactly, are we attempting to convey to the reader with this addition? "Frank bigotry" and "not very sophisticated" don't tell the reader anything about "why" these criticisms supposedly apply to Maher. The one "genital mutilation" example is not supported by the cited source, as presently worded, as he specifically called out just Egyptians and Somalians without "conflation", and never indicated that as "a reason to be uniquely critical of Islam". Are there better quality sources which convey whatever "criticism" is referred to here (or is this not that significant a criticism)? And where is Maher's response to this "criticism" from this one Muslim who insists that Maher isn't a bigot? If there is a valid and significantly held criticism here to be conveyed, let's see the sources and figure out how to convey it in an encyclopedic manner. Reflexively yours, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This was a fairly big media story, so there's plenty of sources that will convey much the same information if you don't consider Salon or TYT to be reliable sources (though I'm not really sure why you consider the be be "low quality" particularly. Both have decent reputations even if they are clearly coming from a leftist perspective.) But anyway that isn't really an issue for me here. The point is that Aslan criticised Maher's views on Islam as being overly simplistic and inaccurate because they fail to take into account the diversity of the Muslim world. The female genital mutilation is the example cited by Aslan, as Maher uses it as an example of a "muslim" practice that should be called out by Western liberals. I used the TYT example because he at least goes into some detail disccussing the issue rather than just giving a quick once over of the main facts. But here are several other sources: Politifact, the original interview with Aslan, rawstory, Washington Post. Maher followed up on his following show in a famous segment with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck, but I don't think he ever directly responded to Aslan' criticism in this case; I think that he would simply reiterate his point, as he does here. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response, Peregrine981. With regard to the sources, my concern is not so much about how "big" the media echo chamber makes a story. If a Kardashian farts in an elevator, a Google search will produce 100,000 hits about it by the next day - but that doesn't mean it is automatically encyclopedic material, even if some recognizable people also comment about it. Of greater concern to me is that contentious criticisms be shown to be significant enough in reliable sources to warrant coverage in our article about a living person. If, as you say, "The point is that Aslan criticized Maher's views", he is going to have to get in line to have that added to the biography of a comic provocateur who has provoked such criticism every week for years as part of his job. Criticizing the practice ("Muslim", yes, for those sects that do practice it citing hadith support; but not every Muslim does, and non-Muslims also practice it) of female genital mutilation, as Maher did in that one source, doesn't support the criticism of Maher's views of religion as "simplistic and inaccurate". And I don't see anywhere in that later Salon interview where Maher "simply reiterates his point" about genital mutilation, or even mentions it. He does mention homosexuality, upon which I don't recall Aslan ever challenging him. Is there, perhaps, a better example from Aslan to support his assertion? Or better still, higher quality sources outside of Aslan and a Hollywood actor who make the same criticism in a thorough and thoughtful manner? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Xenophrenic's view. If everyone of notability had their criticisms of Maher added here, the size would be on the order of megabytes. Jim1138 (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also in agreement; I note every section outlining Maher's opinions is followed by an even larger section with criticism of the opinion. Maher is a controversial person. He has a weekly comedy talk show where he says outrageous things for jokes and to incite conversation. Granted, he does try to speak from a position where he tries to make sense of the world, that is his comedic angle, but he is not a politician. Its a bit of a stretch to put him in the class of political pundit where his very livelihood depends on the opinions he presents. Maher's livelihood is in telling jokes, keeping people laughing and entertained. Certainly there are a political factions that do not like hearing anybody say things in disagreement with their point of view. There is a lot of artificial controversy amongst those kind of factions whenever anybody says anything against their POV. Maher hits that button frequently, probably more than most comedians with late night talk shows. Letterman, Fallon, Kimmel and O'Brien soften their jokes to remove the political POV and stay more vanilla. Maher doesn't. Maher pisses off a lot of people, as can be judged by the constant vandalism of this article. But its not like he has a voice in public policy even in an advisory role. I'm not encouraging censoring wikipedia, but I think the presentation of opposing viewpoints is heavy handed, dominating each section in far more detail than the original remarks, which are oriented mostly in a joke he told. We should give it due weight.

The Aslan controversy was more in relation to Sam Harris, with both of those personalities spending hours on The Young Turks trying to explain their position from a short, well publicized exchange on Maher's TV show. Beyond what Maher said and what is directly connected to that, the whole story might belong on the TV show article, TYT's article and the articles of those individuals; more than here. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There was this CNN follow-up to the Aslan interview which is interesting, and in a follow-up to your PolitiFact source, it seems Aslan can also be "not so sophisticated" in his claims. Aslan's later NYT Op-Ed appears to be somewhat more measured in tone here, where he not only fails to substantiate a charge of bigotry, but defines it incorrectly as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall I'm sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't blow a single incident out of proportion. But this issue of liberal criticism of Islam in particular is a recurring theme in Maher's shows, punditry and stand-up which definitely hit a nerve with many thoughtful commentators in RS. The Aslan incident is a particularly notable incident of disagreement, but indeed we could find others who have a similar disagreement with him. However, Aslan is indeed a well recognised intellectual with the credentials to discuss the issue, so I don't see why we should be shy to use his criticisms. If you don't want to focus specifically on the genital mutilation issue that's fine, but it is a concrete criticism specifically highlighted by Aslan to give an example of why Maher's position is flawed. Maher didn't make a big issue of it, but did initially bring it up as a segway to another point. I can find several other similar articles, in the Atlantic, Salon, TNR, Time, and plenty more, but wonder if that gets us much farther ahead? WOuld you prefer some sort of a summary statement of a variety of sources, or a specific reference to Aslan, or perhaps a combination of the two? This is a central issue to Maher's career, so think notable to a reader. While he isn't a politician, Maher's political opinions are certainly a legitimate topic of cultural commentary. I think we would do a disservice to readers to back away from it.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

this issue of liberal criticism of Islam in particular is a recurring theme in Maher's shows

...as are all hot topic issues in present public discourse. Islam is a big issue right now, and that is why it gets talked about on his show; it's not a big issue because Maher talks about it. As an atheist and critic of religion with a public forum, this topic will periodically come up, but it is not even close to being his most talked about subject. And since he isn't an academic or expert on religion, we can expect that his commentary will consist mostly of generalizations; humorous, provocative and opinionated, yes, but we shouldn't expect deeply thoughtful and nuanced discourse. Perhaps that is why I am left scratching my head when someone adds "Critic XXX says Maher's comments on [insert religion here] are simplistic, unsophisticated, or over-generalize about the religion or its adherents!" to his article. My reaction is to think, "Well, of course it is — what's your point?" It's not an encyclopedic addition to this article. I don't disagree with you that Aslan can speak intelligently on the issue, but his views would be more appropriately handled in existing articles like Islam, New Atheism, Islamophobia and the like. Since Aslan and Maher agree that Maher isn't a bigot, slipping a context-less charge that his "stance" is bigoted is not appropriate — and the Maher article is not the proper venue in which to conduct a proper, detailed discussion about just what Aslan's problems are with criticism of Islam.

If you don't want to focus specifically on the genital mutilation issue that's fine...

I never said that. I said that the example of Maher's comments on FGM you provided failed to support the "cited by Maher as a reason to be uniquely critical of Islam" text you added.

...but it is a concrete criticism specifically highlighted by Aslan to give an example of why Maher's position is flawed. Maher didn't make a big issue of it, but did initially bring it up as a segway to another point.

Concrete criticism? No, not so concrete at all as it turns out. And while you keep linking to sources which mention Maher, they don't support (or even mention) your assertions on female genital mutilation. In fact, from the TNR source you just provided:

Aslan cited statistics about how female genital mutilation is not a Muslim-country problem but a Central African problem. Aslan also noted that seven Muslim countries have elected women as their leaders, emphatically holding up Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey as prime examples of countries where women are treated equally to men.
But recent reports from Human Rights Watch suggest a “significant rollback” of rights for women in Indonesia. Malaysia is proof that female genital mutilation is indeed a problem outside of Africa. And Turkey is a misleading example, as the advances in women's rights there occurred under the secularist regime of its first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and those who followed in his footsteps. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey's current Islamist president, has come under fire from Human Rights Watch for “a series of human rights violations including the weakening of the rule of law, pressure on the media, crackdowns on peaceful protests and the rolling back of democratic gains the country has achieved in previous years.”
Most telling: Azlan made no mention whatsoever of LGBT rights in any Muslim nation. Polls show that the majority of people in Muslim nations think homosexuality is morally wrong, with the numbers hovering near 90 percent in most countries. The punishment for homosexual activity in the majority of these countries involve prison sentences, while some include hard labor, forced psychiatric treatment, whippings, and death by public stoning.
It should not be considered “generalizing” to cite these statistics. But neither should pointing them out—or labeling Islam “the mother lode of bad ideas,” as one of Maher's other guests, Sam Harris, did—convince us that we are somehow solving the problem. Maher's boorishness succeeded in bringing these issues back into the spotlight, but if we are to approach a criticism of Islam in a thoughtful way, we must be judicious while remaining honest. It's just as easy to say that Islam itself is the problem as it is to say that criticizing Islam is tantamount to bigotry. Neither are true, and neither advance the liberal cause in any way.

This is a central issue to Maher's career, so think notable to a reader.

I must strongly disagree, and you'll note that Maher frequently declines to discuss the issue, and has often stated he doesn't want to dwell on the subject. He will comment anew each time headlines appear after an incident involving Islam or Muslims, but that's his job. The subject certainly isn't central to his career.

Looking at this from a different angle, may I ask you: What is it you hope to convey to readers with your proposed additions? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I have been unclear; the FGM issue is not the main point I am getting at, and was just an example. For our purposes here we can completely drop it is a topic as far as I am concerned. What I certainly think is relevant, is that there has been a great deal of discussion, both pro and con, surrounding Maher's stance on "liberal" criticism of Islam, and whether or not Islam should be singled out as a particularly "bad" or problematic religion.

Just because Maher is a comic does not mean that he isn't making serious political commentary, especially for example in the "New Rules" segment or in the panel discussion. The show is first and foremost a comedy, but Maher has serious discussions about serious topics, and tries to make fact based points. Of course he can be glib and gloss over the finer points of an argument to make a joke, but his basic points are completely serious, even if dressed up with humorous asides and jokes. I don't think that diminishes his argument, and clearly lots of RS have engaged with his argument in a serious way, so I think it's appropriate to report on a page about Maher. That doesn't mean the same discussion cannot be had on the Islam, New Atheism, and Islamophobia pages.

Discussion around religious fundamentalism and liberalism and left liberalism's response to fundamentalism or authoritarianism absolutely is one of the central aspects of his career, and it is barely covered in this article as it stands, see this article for some discussion. Even if you don't want to get into a semantic discussion about what is and is not "central" to his career, there are many RS picking up on this thread of discussion. Certainly more than enough to warrant some inclusion in a wikipedia article. I as a reader would expect to be able to come to the wiki article on Bill Maher and see what secondary sources have said about his views on Islam. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

re: FGM as an example — I'm still unclear as to what it was intended to exemplify. Reading your initially introduced addition to the article (copied verbatim above), it appeared to me that the example was raised as "an issue cited by Maher as a reason to be uniquely critical of Islam", which as it turns out it certainly was not. Not even close. Or if it was intended to exemplify "Maher's conflation of different Muslim groups and societies was misleading and simplistic", because FGM isn't a Muslim-only thing, and isn't required in the Quran, and isn't prevalent in all Muslim societies — it fails as an example there, too. Per PolitiFact (since you raised them as a source):

• "Seven of the top eight countries with very high rates of female circumcision are majority Muslim, including the "almost universal" levels in Somalia, Egypt, Guinea and Djibouti."
• "There are different positions within Islam on the issue," said Marit Tolo Østebø, a University of Florida lecturer on human rights and culture, global sexuality, and anthropology of religion. "So you would have some Islamic scholars who will say, and might use parts from the hadith, to support that it’s good to do some cutting...
• "many believe the practice to be a religious requirement of Islam..."

Aslan's critique of Maher's mention of FGM as simplistic appears to be equally or even more simplistic. But if you would prefer to drop that as a topic, fine. My concerns were that the addition to the Maher article read as one half of a debate over the religion of Islam, which really is out of place in a Wikipedia BLP on a comic pundit. The FGM example also did not support the assertion attached to it.

re: what you describe as Maher's "serious political commentary" is instead, as near as I can tell from reliable sources, "political commentary about serious issues". Easy to confuse the two, but I think the difference is important. The issues raised for discussion are indeed serious, but Maher's commentary on these issues is generalized for public consumption and entertainment value, and often intended to be inflammatory, humorous or both. He doesn't populate his roundtable panels with skilled academic researchers who then dissect and substantiate every opinion or view uttered while the cameras are rolling. When you say, "clearly lots of RS have engaged with his argument in a serious way", that is not clear to me at all. By 'RS', I assume you mean reliable sources of opinion, not assertion of fact, correct? And by 'engaged with his argument', you mean given their opposing opinion? That still sounds to me like you are suggesting that we set up a debate on opposing opinions about the nature of Islam in this BLP. When you say, "I as a reader would expect to be able to come to the wiki article on Bill Maher and see what secondary sources have said about his views on Islam", I don't see why you would have that expectation. Secondary sources are going to both agree and disagree with him; beyond that, the subject is better handled in a more appropriate article.

"In fact, not only is atheism not a religion, it's not even my hobby. And that's the best thing about being an atheist. It requires so little of your time." --Maher

To get a more concrete idea about where your concern is, could you make a specific proposal here of what text additions or modifications you would like to see (with source citations and location included)? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have fundamentally different ideas about what wikipedia is aiming to do. My understanding is that an article should discuss what reliable sources have said about a topic. It should do so with a consideration of due weight and attempting to present different opinions in a neutral way. Your explanation above seems to be a more restrictive interpretation of what can be considered a reliable or notable source than is commonly applied. The sources I have cited are engaging in an argument with Maher's stated opinions, not in a general discussion about Islam, so do seem to be relevant to this article. They very specifically name him and his argument and do not use him simply to start a broader argument, although there is of course a broader argument to be made. Of course the arguments anyone makes will have pro and con arguments that could be made on a separate page; pretending that they have not been addressed specifically to their proponent seems to go against wiki policies of to fairly represent different POVs. It doesn't seem germane whether or not you consider his arguments to be "serious" or not. Clearly the sources in question consider them important enough to address them. No, they aren't academic journals or serious philosophical essays, but that isn't a requirement for reliable sources so far as I know, and very little of the information already in this article would qualify for inclusion based on that standard.

I would propose that we say that Maher has argued Islam is a uniquely violent, intolerant religion, and then cite some people who have pushed back on that or defended it and why. Would that be so wrong? Of course considerations of due weight are important, but at the moment the issue is pretty much ignored. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Peregrine981, here is my suggestion. If there is sufficient sourced content to describe all these competing views, write an article about the controversy itself. Obviously put all sides of the argument up there and put a link to the article within all the related articles, including this one, the show's article, Aslan's article, Sam Harris' and Ben Affleck's. Fleshing out the full controversy in this BLP will give undue weight to this small subject relative to the broader BLP. A lot of these rebuttals to things Bill Maher said might need to get packaged as a group List of controversies started by something Bill Maher said perhaps starting (or not even starting with); "Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly." It could also include a broader version of the Notable responses to Real Time episodes section. Trackinfo (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trackinfo. In theory I could get behind that if the issue became extraordinarily large, but I'm really not proposing an extensive discussion of this topic. I think that forking the article isn't yet necessary, although it might become so. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation above seems to be a more restrictive interpretation of what can be considered a reliable or notable source than is commonly applied.

You are absolutely correct that I am applying a more restrictive interpretation of what can be considered a reliable or notable source that is commonly applied ... to non-BLP articles. WP:BLP demands that we "take particular care when adding information about living persons" and "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

The sources I have cited are engaging in an argument with Maher's stated opinions, not in a general discussion about Islam...

I disagree. The sources you have cited are engaging in an argument about the nature of Islam, in which Maher has voiced agreement with one major side of the argument; he doesn't own the argument or opinion. One need only look at the title of Aslan's criticism piece about Maher linked above, "Bill Maher Isn’t the Only One Who Misunderstands Religion" to see that. If Maher has taken a side (stance) in the debate (and he has), that should be conveyed by his article. That does not, however, open the doors to a back-and-forth between competing arguments in the debate. We can edit a BLP to say "Mr. Doe has stated that Climate Change is not influenced by man, and is instead tantamount to a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community." We do not then add, "Expert commentator Smith says Doe's statement is "simplistic" and wrong because yada yada yada, while expert commentator Jones agrees with Doe, saying his view is backed by recent research showing this, that and the other. Also, expert commentator Johnston says Doe is 'stupid' and has called for his resignation."

I would propose that we say that Maher has argued Islam is a uniquely violent, intolerant religion...

Or, more accurately, that he argues Islam, since it is a religion, is "highly destructive"; is not like other religions because there is "no other religion that is asking for the death of people who dare to criticize it," and in a lot of the Muslim world, is intolerant in matters like "separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather." (But our article already conveys all of that.)

...and then cite some people who have pushed back on that or defended it and why.

No. I agree that discussion about that subject matter should be had, including arguments against those positions and in defense of those positions, but the BLPs of individuals whom have taken a side in the debate are not the proper venues to conduct that discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While BLP do adhere to higher standards than "normal articles" this does not preclude using non-academic sources. This article is already full of mainstream journalistic sources, ie USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, etc...

The sources you have cited are engaging in an argument about the nature of Islam, in which Maher has voiced agreement with one major side of the argument; he doesn't own the argument or opinion.

Most of the articles cited above clearly focus on Maher, or incidents on his show. His role is not simply a side show, at least in these articles. In The Atlantic it is titled "Bill Maher's Dangerous Critique of Islam" and then goes on to compare him personally to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., discussing the parallels of their arguments, summarizing the problems with it and ultimately rejecting it, saying "It took the Vietnam War for Schlesinger to truly appreciate that point. Given America’s experience in the Middle East over the last decade, Maher has no excuse." If that isn't directly addressing Maher I don't know what is. Similarly the Salon interview with Rula Jebreal talks almost exclusively about Maher and her appearance on the show, not a broader discussion about Islam. Sasson mentions Maher 14 times, while the letter in TIme is specifically addressed to Maher. This is simply not a generalised discussion about Islam, but rather arguments focused specifically at rebutting Maher's points.

You go on to argue that proper form in BLPs is to present people's ideas without adding commentary from secondary sources. I simply don't see how this squares with NPOV policy which states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If we simply ignore secondary opinions how can we fairly be said to be doing upholding this core policy? I agree that we aren't obliged to put every little criticism ever aired, but we have here a number of articles in RS discussing the same topic; this isn't a lone crank complaining about a pet cause. BLP policy doesn't mean we can't include any form of criticism or argumentation in the article as long is it is clearly attributed and fairly represented. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While BLP do adhere to higher standards than "normal articles" this does not preclude using non-academic sources. This article is already full of mainstream journalistic sources, ie USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, etc...

My apologies for not being more clear; I didn't mention "non-academic sources", nor was I contrasting mainstream journalistic sources to other sources. You had said "We seem to have fundamentally different ideas about what wikipedia is aiming to do," and then you called my approach "more restrictive", which is true, because BLP policy requires a more restrictive approach to articles about living people than when we are discussing Pokémon or Bacon. My concern about sources was regarding the use of commentary and opinion pieces instead of sources which meet Wikipedia's requirements for the "assertion of fact about the subject (Maher)" and "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In short, you appear to want to add to this article various opinions about Maher's opinions about a topic. It is appropriate in this article to say "Maher was born on this date ... at this location ... has this education and this occupation ... and has expressed the following views...". It's not appropriate to then use the Bill Maher article to open debate on why those views on a specific topic are correct, incorrect, simplistic, thoughtful, etc. The debate over a viewpoint expressed by Maher (but widely held by others) on a specific subject should be conducted at the article for that specific subject.

Most of the articles cited above clearly focus on Maher, or incidents on his show.

I disagree, and I believe you will, too, if you'll look closer at those articles. Of course the articles cite Maher (or something said on his show) as the catalyst for the opinion piece, but then the majority of the content in those cited sources is simply debate and argument for or against a viewpoint voiced by Maher. The whole Atlantic article you mention is simply two arguments ("lessons", he says) that "the Islam religion isn't to blame for all this extremism, it's really the fault of the Western world's activities in the Middle East" and "Sure there are extreme bad examples like Saudi Arabia and countries which are brutal toward women and minorities, but you can't generalize that to describe all Muslims". Do those two arguments sound familiar? They should, as they are expressed in more than half of the sources you've mentioned so far. Including the interview with Rula Jebreal.

Similarly the Salon interview with Rula Jebreal talks almost exclusively about Maher and her appearance on the show, not a broader discussion about Islam.

Incorrect; please look again. The very first question in the interview is "Did you expect Islam to come up during your appearance on the show?" The second question is, Do you think this ongoing debate over Islam is a productive one? The interviewer says she was "castigating his criticism of Islam as grossly simplistic." Sound like a familiar argument? She said of Maher's views, "it’s a sweeping generalization. It’s collective. There’s no nuance. No history. To say that the rise of ISIS is Islamic is simply wrong ... the rise of ISIS is a byproduct of the Iraq War and the terrible way that Iraq was administrated. ...when we talk about the rise of extremists … how can we not examine our policies? We can’t ignore that what we’ve done in Iraq and in the Middle East..." Sound familiar?

Sasson mentions Maher 14 times...

...and your point? He takes three viewpoints expressed by Maher ("Maher's three main points, as I understood them, were:") and spends 100% of the article explaining the arguments for and against those viewpoints about Islam.

while the letter in Time is specifically addressed to Maher.

Yes, and then the letter writer describes Maher's viewpoint as, "Muslims are doing many horrible things around the world, and they all believe in Islam, so naturally Islam is the nonnegotiable culprit. Let’s ignore for now the numerous logical fallacies in your premise and instead follow your exact line of reasoning..." and launches into a discussion not about Maher, but about the viewpoints he expressed, and presents arguments against those viewpoints. The letter argues for one side of the ongoing debate about Islam.

This is simply not a generalised discussion about Islam, but rather arguments focused specifically at rebutting Maher's points.

...rebutting Maher's points about the nature of Islam today, you mean, if the examples you just cited are any indication. And my concern is that the Bill Maher biography is not the appropriate playground to conduct that debate about Islam, Muslims and civil rights and violence. There are strong arguments (and passions) to be heard from each side, and while Maher has voiced his agreement with one side, that doesn't open the Wikipedia BLP about him as a venue to argue the subject.

I simply don't see how this squares with NPOV policy which states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Perhaps it would help to clarify how NPOV policy applies if you remember that the subject here is Bill Maher, not a specific viewpoint with which Bill Maher has expressed agreement. You've produced a number of sources (opinion-based mostly, granted, but I believe factual RS sources can also be found) arguing against a viewpoint expressed (echoed, actually) by Maher. Our NPOV policy instructs us to "represent all significant viewpoints" on an issue (in this case, Islam), but it does not instruct us to do so in a BLP article about a comedian/pundit.

BLP policy doesn't mean we can't include any form of criticism or argumentation in the article as long is it is clearly attributed and fairly represented.

Not exactly. I don't see how "argumentation" made it into that sentence. If you meant to say that BLP policy doesn't say we can not include criticism, you are correct, unless it is non-notable, unverifiable, tabloid-ish, poorly sourced, undue, the view of a tiny minority, etc. To get a more concrete idea about where your concern is, could you make a specific proposal here of what text additions or modifications you would like to see (with source citations and location included)? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What you're basically saying, if I understand correctly is that we cannot discuss the opinions of 3rd parties of the opinions of a living person. Is that what it basically boils down to?

I would suggest something like, "In October 2014 Maher emphasized his criticism of western "liberals" for being unwilling to "defend" liberal western values such as free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, respect for minorities, gender equality in the face of Islamic fundamentalism. The episode sparked a wide-spread debate regarding the appropriate way for progressives to engage with Islam, as well as debate regarding his characterization of Islam as being a uniquely violent or intolerant religion."

That seems to be a fair enough distillation of the issue which a reader could then investigate if they were so inclined. Curious about your comments. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia policy, as I understand it (and please feel free to seek input from others), prohibits us from coatracking such a complex debate on such a complex subject on a BLP article. I've made an initial set of modifications to your proposed text below, since it appears to be mostly devoid of opinion and debate. There might be better sources available, but I'm still reviewing a few. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of questions to help me understand this a bit better: What if this material were included in the article "Real Time" since you wouldn't have to worry about BLP issues? Would it be a coat rack in that case? You've also mentioned that it could be included in another more topic oriented article. But in that case wouldn't it be relatively un-notable what Maher had to say about the topic given that he is not considered an expert in the topic? Articles about a movie will include reviews of that movie. DO we consider the equivalent type of "review" of a person to be off-limits for a wikipedia article of a living person? Sorry for the questions, but I really would like to understand the policy. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been around here longer than I, so that seems an odd question, but I'll try to answer anyway. WP:BLP policy applies to all content about living people on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it appears in an article specifically about that person, his television show, or elsewhere. Some information you have raised, such as the argument regarding the correlation between female genital mutilation and the Islam religion, or the argument that criticism of Islam is tantamount to 'frank bigotry', represent incomplete positions in what are much more complicated issues and should be handled in articles specific to those issues (Islam, Islamophobia, respectively). Would you be citing Maher in those articles? Likely not for assertion of fact, but it really depends on the specific circumstance and information. While we don't have "reviews" of living people, well-known public personalities are not immune to criticism that is of a significant and relevant weight to their overall notability, where that significance is conveyed by multiple high-quality reliable sources. With particularly contentious content, numerous policies come into play besides WP:BLP and WP:NPOV with the goal of preventing tabloidism, recentism, gossip and rumor, coat-racking, undue disparagement, etc. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has always been my experience that most material from RS can theoretically be included. Of course care needs to be taken to avoid undue weight, tabloidism, recentims etc... However, I really don't see how a fairly serious discussion about Maher's opinions, in respected publications can be considered to be any of those things as long as due weight is observed, and the entry is worded carefully to avoid giving false impressions. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"a fairly serious discussion about Maher's opinions" seems to be at the center of problem here. Maher is, among many other things, an atheist; a critic of religions. He has (repeatedly) expressed agreement with one side of an ongoing debate which is critical of a religion. The debate wasn't started by Maher, and Maher's position on the subject isn't uniquely his, nor was he the first to express it. He has likewise taken positions on legalization of marijuana, climate change, campaign financing, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. Your proposals have been to interject into this article an extension of the debate on a specific subject upon which Maher has commented. You really do not see that this article is not the appropriate place to conduct a "fairly serious discussion" about the competing positions (read: opinions) on any of these hotly debated topics? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed article addition

Initially proposed addition:

• In October 2014 Maher emphasized his criticism of western "liberals" for being unwilling to "defend" liberal western values such as free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, respect for minorities, gender equality in the face of Islamic fundamentalism. The episode sparked a wide-spread debate regarding the appropriate way for progressives to engage with Islam, as well as debate regarding his characterization of Islam as being a uniquely violent or intolerant religion.

After just a cursory review, there are a few obvious problems which I would address as follows:
- Changed "October" to "September" per cited source; changed "progressives" to "liberals" per previous source (neither word is in the Beast source)
- Changed "Emphasized his criticism of" to simply "criticized", per cited source
- Changed "freedom of religion" to "freedom of — and freedom from — religion without the threat of violence, respect for minorities including homosexuals", per cited source
- Changed "The episode sparked a wide-spread debate" to "He has continued to reiterate his view" since the cited source doesn't mention the episode at all, nor that it sparked a wide-spread debate
- Replaced "debate regarding his characterization of Islam as being a uniquely violent" with an actual Maher quote, since "uniquely violent" doesn't appear in either source
- Tagged "Islam as intolerant" with a "citation needed" tag, since neither cited source says that, but Maher does in the cited Real Time w/ Maher video clip
- Removed last reference as unnecessary (and it's clearly marked as an opinion piece while being cited in support of an assertion of fact)

• In September 2014 Maher criticized western "liberals" for being unwilling to defend liberal western values such as free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of — and freedom from — religion without the threat of violence, respect for minorities including homosexuals and gender equality in the face of Islamic fundamentalism. He has continued to reiterate his view regarding the appropriate way for liberals to engage with Islam, as well as continue to characterize Islam as intolerant and while "all religions are stupid, Islam just happens to be the one right now, in this century, that’s most dangerous and violent."

Seems largely fine, but I think that we could add at least a mention of the controversy the remarks caused. Surely that doesn't get us too far into the bushes or coat racking. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• In September 2014 Maher criticized western "liberals" for being unwilling to defend liberal western values such as free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of — and freedom from — religion without the threat of violence, respect for minorities including homosexuals and gender equality in the face of Islamic fundamentalism. Despite controversy over the stance, he has continued to reiterate his view regarding the appropriate way for liberals to engage with Islam, and characterizing Islam as "a singular affront to liberal values" while maintaining that "all religions are stupid, Islam just happens to be the one right now, in this century, that’s most dangerous and violent."

I'm still trying to grasp what it is, exactly, you wish to convey by "a mention of the controversy the remarks caused". It is not clear in your most recently proposed wording: "Despite controversy over the stance, he has continued to reiterate his view...". That juxtaposition (created by the word "despite") is not conveyed by your cited source. In fact, it is just as likely that your source is saying "because" of the recent controversy Maher is reiterating his views. (See where he says it's a good thing that people are finally paying some attention to what he has been saying for years now that an A-list star got involved.) And your edits don't mention which controversy caused by which remarks over which stance. It would help if you could describe here which controversy and which remarks to which you were referring. Maher's views/stance on Islam aren't in any way new (as your latest two sources demonstrate), so I am left to assume the "controversy" you want mentioned is either the attention generated by Affleck's remarks, or the petition by some Berkeley students to disinvite Maher from their commencement ceremony. Those appear rather minor, as they relate to the subject of Maher's position on the religion of Islam. Another problem is your proposed "a singular affront to liberal values" quote, which misleads the reader into thinking Maher believes Islam is "singular" in it's violation of liberal principles - a belief he doesn't hold, as evidenced by the other sources you have cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference list
References

By the way, where in the article were you proposing to add the text? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it appears you've answered that question by inserting your proposed text. I asked you that question for a specific reason. Do you see how your latest edit adds a sentence about "western values such as free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of — and freedom from — religion without the threat of violence, respect for minorities including homosexuals and gender equality" immediately after a sentence about "separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather"? You don't see just a little bit of redundancy there? I had anticipated the redundancy and figured we would work together to combine and summarize that content. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I waited 5 days for a reply to my proposed changes, so forgive me for going ahead. Why not simply cut the enumeration of positions and simply say liberal values? Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No apologies necessary; Wikipedia articles aren't under a WP:DEADLINE, so I didn't mind the 5 day wait to find out where you wanted to insert your additions. As for your suggestion to "simply say liberal values", that would create confusion, since as we know from the sources Maher is criticizing liberals for defending the liberal value of multiculturalism while tolerating affronts to the other enumerated liberal values. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to note: Having seen the edit, I went back to review and 1) I'm not confident a summary does justice to Maher's opinion without devolving to a POV insertion into the summary. So 2) I think it would be much better to cover Maher's very specific construction of his opinion via a quote, but 3) Maher's quote is going to be long and we still need to make editorial judgements to delete aside jokes within that logical construction. The result will be a mess. A lengthy quote farm all sourced to one (untranscribed) youtube clip. Just one of hundreds of similar short youtube clips of Maher's quotes. What makes this one so special? It seems your opinion that this is more controversial than any of the other thousands of opinionated jokes Maher has made in the last (more than) 2 decades in the public eye based on the subsequent reaction to it, none of which Maher was involved in after the publicized exchange on his show. All of the other participants have elaborated at length, alone, again sourced on youtube clips. From what I surmise from above, you want to construct an entire sequence of those reactions to this quote and essentially play out the entire litigation of the debate about them all in this one BLP. This is not the place to do any of that. I'm not confident wikipedia is the place at all, but certainly, as I suggested before, the volume of this one subject needs to be addressed in its own article, then a very short summary link should redirect back to the articles of each of the participants and Real Time where it occurred. I looked at Johnny Carson who had probably a more extensive collection of quotes from his time on television and probably a bigger affect on society from those quotes repeated at water coolers the following day. There are virtually no quotations in the BLP article. Nothing of length. Again, you need to justify why we need to do something out of the ordinary, to carry all of this out on Maher's BLP. Trackinfo (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How many articles covering a given topic do we need before it is deemed fit for inclusion? A large number of secondary sources cover this particular strand of his commentary in a non-trivial way. I have already listed many above, but they are by no means the only ones. The coverage of this commentary, which has spilled well beyond the confines of his show, goes well beyond the typical. Yes, he may get a certain amount of coverage from time to time, with one group or another upset about something. But the volume is much greater than normal here. It's been quite some years since he got this much sustained "blowback" from reputable sources. Johnny Carson isn't really directly comparable IMO, as it was a different era. For better or worse there was simply much less media coverage of everything at that time, so it was unlikely that his show would get anything like the same amount of coverage.

I must say that the threshold of "notability" that is being applied here is very high, and frankly unusual. I'm not trying to put some sort of single fringe crackpot's opinion in here, rather the opinion of many, respected commentators on an issue of major relevance to the political/social conversation today. It touches on a major schism within the modern American progressive movement about how to treat religious minorities and Islam in particular. We already mention numerous of his political opinions without nearly as much discussion from secondary sources (ie his gun ownership, support for spying, and a number of other off-hand observations.) I'm willing to pare it down according to constructive suggestions, which I've so far been happy for so far, but really cannot accept that this major discussion cannot be included because of an overly strict interpretation of BLP policy. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How many articles covering a given topic do we need before it is deemed fit for inclusion?

I don't think anyone has raised the number of source articles as a point of contention. The major problem here seems to be what the "given topic" is. The topic here, in this article, is Bill Maher. Your "large number of sources" aren't about the topic of Bill Maher, but rather about the debate over the topic of Islam (and its Muslim adherents). Sure, many of the articles begin by saying "Maher said this and that and this" only because he's the public personality who shined a spotlight on it, but then the rest of those articles are devoted to trying to show how that position in the debate is wrong, or over-generalized, or bigoted, or simplistic, etc. This Bill Maher article isn't the appropriate place for that "given topic".

the volume is much greater than normal here. It's been quite some years since he got this much sustained "blowback" from reputable sources.

I disagree. The "blowback" isn't even a fraction of that generated by, say, his Religulous documentary, and you'll note that we don't devote article space to covering that 'blowback'. I have to agree with Trackinfo in that I don't see this topic as significantly more "controversial" than the many other hot-button issues Maher routinely raises in his public forum.

...rather the opinion of many, respected commentators on an issue of major relevance to the political/social conversation today.

I'm 100% with you in your effort to create encyclopedic content on that issue. However, the Maher article isn't the appropriate venue for it. I've mentioned several more appropriate articles for that content already, some of which have already started coverage of the very issue you describe (i.e.; Liberal Islam). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "large number of sources" aren't about the topic of Bill Maher, but rather about the debate over the topic of Islam (and its Muslim adherents). Sure, many of the articles begin by saying "Maher said this and that and this" only because he's the public personality who shined a spotlight on it, but then the rest of those articles are devoted to trying to show how that position in the debate is wrong, or over-generalized, or bigoted, or simplistic, etc. This Bill Maher article isn't the appropriate place for that "given topic".I just don't see how it is inappropriate to include information about how people say that Maher's opinion is "over-generalized, or bigoted, or simplistic, etc." This would seem to be relevant information on the topic of Bill Maher, unless you think that his opinions are not an important part of who he is. IMO if RS discuss an aspect of Bill Maher, whether that be his act or his opinions, or whatever, we can/should cover it bearing other guidelines, particularly due weight, in mind. I actually don't think that this particular tiff is particularly notable in the larger discussion about Islam and the West, but I do think it is a fairly important aspect of Bill's political philosophy such as it is. Religulous was released 8 years ago, and has a whole article devoted to it, so wouldn't expect to have as much information here. If you think there are other high profile controversies with similar coverage levels why not include them rather than excluding this? Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past each other on one specific point: You keep referring to "Maher's opinion", and I keep reminding you that those aren't his opinions. He has taken a position in an ongoing debate, but that position is not uniquely his. It is not "Maher's opinion" that marijuana should be legalized, or that humans have something to do with climate change, or that today's Islam religion is "illiberal", intolerant and in need of reformation. Those are viewpoints in complicated contemporary debates, and Maher has chosen sides in those debates, but those aren't "his opinions". In fact, in many of the sources you have raised, Maher cites other people (and studies, polls and scholarship) with whom he agrees, and who expressed those same "opinions" long before Maher did.

You say you don't see how it is inappropriate to include what various people think of the side of a debate with which Maher agrees? Obviously some will disagree with Maher, while others will agree with him, and I'm sure they will all make very interesting points and arguments for and against (i.e.; just last night Chris Christy said pot should not be legalized because it's a "gateway drug") — and there are appropriate articles for that information. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminding you the subject of this article is Bill Maher. So the discussion here should be related to the affect things have on Bill Maher. We included further ramifications of the post 911 quote because it caused Maher's TV show to lose sponsors and then for him to have his original TV show cancelled. The Islam debate and exchanges sparked by comments on Maher's show carried on into other media and generated extensive coverage about the debate. The volume of sources you refer to is why I suggest that debate series of exchanges might merit coverage in its own article. Maher was not a party to the remaining hours of debate on other media. Save Affleck, he's a bigger celebrity than the other parties, so his name gets mentioned. Fox News in particular seems to relish in a liberal vs liberal disagreement, blowing it further out of proportion. So far, it has had no further ramifications for Maher, the subject of this BLP. Trackinfo (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How are they not "his opinions"? Opinions don't just exist in a vacuum. People hold opinions, and frankly they are often the most interesting thing about those people. Or are you saying you must be the originator of a category of argument to have it mentioned on wiki? If we are limited to simple tombstone information in a wiki article, what's really the point? He's a political commentator; surely we are allowed to discuss his political opinions. I refer to WP:NPOV policy which says that NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The topic here is Bill Maher. He has opinion X, and RS are discussing that opinion with direct reference to Maher's holding it and his specific formulation of it. I don't see how that can possibly be said not to be relevant to the topic "Bill Maher" just because other people may hold the same or similar opinions. I'm really not advocating the inclusion of an extensive discussion of this argument, but simply that the article should at least refer to the existence of his opinion and that a large number of RS responded to it. Whether it has a long term impact on his life seems beside the point as long as RS have discussed it. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are reporting about Bill Maher. You are welcome to quote his opinion. There are plenty of sources. There was an exchange on his show in which he was involved, maybe you can report about that, though you are focusing on maybe a couple of minutes out of certainly hundreds of hours of content he has generated, so it should carry due weight. End of statement. The debate about that opinion, after the show, is then extracurricular to Maher until it further affects Maher. From everything I have seen, he was not involved in the further debate. Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being slow, but I just don't see how that fits with NPOV policy, which is one of the "5 pillars" of wikipedia. If relatively well known journalist Peter Beinart writes a fair argument about Bill Maher's political views in a respected magazine like The Atlantic, isn't it an NPOV violation to exclude it simply because it didn't "affect Maher"? That Maher disagrees with it, or didn't see fit to respond to it seems irrelevant to our policy of representing "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In this case the argument in question is not separable from Maher himself. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If relatively well known journalist Peter Beinart writes a fair argument about Bill Maher's political views in a respected magazine, I'm sure we'll hear about it. But so far, I've only seen a piece he wrote in The Atlantic about Harris' and Maher's criticism of the Islam religion, wherein he presents the same arguments others on his side of this very popular debate present. That whole Atlantic article is simply two arguments ("lessons", he says) that "the Islam religion isn't to blame for all this extremism, it's really the fault of the Western world's activities in the Middle East" and "Sure there are extreme bad examples like Saudi Arabia and countries which are brutal toward women and minorities, but you can't generalize that to describe all Muslims". Do those two arguments sound familiar? They should, as they are expressed in most of the sources you've mentioned so far. NPOV does instruct us to convey all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on that topic; NPOV does not instruct us to do so in a Wikipedia article of a Talk Show Host/Comedian who expressed agreement with one of the many sides in that debate. The topic has articles dedicated to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant that he, a talk show host/comedian expressed agreement with those ideas if RS have noted the fact and engaged in the argument with him? A reader may be interested in Maher's opinions, but not the general discussion about religion/tolerance etc... The Beinart article (and some others) are very much personally engaged with Maher, not just with the general argument, saying for example "Schlesinger’s point then, and Maher’s now, is that the enemies of liberals do not reside only on the right."..."Where Maher goes wrong is in forgetting two other lessons of the liberal anti-totalitarian tradition."..."Maher is similarly armored today. It’s one thing to denounce the Saudi monarchy for its fanatical illiberalism. "...That’s especially true when the ideology isn’t even Islamism but Islam. Maher wants Americans to denounce Islam because while 'all religions are stupid, Islam just happens to be the one right now, in this century, that’s most dangerous and violent.' That’s a wild overgeneralization."

I take your point that we don't want to litigate the entire issue here, but surely we can mention the point and that it generated some discussion of Maher's point among noted journalists/personalities? I think that is relevant background information regarding Maher's political stances. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vague interview mention

During the June 4, 2014 (ref)Bill Maher (edited) interview by Norman Goldman http://www.normangoldman.com/blog/blog-details.asp?BID=1959(/ref) interview on The Norman Goldman Show, (ref)Bill Maher (audio file) interview by Norman Goldman http://www.normangoldman.com/uploads/media/5917/NG_06-04-14_Bill-Maher-Un-Aired-Extra-Interview.mp3(/ref) a variety of issues including traps and trends of "liberal and conservative labels" were discussed. Broadcasting nationally and via website and Facebook, Goldman is a self-described independent who challenges political labeling, yet still clearly connects with much of Maher's politics and religious views.

The above two sentences were added to the Maher article. They convey that Maher was interviewed about a variety of issues, and Goldman apparently agrees with many of his views. It doesn't really convey any specific encyclopedic information, and also appears to be partially editorial commentary. Am I missing something here? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No culling

"Reverting due to very large culling of page. Put concerns on talk page first" -- inaccurate in that no info was culled, just MOS tweaks, tags, etc. But I can do it incrementally for easier reviewing. Quis separabit? 00:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

At least three chunks of information in the Personal life section were inappropriately removed. Incremental cleanup is good, but don't also remove large amounts of information without proper cause.BigBaldur (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That was a previous edit regarding his former girlfriends, which you addressed in your edit summary and I accepted, although I regard such crap as cruft. Never married and no kids, his former girlfriends are not really relevant but you say it is allowed, so ... whatever. Nothing to do with the edit to which I was referring. Quis separabit? 02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit [1] right after my reversion removed the same content again. This precipitated my subsequent reversion.BigBaldur (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean this: In 2014, Maher was dating Ontario-born singer [[Anjulie Persaud]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://globalnews.ca/news/1224401/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-gets-support-from-bill-maher|title=Bill Maher supports Rob Ford|publisher=[[Global News]]|date=March 22, 2014|first=John|last=Kennedy|accessdate=December 17, 2014}}</ref>
I guess if I figured we didn't have to include his most recent fling (effective 2014) also. His two prior most recent girlfriends are already there. If Anjulie Persaud is insufficiently notable to have her own page it'll be deleted soon anyway. Quis separabit? 03:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What am I missing? Anjulie Persaud has apparently been established as sufficiently notable, since she has had her own page here since 2009. But we digress. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Obama as Maher

I've removed a couple sentences attributed to Maher which is prefaced in the cited source with "Obama himself said the other day:". I considered rewording the text to remove the misrepresentation, but found that it was actually a small excerpt from a larger quote, and it wasn't clear what specific information from that quote the editor was hoping to convey to the reader. Can the editor please summarize here what reliably sourced information about Maher we are adding, so that we can add the appropriate prose to the article? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As you can read from the interview, Obama only said "There's just not another country in the world that would allow missiles to be rained down on them without fighting back." However, Maher added all the rest: "What I find so ironic is that after World War II, everybody said, ‘I don’t understand the Jews. How could they have just gone to their slaughter like that?’ OK, and then when they fight back: ‘I don’t understand the Jews. Why can’t they just go to their slaughter?’ It’s like, ‘You know what? We did that once. It’s not gonna happen again. You’re just gonna have to get used to the fact that Jews now defend themselves -- and by the way, defend themselves better. I mean, this is a country, after all, that is surrounded by far greater numbers than their own [and] they are like two generations ahead in the military technology they have."--Averysoda (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the whole article. May I ask what information about Bill Maher you are trying to convey to our readers? It isn't clear to me from the partial quotation you proposed to add. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What information? The information about Bill Maher's political opinion when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! (apparently the source was only used to show his stance on religion, despite it wasn't the main issue of the interview).--Averysoda (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The specific question to which Maher responded was:

There was a big debate this week in the Jewish world that arose from a dispute between two rabbis about whether Judaism should be more universal and humane or more tribal and self interested. But it is widely felt that the Israeli army conducts itself with deep concern for the humanity of the people they are fighting.

I see that he said considerably more about the IP conflict than what is decipherable from just your partial quote. How would you summarize Maher's "political opinion when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. We can't "summarize" his opinion based on our own original research. When he was asked about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he quoted Obama and said what he said. That's what the article should reflect. Do you have a problem with that? What do you propose to write?--Averysoda (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested "summarizing his opinion based on original research". I've asked you to summarize his position on the IP conflict based on the material in the cited source, which is what we as editors do here at Wikipedia. A reader can't really tell what Maher's opinion on the IP conflict is from the quotation you added to the article. Looking elsewhere in the interview source, Maher says he thinks there will be a two-state solution eventually, and that he is "more on the side of the Israelis" and doesn't consider both sides equally guilty. But he also acknowledges that "Palestinians do have gripes", and that most Israelis disagree in this matter with the Israeli government, which Maher describes as having been taken over by their version of the Tea Party. None of this is evident in the quote snippet you proposed, which only repeats an observation by Maher that in the IP conflict, Israel fights better. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I chose a significant quote to show his political opinion about this conflict, when he criticized people who are against Jews defending themselves in their land. If you think that's not enough to reflect his position, you can improve it or add more quotes. But don't remove sourced content again just because you don't like it. I'm going to reinsert the paragraph and then you can expand it based on the source.--Averysoda (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I say I didn't like the partial quote you inserted? If you'll re-read what I wrote above, I said that the portion you chose to quote said nothing about his position on the IP conflict. I actually like the quote; but it's not encyclopedic content. I've already paraphrased (see above) most of what Maher said in that interview regarding his position on the conflict. I can add it to the article, if you have no objections. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add it, I'll see what you write. But don't forget to include that quote where he says "they complained because Jews didn't resist during WWII, and now they complain because they do defend themselves."--Averysoda (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not an actual quote, but I know what you meant. I've added a brief summary of Maher's position on the IP conflict, and included another more recent source. Per Wikipedia's editing policies on quotations and paraphrasing, quotes should be used very sparingly, when clear paraphrasing isn't an option. Let me know your thoughts. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Genres

The genres that are currently listed are correct and covered in the article. The ones that the IP keeps adding are unsourced. FWIW the IPs are likely connected to Atomic Meltdown (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion and atheism

Xenophrenic, stop reverting my edit. I mean, how difficult is it to check the source before ruling it unsuitable ? Have you actually seen the video ? Did you notice it is the same as the one that was sourced before (the one from CNN) ? Did you notice it is the source for both the "atheist" and "apatheist" labels he gives himself ? Did you notice that all the information I added to the article was taken from Maher's own words, as seen in the video ? I'm going to undo your revision again and I expect it to be kept UNLESS you have a very good reason for preventing me from adding sourced information to the article. Can you think of one ? Clausgroi (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating a Talk page discussion about your proposed edit. I've reverted your proposed edit per WP:BRD. You have removed a video sourced to CNN, a news organization, and replaced it with a YouTube video sourced to "don't force us to use google+", without explanation. That is not a reliable source, even if the video appears similar. You deprecated the reliably sourced content where Maher refers to himself as an apatheist, without explanation. I've never "prevented you from adding sourced content to the article"; I've merely reverted your attempts to remove reliable sources and add content not conveyed by cited sources (i.e.; the "however" juxtaposition and slightly inaccurate quote). I've re-added the part about the "on a scale of 1 to 7...", after returning the reliable source. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Watching this unfold, it seems other people are more fascinated with Maher's atheism or agnosticism or apatheisim than he is. As he says, it takes so little of his time. More, because he spends a lot of time as part of his pointy comedy material being critical of religion, pointing out the fallacy of existing religions and moreso, the bad things religious beliefs lead people to do, those people he is critical of (which is a lot of people) wish to be critical of his religion in reply. Its the children sticking their tongue out back at him. It starts by labeling him an placing him into a group with others, so the group as a whole can be denigrated. He doesn't claim to be in a group, at least around religious beliefs, so you can't label his views based on the expressions of others. Maher makes a lot of statements, though sometimes long winded (to quote). As in many other subjects, he's controversial. I would really prefer to see him quoted, verbatim. That's not always wikipedia policy, but its the only way to get Maher's point of view clearly expressed, which is what this article is about. I don't like the WP:RS reliable source game, if you have a youtube clip with Maher saying something on camera, its reliable to quote from. All can see what he said, how he said it and in what context. But don't paraphrase or overanalyze beyond his words and thus drop your WP:POV into the wikipedia voice. That is what is a constant on this article and I watch xeno revert that crap, daily. And I thank him for being so vigilant. Trackinfo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not the video per se, but what is said in it. If you prefer to cite the CNN video as a source, it's fine by me, I'm not against that. However, if it didn't exist and the YouTube video was the only source, it should also be considered reliable, no matter who uploaded it. What matters is that Maher's opinions are clear as day in the video, and, unless someone proves the video was tampered with (maliciously edited, for instance), there is no reason not to consider its contents, which clearly supports the idea that Maher is both apatheist and atheist (and an observation is necessary here: they are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing or necessarily related. Bear in mind that not all apatheists are atheists; they just don't give much attention to that subject -- God's existence). I know that he is a rather confusing/ambiguous personality, having also said he was an agnostic in 2008, but in that specific video, which is more recent, he clearly "confesses" atheism when he talks about the "scale". Being so clear and sourced, I don't see why this piece of information should not be in the article, regardless of people's interests or opinions about it, as Trackinfo commented. About my writing, I added "however" because he specifically said he was not an atheist in a previous interview. As he now admits his atheism, a contradiction conjunction is necessary to convey this opposite idea. They way this information is expressed now is simply strange, or confusing at the very least. "I'm not an atheist, no." Maher has also occasionally referred to himself as an apatheist, saying in 2011 "I don't know what happens when you die, and I don't care". When discussing his atheism...". See what I mean ? The mention of this apatheism in the middle does not prevent the contradiction because apatheism does not necessarily encompasses atheism, and you are assuming it does. I propose reverting to my edit, but adding the CNN source instead of YouTube (by the way, the CNN video is not working here. I don't know if it's just me or if the video is down; if the case is the latter, the YouTube video should replace it as a source -- better a YouTube video that works than a CNN one that doesn't).Clausgroi (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: thank you for the kind words; and I agree with you on all you said, but with one clarification regarding citing YouTube videos. The RS game becomes serious business when applied to content in BLP articles, and only the highest quality sources are to be used. A YouTube video clip posted by an unknown anonymous source has no place being cited as a reference in a Wikipedia BLP, and not just because the video or audio may have been doctored. This particular clip ends abruptly while the two gentlemen are still discussing the same topic, so rather than guess whether important context or mitigating information was intentionally cut out by a mysterious uploader, we have at least some assurance against such deception when the source is one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

@Clausgroi: The biggest issue for me was indeed your replacement of a reliable source with a non-reliable source. That substitution appears even more illogical now that you have stated that you think both videos are the same. What then was your reason for replacing the reliable source with an unusable one?

Thank you for your personal observation about "apatheism" and "atheism". I, on the other hand, observe that atheism (lack of belief in deities) and apatheism (same lack of belief combined with lack of interest) are indeed related, with the latter being a subset of the former. I also observe your interesting choice of words when you discuss beliefs in deities. "confesses atheism"? "he now admits his atheism"? Really? Are you sure that he, rather than "confessing" and "admitting", wasn't boasting and bragging instead? I don't find his position "confusing/ambiguous" at all — in fact, from what I've read, it appears his thoughts on this matter have followed a normal path of evolution and development. Just as when a person, who once believed a guy named Santa delivered presents and a bunny distributed colored eggs, no longer holds those beliefs; not confusing or ambiguous at all. I don't see what is confusing to you. You mentioned a contradiction, but I'm not seeing it. Yes, he has referred to his position at times as either agnostic or atheistic (neither holds an affirmative belief in deities, so no contradiction). Yes, he has referred to his position as apatheistic (also precludes affirmative belief in deities, so no contradiction). Way back in 2002, he did object to being grouped with explicit atheists (7 on that scale) when discussing his irreligiousness, but he has since moved closer to it. As the paragraph stands now, he is categorized three times as an atheist. What additional information were you proposing to convey to the reader? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"Confesses certainly is a revealing WP:POV mixed in there. Are you searching for controversy? Ginning up an artificial controversy, or even reporting on one "about" a BLP subject is specifically something to be avoided here. We get the same stuff on this article with people trying to find a hypocracy in Maher's libertarian and socialist leanings. But the controversy is within their interpretations of the terms, not as Maher clearly defines them as he speaks. You can hear his search for thoughtful evolutions in his expressed opinions in each weekly show. His thought process and occasional devil's advocacy are at the heart of weekly televised conversations Maher has been having for the last couple of decades. That's a lot of opportunity for differences to occur, but it certainly isn't a gotcha situation. Maher has the gig because he can express himself well. As I said before, use quotes. This is not the place for your POV and personal analysis. And as xeno is asking, have a purpose. This is an editing process. We need to be concise in presenting a lot of material on one small article. Trackinfo (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I originally replaced the CNN video because the video I found on YouTube (by chance, mind you) was a source for both pieces of information that were there, so I thought there was no reason to keep both sources if one of them covered both statements. Regarding CNN's video, I repeat the question: is it working for you ? It's down here. I mean, the page is OK, but the video itself just won't play. Regarding apatheism, I suggest you read Wikipedia's own article about it. It does not imply atheism, but a lack of interest in relation to God's existence, and you seem to not understand that quite clearly. And yes, I do think Maher is very confusing. I don't know if he is actually like that or if that is just "part of the show", like a comic personality that he shows in front of the cameras, but I don't really care. In 3 years, he was able to label himself "agnostic", "atheist" and "apatheist", which are three related but different things, not to mention his own contradiction (saying he wasn't an atheist some years ago and saying he is now). Maybe he just changed his mind, I don't know; it's a possibility. I used the term "confess" because it was the best word I could think of when I was writing, even though he didn't actually "confess" in the literal sense, and that's exactly why I used inverted commas, in case you haven't noticed. Lastly, there is a clear contradiction there. I'm not a native speaker of English, but even I am able to see it: "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no". Following that statement, we have information about him talking about his "apathetic atheism". Also, he says in the video: "I'm hopefully one of America's most famous atheists", then he talks about being at 6.9 on the 1 to 7 scale, like Richard Dawkins (declared atheist) and then "Praying is trying to telepathically communicate with an imaginary friend; I wouldn't do that. Atheists don't pray". All of these sound like great indicators that he considers himself to be an atheist now, which takes us back to the previous statement in which he clearly affirms he's not one. Also, it's worth noticing that he didn't say anything about "explicit atheism", like you and the article itself did. He just said he was not an atheist, and, from what I can interpret, that statement, at best, only shows he's not religious.

All in all, I think the information in the "Religious views" section is good. My point was that that specific excerpt I told you about was strange.

Trackinfo: POV ? Really ? I think we are talking about different things here. I suggest you see the video we're discussing and then read my reply to Xeno above. Clausgroi (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Once more from the top, briefly:
Have you actually seen the video ? Did you notice it is the same as the one that was sourced before (the one from CNN) ?
If you think your non-RS anonymous video is the same as the present one published by a news organization, then there was no logical reason for you to attempt to substitute it.
I thought there was no reason to keep both sources if one of them covered both statements.
You stated both videos were the same. Your assertion now that only "one of them covered both statements" is a contradiction.
Regarding CNN's video, I repeat the question: is it working for you ? It's down here.
As of 60 seconds ago, the video link provided by the CNN source works fine for me. Are you saying the only reason you exchanged the CNN-published video with your non-RS video is because the CNN clip didn't work? You should have put that reason in the edit summary. (And I would have reverted it, since the CNN clip works fine right now.)
Regarding apatheism, I suggest you read Wikipedia's own article about it.
Oh, I've read it — and it needs a lot of work, and it erroneously equates the coined word "apatheism" with "practical atheism", "pragmatic atheism" and "indifferentism" (without proper sources, mind you ... the Zdybicka source, for instance, doesn't mention "apatheism" even once). What a mess; it's on my to-do list. No, for the purposes of this article, Maher tells us in his own words what he means when he uses the word "apatheist" to describe himself: he doesn't know, and he doesn't care.
In 3 years, he was able to label himself "agnostic", "atheist" and "apatheist"...
Actually, he self-identified as all three of those in that single video, and reiterated that he doesn't quibble about labels (he's okay with us not splitting the difference on those).
...not to mention his own contradiction (saying he wasn't an atheist some years ago and saying he is now). Maybe he just changed his mind...
Ya think? I used to think, some years ago, the tooth fairy replaced teeth with money under my pillow. I have since "changed my mind". No contradiction. Maher was once a church-going Catholic; now he isn't. That's not a "contradiction". Maher once said he didn't consider himself an atheist, a decade and a half ago, and now he does refer to himself as an atheist. No "contradiction". Since you say English is not your native language, perhaps it would help your understanding to know that "contradiction" means two opposite propositions at the same time. There has been no "contradiction", only an evolution and development of his position over time.
...it's worth noticing that he didn't say anything about "explicit atheism"
True, he did not use those words. Back then, he still maintained beliefs about "some force", but not a biblical deity. It sounds like he had already set aside the "myths" and "silly little stories", but he was still pondering spirituality. But that was back near the turn of the century. I'll see if I can track down the origins of the 'explicit atheism' reference; I'm guessing it relates to the conversation he mentions and quotes from in that interview piece. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I'm not going to comment on the video issue because 1) I think you didn't quite understand what I said about it and my reason for doing what I did and 2) it's just not relevant anymore, since we both agree that the information contained on the video source is important and was, after all, added to the article. It seems to me we reached an agreement there.

About the apatheism article, all I can say is good luck. I hope you improve the article, which is always our goal here at Wikipedia, and I'm sure you concur with me.

Regarding the labels, I don't remember him self-identifying as an agnostic in the 2011 interview, only in the 2008 Religulous documentary. However, he did say he was both "atheist" and "apatheist", which leads us back to the observation that they don't mean the same thing and are not necessarily related. It seems that Maher himself doesn't understand that, but that's not important.

One thing that I really need to comment about, though, is your mistaken view of "contradiction". The word comes from Latin. The "contra" part means contrary or against (and that's exactly why CONTRAry begins with contra) and the "diction" part means say or speak (see related words such as dictate/dictation and ditto). Basically, contradiction is something that is said (or written, of course) in an opposite way to another thing that had already been said. It doesn't have to be "at the same time" or in a brief period. You reminded me of an ex-seminarist friend who told me he didn't see the opposite ideas in the Bible as "contradictions" because they were written by different people, and something could only qualify as a contradiction if it was stated by the same person. That's not true. Check Oxford, Cambridge and the Free Dictionary and see for yourself that there's no mention to the same person or the same time, only opposite ideas. Contradict means, therefore, to say or write something in opposition to another, regardless of the time in which that first statement was proposed or by whom. So notice that there actually IS a contraction if you said you believed in the tooth fairy before and now you say you don't. However, I understand what you mean and agree with your "evolution and development of his position over time" theory, which I myself had already described as a possible change of mind, something very common amongst us humans. Cheers. Clausgroi (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that I (still) do not understand your reasoning for attempting to replace an existing reliably-sourced video with a non-RS video which you said was otherwise the same. But since you are no longer proposing the replacement of the video link, I agree that part of the discussion is no longer relevant. Here is the content from the CNN interview we added:

• When discussing his atheism, he said on a scale from 1 to 7 (7 being "absolutely certain there is no god"), he was only at 6.9, like Richard Dawkins, "because we just don't know ... but we just don't think about it."

Do we agree that is "important" information? Probably not to the degree you assume. It is redundant. The paragraph already says he self-identifies as atheist, and the paragraph already says he rejects "both the certitude of the existence, as well as the certitude of nonexistence of deities" (which is why he's "only" a 6.9 on that scale). So what does the "new info" add? Not much. When the interviewer tries to pin Maher down with an exact label, he rebuts the attempt (at about the 1:28 time mark), and includes both agnostics and atheists "on his team". You say "it seems that Maher doesn't understand" the terms he uses, but I disagree, and there have been no contradictions in his use of them to date. (He does sometimes erroneously use the colloquial definition of atheism to mean not just lack of belief in deities, but also lack of religiousness, but so many people do that today that the error has become commonplace.) As for your misunderstanding of contradict, I checked each of your dictionary links, and nowhere in any of them did it state "something in opposition to another, regardless of the time". In fact, each of your sample dictionaries support my earlier assertion that Maher's statements do not contradict each other. Had Maher claimed to not be an atheist, while also claiming to be an atheist, then there would indeed be a contradiction. But he did not. In 2002, said he wasn't an atheist. A decade later, he acknowledged an atheist position. He never claimed to hold both positions at the same time, which would have been a contradiction. Perhaps you missed where your Oxford link defines contradiction as, "A situation in which inconsistent elements are present". It doesn't say "two different situations" or "were present a decade ago, and are present now". Maher never made "a statement that makes a claim that the same thing is true and that it is false at the same time". Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." If you'd like to discuss the meaning of "contradiction" more, we should do so on one of our User Talk pages; we've strayed from the purpose of this Talk page. Since you haven't proposed additional article changes, I guess we're done here for now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2015

If possible, please add a link to the #Disputed Influences section above from the current article page protected hatnote. Given that the anonymous party wishing to add the Influences section appears to be floating, I have not pinged, so a hatnote link might be of value. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed Influences section

Opening section to discuss the disputed Influences section.

The last addition diff is as follows:

Maher has said his comedy influences are George Carlin, David Letterman, Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, Johnny Carson, Robert Klein, Steve Allen, and Mort Sahl.

MarnetteD Comments? As our anonymous IP editor is floating, I have not wp:pinged. Jim1138 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jim1138 Thank you for taking the initiative on this. I had taken this page off of my watchlist so I appreciate the ping as well. The influences and influenced fields were deprecated a year or two ago in the "infobox person" since the items they contained were just a list with no indication of how they influenced the subject of the article. Although this article uses a "infobox comedian" the same thought process applies. The reader gains nothing from a list of names. IMO a section about this should be in prose in the body of the article. As an example Mort Sahl's influence on Maher will have been much different than Don Rickles. For whatever reason the editor using the various IPs does not grasp this concept. Now you might agree or disagree with some or all of this but this was the reason for my edits last week, MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW my understanding is that the ping system does not work for IPs and, since this person is hopping to different IPs anyway, starting this thread was the only way to try and get a conversation going. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that influences have been depreciated and probably should be expanded on in the body. How the person was influenced is quite important. One could "influence" a person by giving them a frontal lobotomy. A simple list would not distinguish that from someone who was a life-long mentor.

I had done a WP:RFPP given the anon was changing IPs and not appearing willing to discuss it. No wonder the IPs I've pinged are not responding! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've watched the edit war go on too. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some expansion in prose. Maher has spoken on the subject to whatever extent, but none of the sources mentioned are visible to the general public, so we can't even see the specifics of what he has said himself. So this content is still unsourced. With sources, with expansion, its valid content. I do not understand the need for the IP to force this content, in its poor form, into the article. Trackinfo (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051130125435/http://archive.salon.com:80/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index1.html to http://archive.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130623001937/http://old.richarddawkins.net:80/articles/4388 to http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4388

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dealing vs Selling

User:Xenophrenic please stop saying "per cited sources" when there is one source (singular). And please state what your objection to the phrase "dealing marijuana" really is. zzz (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Selling" is more succinct, with fewer connotations. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, how is "selling" more succinct than "dealing"? "Dealing" denotes "buying and then selling at a profit", which is precisely accurate, conveying the facts succinctly. This is why ones says "dealing marijuana" rather than "buying marijuana and then selling it at a profit". Secondly, you do not state what you mean by "connotations". The only "connotation" I can think of is that of "buying and selling at a profit". Naturally one could wish that dealers would always sell things "at cost" but the profit motive is fairly universal (or at least, very common), not what people would generally call a "connotation". (The word "dealing" applies to a broad range of things, furntiture, antiques, drugs, etc.) zzz (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

However, "buying and selling at a profit" is the meaning of the word, not a "connotation". Perhaps you mean the possible connotation of dealing illegal drugs, such as marijuana? Obviously, that can't be it, either. Please explain here what connotation is worrying you. zzz (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Skipping past the commentary, and answering your questions: "Selling" is more succinct than "dealing", which has many more variations in usage and meaning. As for "Perhaps you mean the possible connotation of dealing illegal drugs, such as marijuana?" No, I meant what I said: "Selling" is more succinct, with fewer connotations. I've removed the personal interpretations and returned the referenced wording. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you are trying to edit-war your personal interpretation into the article. I've removed it, and returned the reliably sourced information. Your edit summary says "he has said this on many occasions", which may or may not be true, but certainly isn't conveyed by the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring my "commentary" or, reasonable request for you to explain your objection, is not a good faith response. zzz (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your commentary; I read it, and didn't see where there is anything in the commentary that required a response. Meanwhile, I've already explained my objections to your edits. Perhaps if you could explain how your proposed edits would improve the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is funny that a Wikipedia article categorised as a "libertarianism article" is being desperately sanitised of a reliably sourced and totally uncontroversial mention of dealing cannabis. zzz (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, like that happened. "Funny." Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Dealing cannabis" versus "selling pot"

Can the article state that "Maher has said that he supported himself financially in college by dealing cannabis", given that it is not disputed that he has frequently said that he did, and there is a source in the article confirming that? (User:Xenophrenic says not.) zzz (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is presently unsourced that he said that. The source has Maher saying: "selling pot allowed me to get through college and make enough money to start off in comedy", which is what our Wikipedia article also accurately says. According to your edits, you decided to change "selling" to "dealing", after giving your personal opinion that "Dealing" denotes "buying and then selling at a profit". Seriously? Did it say that in the cited source, right before where he said he grew his own and sold it? Then you wiki-linked "dealing" to the Illegal drug trade article. Clever. Could you please explain what improvement you are proposing, because I know what it looks like... Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Seriously? Did it say that in the cited source, right before where he said he grew his own and sold it?" Stop lying. As you know, the reference does not state that, in fact that would be a clearly libellous statement. Do you want to explain why you made it? zzz (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What statement? I asked a question. You aren't making sense. Perhaps if you could explain how your proposed edits would improve the article, that would be a good start. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I got a bit dramatic there, I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

• Using a direct quote for a non-controversial fact like this is not normal. It is preferable to just state the fact instead. It is more concise, and also avoids giving any misleading impression, for example that that the fact may be debatable, or that he has only made the claim once. Saying "He has said that... he dealt cannabis", as per my edit, also does conveys exactly where the info is coming from in any case. It is just the standard way to state the fact, without beating around the bush so to speak.
• Saying "dealing cannabis" is the regular phraseology in common use, readily understandable and not open to any misinterpretation. Therefore, it should be used as the standard encyclopedic wording. zzz (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable response, but it appears we still disagree on a couple points. Conveying uncontroversial or unambiguous facts directly, rather than as a quotation, is fine, but when there is any possibility of ambiguity or the slightest difference in interpretation, we must adhere to the source — that is not only "normal" convention, but required. An attributed direct quote is the surest way to meet that requirement, and it does so without conveying anything "debatable" (you are confusing it with scare quotes) or anything about how many times he repeated the claim. As you'll note, when you first converted the quotation to a prose statement, I had no objection with that, although I did make a minor change of your word "dealing" to "selling" to conform to the cited source. The issue was never whether to convey the information as a quotation or as a prose statement. Then you again replaced the sourced word "selling" with your preferred unsourced word "dealing". Repeatedly. And you argued above (unconvincingly, in my opinion) that we should use your wording rather than the sourced wording. You obviously feel there is a significant difference between your word and the sourced word, otherwise you would not have so vigorously edit-warred to replace what Maher said with what you want to say. And you are correct; there are indeed differences between "selling" and "dealing", in both meaning and perception — which is why we should stick to what he actually said. Perhaps you missed Lesson 2? In many states, there is a legal difference between selling, trafficking, dealing and distributing. Even in your personal definitions given above, you say "Dealing" denotes "buying and then selling at a profit"; okay, so perhaps he was both selling and dealing. Whether he was growing it and selling it, or buying and reselling, or harvesting it from the (very common in the 70s) urban vacant lots in his neighborhood and selling it, he doesn't say. Let's avoid inserting our own extended interpretations of what Maher said, shall we? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference between the words selling and dealing. He was dealing, as he made %100 perfectly clear when he spoke about it on his show, earlier this season. Cultivation is actually a more serious offense, and of course requires more effort and resources to produce commercial quantities. "Harvesting from urban vacant lots" sounds like an urban myth - sure maybe it happened infrequently, but anyway that's not what he did. Unfortunately, a quick google search doesn't produce any RS repeating what he said on his tv show, which I guess would be required, if your objection is that you deliberately want to allow for the possibility that he may have been given the stuff by a hippy cousin, or whatever. I agree that the quote does allow that possibility (since dispelled this year on his show, as I said); without a written source, I admit you have a point. It is possible, even, that he deliberately left that vague, previously, out of fear. I wonder. It's also possible of course - or even, likely - that he just made up the whole thing for his image. On balance, I have to agree that leaving the quote in quote marks is best. Thanks for discussing. zzz (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110906155003/http://www.intouchweekly.com:80/2011/03/bill_maher.php to http://www.intouchweekly.com/2011/03/bill_maher.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bill Maher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111106044244/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#40225161
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121210011702/http://theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=218 to http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=218
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051108055750/http://www.savvyinsider.com:80/article.php?op=viewArticle&article_ID=305 to http://www.savvyinsider.com/article.php?op=viewArticle&article_ID=305

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Maher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090830072642/http://www.tonightshowwithconanobrien.com:80/video/clips/bill-maher-pt2-082409/1149697/? to http://www.tonightshowwithconanobrien.com/video/clips/bill-maher-pt2-082409/1149697/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)