Talk:Bill Maher

Political Views

"Although he told Libertarian candidate Harry Browne at the end of a Browne appearance on Politically Incorrect that Browne would have his vote, ultimately he said he instead voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election."

Mahar did in fact make both statements, in different episodes -- the latter statement in more than one episode. Before ABC-TV cancelled the program and the official website, these could have been verified on the website as it contained transcripts of each broadcast. Does anyone know of a current site which would have program transcripts?

Davidkevin 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw the transcript of Browne's appearance on Maher's show, and I noticed that the only issues which were talked about were the ones where Maher would agree with libertarianism. Issues like guns and campaign finance reform were not discussed. I consider Browne to be a lightweight for not taking Maher to task for being a faux libertarian. However, Maher being a "libertine socialist" and not a libertarian explains why he voted for Nader and not Browne.Politician818 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mahar has stated that he considers himself a libertarian while differing with the Libertarian Party on several issues. He's also said that despite those differences, he considers libertarianism enough of a "big-tent" to have room for him even if he isn't ideologically pure.

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

Davidkevin 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, is this an encyclopedia article on Bill Maher or a treatise on how he's a fake libertarian? The section on his world view should be rewritten to eliminate the sense that it is the latter.

It's neither. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles that question Bill Maher's nonsensical assertion that he is a libertarian. Bill Maher may say that he is a woman but he does not fit the definition of a woman. And to state thus, is not a point of view.Firmitas 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Maher saying he's a Libertarian is ridiculous. He's a social democrat, a welfare liberal, a socialist, or whatever you want to call it - but definitely not a libertarian. He's either a liar about this or delusional.JettaMann 07:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

When has the last time Maher has called himself a liberatian? I haven't heard him say it since Clinton was president. His views have changed a bit the last eight years. He's called himself a liberal plenty of times in recent years. See here: (about 00:16 in) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L8KEP2ngJo&feature=channel_page Dan20001 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He has referred to himself as a Libertarian as recently as last month. He has also frequently referred to himself as liberal and conservative, depending on which political issue was being discussed. Everyones views can change over time, but I see nothing in that video clip that demonstrates that Maher's views have changed. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Should not be categorized as atheist

Atheist = one who either asserts and believes that there is no god, or lacks any belief in a god. He has said countless times and it's clear that he lacks belief in a god.

atheism (plural atheisms)

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

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

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

Random House Dictionary (2009)

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

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2009)

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

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

He called himself an apatheist, which would also qualify him as also being an atheist. While the quote "I'm not an atheist, though, because the belief that there is no God only mirrors the certitude of religion. No, I'm saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings." is brought up, it only shows that he has a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. He asserted that is the belief there is no god, which only one "branch" of it would ever take. Apatheists show indifference to the belief of a god, logically that would incline one to lack belief. Atheism = lack of a belief in god. How would he not fit in this category? Because he himself misunderstands what it actually means to be one? 98.168.204.179 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He has stated that he is not an atheist. His definition that atheist = "belief that there are no gods" is accurate by both common usage and Wiktionary, as noted above. He does not qualify for the atheist category. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He does, and he did before. He categorizes himself as atheist in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fySf45xUHf0 (a bit after the 4:20 mark.) It's pretty well-established that to be an atheist you merely have to lack belief in all deities, which he also did before, rather than believe there is no god, which you falsely asserted to be the sole identifier of atheism. This video proves him to be.

I watched that video (not a reliable source for a BLP, btw), and he says "no one knows for sure what's out there", and "you know where I stand in this, I always say 'I don't know'". The part you refer to is where he says as a matter of symantics, we are all atheists because we don't believe in a deity - but he never "categorizes himself" as an atheist. Selective hearing of parts of that video. That video peoves he isn't an atheist. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, are you kidding? "We are all atheists" and acknowledging he doesn't have a belief in a deity isn't categorizing himself as an atheist? Wow. Basically, from what I gather from you, is that atheism is a belief, not a lack of, both of which do fit under the umbrella term of atheism. He DID call himself an atheist, since people don't say "we" speaking of others, which seems to be what you assumed from that statement. He is very clearly an agnostic atheist - and it's straight from his mouth. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That, and it's impossible to merely be an agnostic. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities, not an affirmative believe asserting there not to be any.98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Of the several definitions of atheism, one is the "belief that there are no gods". Perhaps you should make your argument to change the definition at the Atheism page? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you admit that your incessant editing is you using the narrowest possible definition of it? I don't see why I should have to change the definition of the atheism page, since he clearly falls under the "it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities" sentence after your selective quote. Am I to gather that you just can't comprehend how one lacks belief in something and can automatically be categorized as something? Which would be a fundamental misunderstand of what atheism is. Atheism is an indentifier/label for what one is not - a theist/deist, rather than what one is. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You lost me after the personal attack, sorry. Was there a question about the improvement of this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maher's views on vaccinations and diseases

Maher has been clear about this & the referenced article by a reliable science writer is cited. Maher's direct quote is given. Anyone disputing that Maher holds this opinion, and wanting to remove the reference in the article, must provide a reliable counter refeerence. But there appear to be none available. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The opinion piece you have provided is not a reliable source for a WP:BLP; and is furthermore misrepresentative of the subject's views. In addition, you have inserted your own personal interpretation of the quotes you cite. In fact, your views you have tried to insert have been recently laughed at, here (listen to Maher at the 7.00 minute mark). When inserting dubious information about living people, we need to exercise a little additional care. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article on fringe science (not an “opinion piece”) is a reliable source. As is the periodical itself, which has been around for a long time & has a good reputation for accuracy. The author, Martin Gardner, is a distinguished science writer known for his care & exacting research. The quote is genuine. As for “misrepresenting” his views, he does seem to have backed off in the 22 Oct interview. That should be reflected in the article. As for laughing at the views… well, yes…. I laughed at them too…. ;-) 96.231.137.242 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The opinion piece is not a reliable source for factual assertions in a WP:BLP, regardless of your views about the author or the periodical. As for him "backing off" his views, in the link provided, he clearly says he has been reading the stuff printed about him on the internet (specifically, your content), and "they are making stuff up about me". That isn't "backing off", that is clear refutation. Please cease inserting misrepresentations of Maher's views into this article. Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Remaining discussion not directly related to article improvement moved to DyadTriad's talk page for continuation, per WP:TALK...)

Recent edit

I removed this sentence temporarily as unsourced. It sounds plausible, and very Maher-like, but I'm trying to hunt down a citation:

He frequently cites federal subsidization of agribusiness and the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup in food products as causes of these problems.

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Found a few sources indicating his expressed opinion on a relationship between increased HFCS consumption and increased obesity, including these comments as far back as 2004. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Insert Maher’s “Pasteur” quote

The following quote has been included in the Bill Maher article, but deleted several times by an editor:

During a 2005 discussion with former NIH administrator Bernadine Healy and former Attorney General Janet Reno, Maher stated: "I don't believe in vaccination either. …That's another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Bechamp was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in." [Reference: Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday, March 4, 2005.]

The deleting editor has also changed the title of the above "vaccine" discussion several times & most recently blanked a large part of discussion text. (Correction: the inappropriate discussion was moved to your talk page, and the communal header made more inclusive. Remain factual, please. -Xenophrenic)

I would like to see opinions from several editors on this before a consensus decision is made. I propose that the quote stay for the reasons given below. Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong favor – Maher’s anti-vaccine opinions are now well known. He has recently clarified them by saying that he is OK with some vaccines (he mentioned diphtheria & malaria), but he continues to oppose the current flu vaccine campaign in the US and says he is still generally anti-vaccine on principle. He has not really provided details as to the basis of his opposition except for casual remarks about how good nutrition would make vaccines unnecessary and that one “cannot trust the government”. Since Maher is so popular and influential -- and since his opposition to vaccines is likely to sway some people in his large viewing audience -- the matter is not a trivial pursuit. It would be good to know more about his scientific rationale. The “Pasteur” quote provides a rare insight into Maher’s thinking on biomedicine. Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What, exactly, does the above quote convey about Maher's thoughts on biomedicine? I'm in favor of expanding the content on Maher's views if done accurately, but snippets of quotes without context from his comedy talk show where he's having an informal discussion with several people (not an interview with Healy, as you misrepresent) is hardly an ideal source. His aversion to vaccines and its backing by government, as well as his views on nutrition are already in the article, so what does the above quote add? Also, do you have a cite to a transcript, instead of just a show date? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Object - until improvement of the article by its inclusion is explained - I don't see it; also the sourcing issues mentioned in the comments above. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good questions all, Xenophrenic.! What does it convey about Maher's thoughts on biomedicine? Let me break it out for you. Antoine Béchamp was the French biologist who strongly opposed Pasteur's theory. In contrast to Pasteur & his Germ Theory, Bechamp maintained the now abandoned pleomorphic theory — essentially that bacteria change form and are not the cause of, but the result of, disease, arising from tissues rather than from a germ of constant form. (In case you missed it, Maher supports Béchamp over Pasteur.) I agree that Maher’s casual remarks are not an ideal source for exploring his ideas… but they are all he gives us! Again, none of this would matter if his anti-vaccine advocacy didn’t stand to make a much bigger impact than any of the many other (obscure) anti-vaccine activists out there. He’s famous! The show with date is cited. For another reliable source (a respected science & pseudo-science writer) see: Gardner, Martin (2009), "Bill Maher: Crank and Comic", Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, Issue 6 (Nov/Dec). Of course citing his own comments specifically should be enough. He's the expert on what he thinks! Xenophrenic’s comments are well represented now. Lets’ hear from some others…. Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

disease - a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the American Language (2009)

You've left my questions unanswered. What, exactly, does the quote convey about Maher's thoughts? Obviously something to do with him thinking it's flawed that we don't go by the theory that "it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain", but we already know he thinks that from years of saying so. Answer the question, please, without resorting to WP:OR and cut&paste quotes from other Wikipedia articles. What does the quote add to the article? And do you have a transcript so we can see the context? (Don't worry - we have enough pixels to support everyone's comments here. Perhaps you should post an RfC to generate more interest?) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me: "it's not the invading germs [causing disease], it's the terrain [of the body that is the problem], it's not the mosquitoes [causing disease], it's the swamp [of the body poisoned by bad food, toxins, the government, whatever...]". This is pretty standard "alternative medicine" cant. If germs are not the cause of the disease (Pasteur), but rather a mere byproduct of it (Bechamp), then clearly the whole vaccine approach (which targets the germ) is misbegotten. Do you have a different interpretation of what setting Pasteur against Bechamp could mean? Let's hear it! (As for your personal swipes at me: Which is it? "Original researcher" or mere "cut&paster"? Make up your mind...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me: "it's not the invading germs [we should be focusing only on], it's the terrain [of the body that we should take care of], it's not the mosquitoes [causing disease], it's the swamp [of the body poisoned by bad nutrition, toxins, the government, etc., also]". This is pretty standard "alternative and mainstream medicine" cant. If germs are not the only reason we succumb to disease (Pasteur), but rather a combination of the presence of the germ and our body's susceptibility to disease (Maher), then clearly the whole vaccine approach (which targets only the germ) is misbegotten. Do you have a different interpretation of what mentioning Pasteur and Bechamp in the same breath could mean? Let's hear it! (As for my advice to you: Which is it? "Original researcher" or mere "cut&paster"? It wasn't an either/or.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For the third time, you evade answering my questions. What does the quote add to the article? Do you have a transcript that we can see, for context? Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We are truly at an impasse aren't we? That's why I made the proposal & asked for other editors' input. Have patience my friend.... I am prepared to wait... And to accept the collective judgement of a substantial number.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Patience - I have tons of it. But I also have persistence, so I ask for the fourth time: please answer the questions? Or at the very least, inform me as to how long I need to "be patient" before you decide to answer them? In the mean time, per this policy, please leave the contested content out of the WP:BLP. Regards, my friend, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Another good reason to retain the quote: It is now the second most famous/most controversial statement Maher has ever made (after the 9/11-hijackers-are-courageous remark). He has been taking a lot (I mean A LOT) of heat for it. He says “it comes up in every interview I do these days...” Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Response - I checked, and the quote is now the 12th most famous/most controversial statement Maher has ever made (you'd better re-check your sources), and he's taken hardly any heat for it, compared to the other 11 statements (You should see the God stuff!). He says there is a lot of curiosity about the subject of vaccines and that subject comes up in every interview these days. It's true - vaccines are a hot topic. And that is an excellent article, by the way, which repeats what I've been conveying to you all along. The article also answers some of the questions you've been deftly dodging: The partial quote you are desperately trying to insert in the article adds nothing to the article (except a misrepresentation of Maher's position). Maher sums you up nicely in the article you linked:

That's not -- or shouldn't be -- where the debate is. I admit, its hard to get as clear a picture of my beliefs, as you could, say, if I had written a book on vaccines, versus someone in the setting of a talk show. So I understand why its easy to take bits of things I have said and extrapolate into something I actually have never said. I understand it, but its not exactly "scientific."

So I guess we can consider this matter resolved. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You guess the matter is resolved? ;-) Nice try! By my count the tally stands at 1 to 1… Hardly decisive. (It's unfortunate that you view this as a competition instead of a collaboration. -X)

“It’s the 12th most famous quote”? Your ESP is better than mine.

“Hardly taken any heat for it”? (1) It “comes up in every interview these days”; (2) Scott Pelley asked Kathleen Sebelius (HHS Secretary) about it on 60 Minutes last week & she roundly chided Maher for it; (3) Howard Dean scolded him for it in a recent interview…. and these are just the instances I happen to have heard of without searching… The “heat” comes through clearly in the tone of his Huffington Post piece where he begs not to be made into “the Vaccine Guy”. Yes, plenty of heat… (Again you misrepresent. None of these 3 are about the quote you wish to add. -X)

“The partial quote you are desperately trying to insert in the article adds nothing to the article (except a misrepresentation of Maher's position).” Well… (1) It’s not “partial”. It stands nicely on its own & has been quoted widely. If you think it’s taken out of context, please say what came before (or after) that changes anything… (2) “desperately”? Funny, I don’t feel desperate… Why are you “desperately” trying to keep it out of the article? The only reason I can conceive is that you have appointed yourself Maher’s guardian angel for purposes of protecting him from his own embarrassing statements. That would be more than a little POV of you. (I’m quite serious in asking you this… Why are you such a virulent defender of Maher against one of his more embarrassing and highly publicized flubs?) (Most Wikipedia editors are virulent defender of all WP:BLPs against defamatory misrepresentation. You should join us. -X) (3) “adds nothing to the article”? It adds quite a bit of insight into his anti-vaccine thinking. (I will try explaining this to you again below.) (4) It’s “a misrepresentation of Maher's position”? Com’on guy!! It’s a direct quote. It’s accurate. He really said it. It’s not out of context. It’s not partial. It’s consistent with many other statements of his. He has not denied it. How can it be a “misrepresentation”? (Again you misrepresent. It's partial; the discussion from which you cherry-picked was much longer. -X)

Since you keep claiming that I’m not answering your questions, I will -- for the fourth time -- try again …

(1) “What, exactly, does the quote convey about Maher's thoughts?”

It conveys that Maher (a) doesn’t “believe in vaccination” (yes, we knew that already); (...already in the article. -X) (b) believes that the basis of vaccination science (“another theory”) is flawed (OK, follows from (a)); (Original Research, and inaccurate. Try not to fall in to the "therefore it follows..." trap. WP:SYNTH -X) (c) disapproves of the fact that “we go by the Louis Pasteur theory”… Wow! Now we’re getting somewhere! Something new here, for sure: What exactly is “the Louis Pasteur theory”? Pasteur was French so maybe it’s “that paté is better than escargot”? Naw… Maybe it’s his Germ Theory of Disease? In fact, it can’t be anything else… (Incorrect. He actually tells you what theory: germs over terrain. Also already in the article. -X) (d) believes an urban legend that “Louis Pasteur renounced it [the Louis Pasteur theory] on his own deathbed”, Yes, definitely new info on Maher’s thinking here; (He also believes Pasteur said "either the curtains go or I do". Adds nothing. -X) (e) believes that “on his deathbed” Pasteur “said that Béchamp was right” … QED, no doubt about it now! Maher’s allusion is definitely to “Pasteur’s Germ Theory of Disease” which Antoine Béchamp disputed in the 1860s in favor of a theory (the “pleomorphic theory”) that germs don’t cause diseases, but are incidental byproducts of them;(No it isn't. Clever WP:SYNTH, however. -X) (f) on the “germs”, “terrain”, “mosquitoes” and “swamps”… See my previous answers… That should about cover it… Yes, it’s true he has now partially retracted much of this (without admitting that it is a retraction)… He now says that he’s “not a Germ Theory denier” and that he doesn’t care what Pasteur said on his deathbed and makes a clever quip about that… But he did say these things on national television and his intent is pretty obvious (not “original research”)… (Still waiting. Perhaps in your subsequent comments? -X)

(2) “What does the quote add to the article?” It adds (c), (d) and (e) above. (You mean all your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as noted above? Sorry, no. Wikipedia policy does not allow us to add that to articles. -X) In summary, what it adds is a sense of how Maher wants to turn some aspects of biomedicine (namely, infections disease science and vaccinology) back to the 1860s and start again… The quote provides new information, reliable information, pertinent information (if you think vaccines are at all important).… (Interesting personal opinion - but equally non-allowable in this BLP; sorry - policy. -X)

(3) “Do you have a transcript that we can see, for context?”

From Friday, 4 March 2005, Real Time with Bill Maher:

HBO BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT

March 4, 2005

Episode #53

“REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”

BILL MAHER
WARD CHURCHILL Native American Rights activist
MICHAEL FAUGHNAN
JANET RENO Former U.S. Attorney General
DAVE FOLEY Comedian; actor
DR. BERNADINE HEALY Former NIH Administrator
WHOOPI GOLDBERG (via satellite)
. . .[cutting to the relevant exchange]: . . .[or cutting to the only part available on blogs -X]
MAHER: All right, I want to ask about food here, because I’ve been anxious to get you back on this panel, because you were on our satellite, and like Tommy Thompson, who was here a couple of weeks ago, you are, I think, what we would say – I’ll mean this as an insult – part of the medical establishment.
HEALY: Oh, yes. And proud of it.
MAHER: But as you know, I don’t believe in the medical establishment. I think there is an “axis of evil” in this country with our health. The food industry—[applause]—the food industry, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry—[applause] [cheers]—work together and – true or false: it is a diet of chemicals, preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, preservatives, dead nutrients, that is mainly responsible for the fact that this country has such a staggering health care bill. True or false? [applause]
FOLEY: False.
MAHER: False, really?
HEALY: Yes.
FOLEY: That combined with the most inefficient health care system on the face of earth. [applause]
MAHER: But why do we need so much health care if we weren’t sick? And why are we sick? What is the main thing we do to ourselves? Eat.
RENO: One of the main things we do to ourselves is we do not take care of our children when they come into this world by providing proper vaccinations, proper preventative medical care—[applause] [cheers]—proper strong, supportive health care for infants and children in this country.
MAHER: I don't believe in vaccination either.
HEALY: Oh, dear. [Voices overlap]
MAHER: That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, and that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Béchamp was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in.
RENO: What are you going to do about smallpox? [Audience applause]
MAHER: What am I going to do about smallpox?
RENO: Mmm huh.
MAHER: Not go to the chicken farm. But eh... no.
DAVE FOLEY: You gotta say, the polio vaccine turned out well. You know...
HEALY: I think there... I mean I think it's great theatre to, when you're well, to say "Oh all those sick people, let's dismiss them." But you know, when you're sick there's nothing better than having a good medical establishment.
MAHER: But why do they get sick? You think it's normal that people need this amount of drugs?
HEALY: Well I think that people get sick and we don't know entirely why they get sick, and the older, they get the sicker they get. Every 10 years that you add on to your life you have a higher chance of getting sick. And you get atherosclerosis, you get cancer... I mean the notion...
MAHER: Why...?
HEALY: ...that somehow when you get sick it's your fault...
MAHER: It's the...
HEALY:...it's the wrong attitude. It's not your fault. You don't have a guilt trip because you get sick. People get sick. You know, they say that all around the world people think that death is inevitable. In the United States of America we think it's an option.
MAHER [Voices overlap]: You're in denial.
HEALY: I mean, death is not an option.

MAHER: You're in denial, about I think is a key fact, which is it is the at... people get sick because of an aggregate toxicity, because their body has so much poison in it, from the air, the water... Yes, much of it is not our fault and we can't control it. But a lot of it we can and even the food people think is good for them, is bad, and I'm not presenting myself as a paradigm. I do cruddy things to my body too and I enjoy them. But when I do them, I'm not in denial. I'm not eating fat free cheese and saying: "You know what, I'm healthy for eating this." I'm saying: "Oh yeah, this is chemical goop and it’s killing me."

As for “please leave the contested content out of the WP:BLP”: Let’s see now, according to Wikipolicy… “Neutral point of view (NPOV)”, Check. “Verifiability”, Check. And “No original research”, Check! This seems to clear the way for the quote to be reinserted in the article. I shall replace it… Regards, Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time, per this policy, please leave the contested content out of the WP:BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your arguments have degraded into simply contradicting any statement of mine with a "OR" or "Syn" link. (And BTW, what is that crack about "first part of discussion intentionally omitted...."??.) There is no original research or misrepresentation of sources in the quote in question.... I await other editors' input... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The link/subsection you directed me to references "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" and "Wikipedia:Libel". Clearly neither applies here. I will restore the sourced, non-libelous quote. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

An update... It has now been 10 days since posting of the proposal for discussion & no additional editors (among several working on the Bill Maher article) have objected to inclusion of the proposed quote. Only the original editor, who blanked a large portion of the previous discussion (Correction: the inappropriate discussion was moved to your talk page, and the communal header made more inclusive. Remain factual, please. -Xenophrenic), continues to object (revert actually...) He has not presented a coherent rationale, however, repeatedly insisting that inclusion of this straightward quote (without commentary or interpretation) somehow violates the "original research" prohibition. At this point I cannot see any reason this very interesting, relevant, well-sourced (& non-libellous) quote should not remain. It gives fascinating & valuable insight into Maher's attitude toward biomedicine & health. I will keep the quote in the article.
Needless to say, discussion remains open & fresh opinions from other editors are welcome. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• "At this point I cannot see any reason..."; yes, that seems to have been the crux of the problem all along. I've explained my objection, and you have circled around it several times now without addressing it. So as instructed by Wikipedia policy, I will remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your conjectural interpretation of the quote, "what it adds is a sense of how Maher wants to turn some aspects of biomedicine (namely, infections disease science and vaccinology) back to the 1860s and start again", is original research, a misrepresentation of Maher's views and not justification to add it to the article. Trying to deceive readers by inserting that quote as somehow representative of his health care views is a violation of the WP:BLP policy. You have been provided with at least three different reliable sources that explain Maher's actual position more thoroughly, and they all refute the misrepresentation you are trying to advance with your repeated insertion of that quote. You have even acknowledged that quote doesn't represent Maher's views, suggesting that maybe he has "recanted" since then (he hasn't; but he did clarify his views, which haven't changed). Despite this, you still edit war to insert what you consider one of his "most controversial statements" into his biography — even after being warned against edit warring; even after being blocked for 3RR violation; even after being confirmed as a sockpuppeteer using several different accounts to continue your war here. As you noted above, not a single one of the several editors working on the Bill Maher article has supported your inclusion of that quote. As I noted, and as clearly stated in the lead section of WP:BLP, the burden of compliance rests with the editor trying to insert contentious content into a biography, not with those editors that remove it. Unfortunately, my next response to reinsertion of the contentious content will be on the appropriate noticeboards. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the proposal to retain the quote was not an invitation for you to endlessly repeat your unconvincing statements which have now taken up an enormous amount of space here as you continue to insist on a few points that just don't seem to have any support (in Wiki-policy or in logic). Rather, it was an invitation for other editors to contribute to resolving a log-jam by consensus. You have now had your say several times over. After 12 days you are still a lone voice without support. Here yet again: (1)"you have circled around it": Well, I don't know how I could have unpacked the quote for you in more detail or simplicity without resorting to the teaching of grammar & vocabulary. I have NOT circled around anything, I have directly addressed your questions several times now... (2) "Unsourced material": the material is a direct & accurate quote, taken in context & widely available in video & transcript form. Couldn't be more "sourced"... (3)"Conjectural interpretation": There is NO interpretation of any kind in what is inserted. It is a simple, straightforward, accurate quote, with statement of date & who was being addressed... You have pushed me repeatedly to "interpret" it for you on this talk page, then promptly scolded me for doing so... Enough of that, please... (4) Standard of "verifiability": Certainly no problem here. He said it. It is a matter of record. He doesn't deny saying it. He has even repeated parts of it by way of "clarifying". Couldn't be more verified. (5) "Trying to deceive readers"... Huh? Baffling.... Please assume good faith per policy. (6) "Three different reliable sources that explain Maher's actual position more thoroughly": (Actually, I provided one of them...) These sources show Maher back-peddling vigorously, but (as even you insist) Maher has NOT clearly said he was wrong about anything, only that he is "not a Germ Theory denier" (something the insertion does NOT claim) and now doesn't care "what Pasteur said on his deathbed". And this "clarification" itself IS included in the article (without the quote that would make this "clarification" make sense)... (7) "You have even acknowledged that quote doesn't represent Maher's views"... Ha! I most definitely would not & did not... (8) "You still edit war"... Excuse me? Who does?? (9) "Even after being blocked"... Yes, in your zeal you have had me briefly blocked twice now... Something that has never happened to me before in almost four years of active Wikipedia editing... Mazel tov! A real contribution to the discussion... (10) "Not a single one of the several editors working on the Bill Maher article has supported your inclusion" ... Not a single one of the several editors working on the Bill Maher article has objected to my inclusion. (11) "Contentious content"... Apparently only for you... (12) "The appropriate noticeboards"... A threat. Do your worst. I will stand on accuracy, verifiability, relevance & good faith (how are you on that?) as always....
The discussion of the proposal remains open & the invitation to other editors who can provide new perspectives & help reach a consensus still stands... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picking and parsing is your preferred form of discussion? Fine, but you won't entice many other editors to join in this way. It will probably all end up being collapsed, but if it will help advance the discussion, here goes:

Xenophrenic, the proposal to retain insert (Fixed -X) the quote was not an invitation for you to endlessly repeat your unconvincing statements which have now taken up an enormous amount of space here as you continue to insist on a few points that just don't seem to have any support (in Wiki-policy or in logic).

• The WP:BLP policy is clear. I will continue to insist that it be followed, regardless of how much space it takes up to explain it to you, or how often I must repeat the policy.

• • • I think it is clear too & I think it does not support your contentions of "unverified", "original research", etc... I think other editors will agree with me.

• No contentions here, as I simply quote the policy. Other editors will agree that you should follow it.

Rather, it was an invitation for other editors to contribute to resolving a log-jam by consensus. You have now had your say several times over.

• You don't get to pick and choose which editors can contribute to forming consensus, sorry. I will "have my say" each time a misrepresentation of yours needs clearing up.

• • • Yes, but you are merely repeating yourself... No possibility of consensus there...

• No need for consensus on obeying the policies. Each time you violate them, I will point it out.

After 12 days you are still a lone voice without support.

• After 12 days of you trying to insert that content, zero editors have expressed support for you, while at least one editor (myself) has opposed it.

• • • The "proposal" was made BECAUSE of our log-jam (yours & mine). Don't pretend you don't understand that...

• You'll have to be more clear as to whom you are addressing. My statement was this: After 12 days of you trying to insert that content, zero editors have expressed support for you, while at least one editor (myself) has opposed it.

Here yet again: (1) "I've explained my objection, and you have circled around it several times now without addressing it.": Well, I don't know how I could have unpacked the quote for you in more detail or simplicity without resorting to the teaching of grammar & vocabulary. I have NOT circled around anything, I have directly addressed your questions several times now...

• If you have answered several time now, then giving a concise response just one more time should be easy: What does your proposed content add to the article on Bill Maher, that isn't already contained in that article?

• • • Again: It gives a clear statement of how fundamentally Maher questions the modern biomedical model, at least so far as vaccines are concerned... And that is pretty clear in the quote itself, without any "interpretation" of the kind you always insist on (before attempting to squash it...)

• Actually, the quote does no such thing. I don't even see "biomedical model" anywhere in the quote, and the wording used in the snippet is anything but clear. He has an opposition to vaccines, and in his opinion we should focus more on the health of our bodies rather than focus on the germ (via vaccines) itself. That much Maher has made clear, whether you agree with his opinion or not, but that much is already in the article. If you have an actual source where Maher explains his views on "modern biological models", then you should provide it. Saying this snippet of a quote expresses his views on such things is pure speculation and original research on your part.

(2) "Unsourced material": the material is a direct & accurate quote, taken in context & widely available in video & transcript form. Couldn't be more "sourced"...

• From WP:BLP: "Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." (There I go again, insisting policy be followed...) Your citation is to a comedy talk show presumably aired on a given date; a primary source, without a full transcript for context or relevance; supporting a snippet of a quote (containing ellipsis) in a discussion between multiple parties. Yes, your sourcing is problematic, especially for the higher standards required by BLP policy, but all this is of secondary concern. The material, as noted, fails other content policies.

• • • I provided a transcript of the entire "vaccine" portion of the show. The full transcript is at Maher's show's website. I notice you don't find the partial transcript I provided very useful in disputing me. You haven't mentioned it. Apparently it is just too clear... And the "ellipsis" you complain about is this: "That's a... well, that's a... what?" Lotta content there, huh? Com'on! Be serious guy! You're just throwing everything into this that you can think of... Doesn't say much for "good faith" does it? No, the sourcing is not problematic. I have now (re)added a second source for good measure....

• Incorrect. Those are not the ellipses I complained about; in fact, I don't even see your examples in the proposed content. You did not provide a transcript; you selected some words and typed them in here. Please provide a link to the transcript you say is on Maher's website, as the words you've typed in here conflict with what I am viewing. While you are at it, please provide a link to the video of the discussion you say (above) is readily available. (And please, let's avoid the different, highly edited, versions that exist on blogs, etc.)

(3)"Conjectural interpretation": There is NO interpretation of any kind in what is inserted. It is a simple, straightforward, accurate quote, with statement of date & who was being addressed... You have pushed me repeatedly to "interpret" it for you on this talk page, then promptly scolded me for doing so... Enough of that, please...

• Incorrect. I have repeatedly pushed you to explain what your proposed content adds to the article. Each time, you respond with your own conjectural synthesis not supported by the source, and each time you have been promptly reminded of Wikipedia policy against doing so. Enough of that? Do you promise?

• • • I don't think anyone with a normal intelligence, high-school education & good working knowledge of the English language would have trouble interpreting the quote without any interpretation. You insist on interpretation apparently only as a way of continuing to block the edit...

• We, as editors of Wikipedia, are not to "interpret the quote". If the quote didn't need interpretation, and was relevant, then there may have been a use for it. However, your "interpretation" of what his quote means differs from mine, and differs from Maher's, too - so therein lies the problem. You insist his quote "gives a clear statement of how fundamentally Maher questions the modern biomedical model", and Maher flat out disagrees with you. The article section is on Maher's views, not what Tygart thinks Maher's views are, based on snippets of quotes. You seem to be forgetting, this is a Biography of a Living Person, not a blog.

(4) Standard of "verifiability": Certainly no problem here. He said it. It is a matter of record. He doesn't deny saying it. He has even repeated parts of it by way of "clarifying". Couldn't be more verified.

• From WP:BLP: "Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." (There I go again, insisting policy be followed...)

• • • It does meet all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines...

• If it did, you wouldn't be seeing objections to your insertion of it, based on policy, now would you?

(5) "Trying to deceive readers"... Huh? Baffling.... Please assume good faith per policy.

• There is no policy requiring assumption of good faith, however there is a guideline that notes: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Repeated misrepresentation makes the rebuilding of trust difficult.

• • • There has been no "repeated misrepresentation" here...

• And there's another one. If you'd like to discuss the whole laundry-list, we can do so in depth on one of your talk pages.

(6) "Three different reliable sources that explain Maher's actual position more thoroughly": (Actually, I provided one of them...) These sources show Maher back-peddling vigorously, but (as even you insist) Maher has NOT clearly said he was wrong about anything, only that he is "not a Germ Theory denier" (something the insertion does NOT claim) and now doesn't never did care "what Pasteur said on his deathbed".

• Regarding the content you want to add to the article section about Maher's views on health, you offer a snippet quotation, with this justification for adding it: "what it adds is a sense of how Maher wants to turn some aspects of biomedicine (namely, infections disease science and vaccinology) back to the 1860s and start again". This is your opinion on what Maher wants. Maher disagrees with you, and says you are misrepresenting his position based on short quotes from a comedy show. Maher has gone on to more fully explain his position in several reliable sources, and his explanation of his views differ significantly from how you wish to present his views. You say he has vigorously back-peddled from your opinion of his views, and Maher says you never had his views, based on snippets, correct in the first place - and they haven't changed. So what should our article convey about Maher's views on health — Tygart's opinion of what Maher's views are, loosely supported by snippets from a comedy show, or Maher's more detailed and specific explanation of what his views are?

• • • Both, of course. I propose that both the quote AND the clarification (which has been there without the quote it refers to) be included in the article... This should more than answer your objection...

• Sorry, no, we don't insert Tygart's opinions into Wikipedia BLPs, AND accurate, reliably sourced content. We don't do "both" - we just use the latter. (As an aside, however, which "clarification" of that quote has been in the article? Could you quote it here, please?)

And this "clarification" itself IS included in the article (without the quote that would make this "clarification" make sense)...

• There is nothing presently included in the article that references that quote, or that doesn't make sense without referencing that quote.

• • • You are clearly wrong here: Maher assets (as now in the article) that he is not a "germ theory denier"... What does that "denial of a denial" refer to? The Pasteur quote, and nothing else. (Again, see Gardner's article as a second source.)

• Incorrect. Maher states that he is not a germ theory denier. That refers to, as he states, what he has read is being said about him. He does not make reference to any of his quotes. People have claimed, incorrectly, that he holds certain views when he does not, and Maher has corrected them - makes perfect sense. Again, what part doesn't make sense without referencing that quote?

(7) "You have even acknowledged that quote doesn't represent Maher's views"... Ha! I most definitely would not & did not...

• Incorrect. You said, "As for “misrepresenting” his views, he does seem to have backed off in the 22 Oct interview." You say he backed off his views; Maher says you misunderstood his views — either way, you have acknowledged that the quote does not convey Maher's views as he has recently explained them. Oh, wait! That wasn't you, Tygart, that was User:96.231.137.242 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC) — how could I have confused the two of you? Oh, here you said, "Maher does seem to have recanted some of these views recently," so you acknowledge Maher's views are not represented by that quote - at least anymore. Oh, wait! That wasn't you either, Tygart, that was User:DyadTriad (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - my bad, I mixed you guys up. So while everyone but you acknowledges the quote does not represent Maher's views, you claim it does? Which views were those again, specifically?

• • • No, not incorrect. I would never have "acknowledged that quote doesn't represent Maher's views" because I don't believe that. He hasn't said that it doesn't represent his views either (at least not directly, he hasn't specifically stood by OR renounced the quote... He tried to have it both ways...)

• Got a citation for that interesting analysis, or is it yours? You claim this snippet of a quote represents Maher's views. You also claim he has "recanted/changed/back-peddled" his views. Now you claim you don't believe that the quote snippet doesn't represent Maher's views. And when I asked you what those supposed views were, you ignored the question. Whew, this is fun, isn't it?

(8) "You still edit war"... Excuse me? Who does?? (9) "even after being warned against edit warring; even after being blocked for 3RR violation; even after being confirmed as a sockpuppeteer"... Yes, in your zeal you have had me briefly blocked twice now... Something that has never happened to me before in almost four years of active Wikipedia editing... Mazel tov! A real contribution to the discussion...

• Incorrect. I can't have anyone blocked, sorry. All I can do, and did do, is point out your behavior on noticeboards and leave it up to others to review. As for you never before having been blocked on your 50+ alternate accounts, I'll just have to take your word for that.

• • • You don't deny edit warring, I see... As for your unjustified past blocking, I have addressed it at length elsewhere. Let's stick to the subject here, shall we??

• If you feel that I am edit warring, you really should submit a complaint for review. My denial is implicit; and your repeated insertion into a BLP of contested controversial content while that content is still being discussed, will probably be reviewed as well.

(10) "Not a single one of the several editors working on the Bill Maher article has supported your inclusion" ... One (Corrected. -X) of the several editors working on the Bill Maher article has objected to my inclusion.

• Incorrect. I have objected. And rather than address my objections, you prefer to dance around them or ignore them or dismiss them, in violation of WP:BLP. You have already indicated how you want to define Maher's views in the article - which conflict with Maher's own explanation of his views - and that is a problem. We don't need a parade of editors to come through here to confirm that we don't edit BLPs that way.

• • • As I said, the "proposal" (this subsection) was occasioned by the stalemate between us two. Don't pretend otherwise. The meaning is clear: No other editors have objected.

• You didn't say no "other" editors object, so I corrected your wording. Also, I see at least two editors that have objected now.

(11) "Contentious content"... Apparently only for you...

• ...and you, and The American Heritage Dictionary: Contentious — Involving or likely to cause contention; controversial; causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy. To quote you, "Another good reason to retain the quote: It is now the second most famous/most controversial statement Maher has ever made..." - Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, wait, was that not you admitting the quote was contentious either?

• • • Controversial material may not be included in a Wikipedia article? That's a new one on me! I see it all the time (usually with both sides represented, as here....)

• Why do you say controversial material may not be included in a Wikipedia article? Can you link to this policy, Tygart, for the rest of us? I believe you are again misunderstanding Wikipedia policy.

(12) "The appropriate noticeboards"... A threat. Do your worst.

• No, it's not a threat. It was a courtesy warning, typically given prior to actually resorting to use of the noticeboards in the hope that a solution can be reached without the use of that step.

• • • I stand ready for a solution to be reached...

• Actions speak louder than words; it's never too late for you to begin acting as you speak.

I will stand on accuracy, verifiability, relevance & good faith (how are you on that?) as always.... The discussion of the proposal remains open & the invitation to other editors who can provide new perspectives & help reach a consensus still stands... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actions speak louder than words; it's never too late for you to begin acting as you speak. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I have always acted as I speak... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Then apparently, someone has hacked into your account. (Scroll up.)

I'm going to have to side with Xenophrenic here. Per BLP, sources absolutely have to be properly and fully verifiable and this quote fails to meet that test. Get some solid verifiable info in there and we can then have the discussion about whether we can include it or not. Until then, it stays out. Henrymrx (t·c) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Nice to finally have another voice here. I will restore the quote with TWO sources (the original transcript & an article by a respected science writer discussing the quote). Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the source to "the original transcript" - link, please? I also disagree that an opinion piece from a 95 year old magician calling Maher a "crank" is one of those high-quality references the BLP policy speaks about. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Taking a closer look at the Skeptical Inquirer source (I use that term loosely here), I see that the wording, punctuation and spelling used in this supposed quote is significantly different from the words you took from the supposed transcript of Maher's comedy show. We're looking at the same article, right? The one where Gardner says "Maher is strongly opposed to all vaccines." (No, he isn't.) The one where Gardner says Maher believes germs "play no role in our illnesses"? (Actually, Maher believes they do.) The article where Gardner says Maher "denies that the Salk vaccine played any role in the decline of polio!" (Actually, Maher doesn't deny that either.) So we have the date of a comedy show as one "source" and the opinion piece (yes, it IS an opinion piece, in an opinion column he's been writing for more than 20 years now) with a completely different quote as a second "source". Neither source meets WP:BLP policy requirements; the supposed quotes from each don't even match each other -- and neither version of the supposed quote adds anything to the article that isn't already there. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The source of the quote is the broadcast (4 March 2005). It was seen by millions of people & is available for download & as a podcast online. The transcript, which backs it up as a secondary source, is available at Maher's HBO website. It has been widely quoted & discussed on blogs. The authenticity of the quote is not in doubt.

As to Gardner: He is a science and mathematics journalist & author of over 70 books (not a "magician"), his age is irrelevant, the Skeptical Inquirer is a very reputable publication that has been around for many years, the Maher quote in his article is accurate (he inserted "[Germ Theory]" in brackets which I think is accurate), and everything he said about Maher was accurate at the time he wrote (i.e., before Maher began to tap dance & packpedal in October...). On the polio vaccine issue specificially, Maher said this on his October 16, 2009 show: "I said sometimes inoculation may be a smart thing to do, but you know most people go by the model of polio. They think, "well you know we had polio, then we had the vaccine, and it wiped out polio." Read up on the history, its not…" (Corrected the quote. Note he said nothing about the Salk vaccine having nothing to do with polio decline. -X)

As both these sources clearly meet WP:BLP policy requirements, I will restore the quote. Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the source to "the original transcript" - link, please? I also disagree that an opinion piece from a 95 year old magician calling Maher a "crank" is one of those high-quality references the BLP policy speaks about. Taking a closer look at the Skeptical Inquirer source (I use that term loosely here), I see that the wording, punctuation and spelling used in this supposed quote is significantly different from the words you took from the supposed transcript of Maher's comedy show. We're looking at the same article, right? The one where Gardner says "Maher is strongly opposed to all vaccines." (No, he isn't.) The one where Gardner says Maher believes germs "play no role in our illnesses"? (Actually, Maher believes they do.) The article where Gardner says Maher "denies that the Salk vaccine played any role in the decline of polio!" (Actually, Maher doesn't deny that either.) So we have the date of a comedy show as one "source" and the opinion piece (yes, it IS an opinion piece, in an opinion column he's been writing for more than 20 years now) with a completely different quote as a second "source". Neither source meets WP:BLP policy requirements; the supposed quotes from each don't even match each other -- and neither version of the supposed quote adds anything to the article that isn't already there. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Valerius, I do not see how this quote meets verifiability for any Wikipedia article, much less the higher standard set for BLP. It may not meet the reliable sources standard either. I have no opinion about the quote beyond that. After you get these issues properly resolved, I may be able to offer an opinion as to whether or not it should go in the article. I make no promises either way. I'm not even evaluating the content at this point, because it just doesn't matter. You have to clear up these issues to the satisfaction of the editors here. If you can't do that, you need to either back off or get mediation. For now, the quote *MUST* stay out. Henrymrx (t·c) 05:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Henrymrx. You are forgetting that other editors are involved here, too - please do not repeatedly insert contentious material into the article before consensus is reached, on all outstanding issues. Sourcing is just one issue: You say transcripts and videos are available online, yet you avoid providing a link to support your incomplete excerpt. Podcasts? Not for that episode, or any of the 2005 shows. The "snippet" you provide here is coincidently the same incomplete portion that has been circulating through the blogs. Your best option would be to find a reliable secondary source that conveys the actual transcript. CSI's newsletter-journal called the "Skeptical Inquirer", while an interesting magazine, does not have journalistic editorial oversight of its content, and disclaims such responsibility. "Articles, reports, reviews and letters published in the Skeptical Inquirer represent the views and work of individual authors." Their instructions to their authors include the reminder that they (the authors) "are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective." It is not a reliable source for factual content, and an opinion piece from said publication even less so. It is also troubling that the supposed excerpt you claim is from a transcript does not match the excerpt Gardner claims Maher said. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the quote is poorly sourced. Its source is clear & verifiable & there is no requirement for an editor to provide an Internet link for a source. If I quote a book, for example, I need not find the book online for another editor's instant verification. I know the quote (and above partial transcript) are accurate because I have the show on tape. It is in the public domain as a published book would be. If you think it is inaccurate, then YOU provide me with the correct transcript (or partial transcript) showing that to be the case.

For good measure, I will add a third source: Mollie Zeigler Hemingway's “Look Who's Irrational Now” from the The Wall Street Journal (Friday, 19 September 2008). This one does have a link:

But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O'Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman -- a quintuple bypass survivor -- to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn't accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: "I don't believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory." He has told CNN's Larry King that he won't take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn't even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.

(Note: it is actually an opinion piece in the "Opinion Journal", and not a reliable source for factual content; source here. -X)

Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you have prematurely re-inserted contested content before addressing the issues expressed above. I have removed it, pending the resolution of those issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Valerius, adding another source that's also an editorial does not fix the problem. Furthermore, it is up to you to provide the correct, verifiable transcript for the citation. It's not Xenophrenic's job to do your work for you. You're the one who wants to add the quote. You have to do the legwork. Henrymrx (t·c) 06:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Show me the Wiki-policy that says an "editorial" in a publication like the Wall Street Journal cannot be used as a source. I disagree that the first source (Gardner) is an "editorial" (although even if it were, it would be still a good source...) I disagree with Xenophrenic's contention (above) that Skeptical Inquirer is not a valid source. It is a fine & reliable publication & the disclaimers Xenophrenic cites are mere boilerplate that many publications use... So what?. I disagree that there is a requirement that I provide a link to a "correct, verifiable transcript" of the Maher show. The accuracy of the quote is not in question. Even Xenophrenic admitted that much (several days ago). Show me the Wiki-policy that says I must provide an online, linkable transcript in order to cite a quote from a television broadcast when there are published sources (or even when there are not...). The real issue here is not whether the Maher quote is accurate: several published sources & even more blogs quote it at length.... Maher has not denied it & has even quoted it himself in his efforts to distance himself from it... The real issue is that Xenophrenic (alone, apparently) is adament that this quote must not be inserted on the basis of the quote itself, not its sourcing.... I will not speculate as to why he is so zealous about this.

I am not trying to be unpleasant, I am not trying to be disruptive, but at this point I still don't see any reason for me to not replace the quote. If the reason why not is the "sourcing", I think we are past that & I would simply refer to the two published sources I give... I will, however, cease & desist for another reason: if a few good-faith editors (say, half a dozen) carefully review the quote itself -- not some bogus claim that it is "not verifiable" -- and for whatever reason relating to the content of the quote deem it unfit for inclusion. Then I will clearly be outvoted & will have to relent, regardless of what I think are the merits of my arguments... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you have prematurely re-inserted contested content before addressing the issues expressed above. I have removed it, pending the resolution of those issues. The policy is WP:BLP. If you are still unclear as to why the content addition is contested, please ask for clarification instead of edit warring. "...but at this point I still don't see any reason for me to not replace the quote" - Here is the reason: because a number of objections have been made, and the discussion has not concluded. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (wow, you guys can type)

@Tygart, I have a question - What does the quote you are trying to insert add to the article? Maher's position on vaccines is already pretty clear, what are you hoping to add? Padillah (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the question about what exactly the quote adds to the article: This has been hashed & rehashed between Xenophrenic & myself, but I perfectly understand that it is difficult to fish out anything from the huge mess above… Let me try & encapsulate: I don’t agree that Maher’s rationale for opposing vaccines is all that clear. He has been self-contradictory. Often he has said he is “against vaccination” in a blanket way. More recently, he has said he is not opposed to ALL vaccines, just some of them. (He has said the diphtheria and malaria vaccines are OK. There is actually no malaria vaccine available.) He has said that his anti-vaccine attitude derives from his belief that Americans are being “poisoned” by bad food & “toxins”, and that if we fixed that problem, vaccines would be unnecessary. That is really a pretty vague platform for opposing, for example, the current flu vaccine program. The quote in question gives a clear indication of how fundamentally Maher questions what he repeatedly has labeled “modern western medicine”. It gives a very clear and vivid example, with specific detail, of his basic skepticism about the modern biomedical model, at least so far as infections and vaccines are concerned... As Xenophrenic has repeatedly (& correctly) pointed out, Maher has never actually said that he was “wrong” to say what he did or that he made a mistake. Technically, it must be admitted that he has never actually “renounced” or “recanted” the statement. He has distanced himself from it with “clarifications” such as that “I’m not a Germ Theory denier” (something that is in the article now, without the quote that would explain why anyone would think that he is… ) and “I don’t care what Pasteur said on his death bed”. Thus, the statement still stands as a statement of his actual opinions until such time as he retracts it… To me, the quote cuts straight through to what Maher actually thinks in a way that nothing else I have seen does…. (Notice that my edit does not editorialize to the effect that Maher meant to deny the “Germ Theory” in 2005. It is very clear to me that he did mean that, but Xenophrenic objects to it, so God forbid….. Let the reader decide.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has again misrepresented my position and what I have said. To clarify, what I have "repeatedly (& correctly) pointed out" is that Maher hasn't contradicted himself. Tygart believes Maher "has been self-contradictory", and I disagree. I have looked at Tygart's examples of supposed "contradictions", in the full context of the discussions from which Tygart has extracted them, and found them not contradictory at all. Yes, Maher is (in a 'blanket' and general way) against vaccinations, yet he does acknowledge specific situations where the benefit of their use outweighs what he views as the costs of their use — and he has for years. In the battle against disease, Maher thinks we focus far too much on vaccinations instead of the condition and health of our (terrain) bodies — i.e., nutrition, exercise, lifestyle, pollution, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so how does the inclusion of this specific quote fit into that argument? Or, what are your arguments for not including this specific quote? Padillah (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The 5 year old quote being discussed is not from an interview of NIH head Healy, as Tygart has inserted, but from Maher's comedy talk show where he is having a roundtable discussion with several guests - most of them comedians. The topic of the discussion was food and nutrition, or more specifically Maher's "terrain" belief that, "it is a diet of chemicals, preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, preservatives, dead nutrients, that is mainly responsible for the fact that this country has such a staggering health care bill." The actual quote is in response to guest Janet Reno mentioning a need for vaccines. Maher reiterates his opposition to vaccines, and again expresses his belief that it is a flawed approach to focus on vaccinating against germs instead of properly maintaining the body (terrain). Granted, he used a Pasteur vs Bechamp deathbed story (Note: I thought Maher totally made it up, but Tygart informs me there is actually a myth circulating to that effect.) to illustrate his point, but his point is clear nonetheless. If there is any doubt, just seconds after the deathbed quote, Maher continues to push his point in an exchange with Dr. Healy, insisting that the more significant cause of sickness is poor nutrition, pollution and toxins, etc. - if the unsourced "transcript" above is even close to accurate.

While there are reasonable criticisms to be made about Maher's positions (and many have been made), there is also a small group of fringe critics that have attempted to go even further and paint Maher as a blithering idiot. They have pulled short quotes like this one and used them to that end. Even after Maher has addressed these critics in more detail, some still wave their "gotcha quotes" while they criticize. That's fine for their blogs and opinion articles (Tygart's 'sources', by the way), but not appropriate for Wikipedia BLPs. As for this particular quote that Tygart says Maher never renounced or recanted — Maher did even better than that:

While we're on the subject of bacteria, let me say clearly I understand germ theory also -- I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters -- nor have I ever said I was a "germ theory denier." What I've been saying is that Western medicine ignores too much the fact that the terrain in which bacteria can thrive is crucial and often controllable, which shouldn't even be controversial. I don't care what Louis Pasteur said on his death bed -- it was probably, "Either the curtains go or I do" -- that's not the point!

The fringe critics would like to interpret it as a point, and Tygart would like their incorrect interpretations inserted into this BLP. They are citing this 'deathbed' quote and trying to use it to portray Maher as a wacky germ theory denier. He doesn't understand vaccination. He's parroting the loony anti-vaccine nuts! He's a menace to society! He has turned millions of fans against their gods, and now he's turning them against their doctors! To answer your question, Padillah, the strongest (but not the only) argument for not including the quote in the section of the biography that purportedly describes Maher's points of view is: that's not the point. If Maher says "this is my view point", and a critic says, "No - I think this is really your view - just look at this 5 year old quote from your comedy show!" ... which should be in the "views" section of the BLP? There is plenty to criticize about the opinions Maher actually does hold, without trying to ascribe other opinions to him that he has already called "absurd". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what Xenophrenic says, it should be self evident to anyone that checks into it carefully that Maher has indeed been “self-contradictory”. The point was recently made well by another editor on X's own talk page. In addition to the inconsistency, Maher’s proposal that (many) vaccines be replaced by good food and an absence of “toxins” is not really a coherent plan or proposal either. (Mind you, he is telling people “Don’t take that flu vaccine!” and other dubious advice.) The idea that looking at Maher’s statement “in the full context” of transcripts somehow changes the interpretation of them is just plain silly… The “Pasteur quote” in particular stands quite well by itself… Whether Maher was “interviewing” Dr Healy or Janet Reno should not be a sticking point (another of countless ones X throws in along with the kitchen sink…). So, change the edit to say “In a discussion with Janet Reno and NIH administrator Bernadette Healy” for all I care. These are serious and credible people (who challenged Maher on his own show about vaccines), so dismissing the “discussion” as being “most of them comedians” is deceptive. It is true that “Maher thinks we focus far too much on vaccinations” instead of his pet projects of better nutrition and “toxins” (whatever that means). He suggests we replace some vaccines with these measures. But vaccines have been the single most effective public health intervention implemented ever since they were first invented to combat (& eradicate) smallpox. To suggest that we dispense with proven vaccines recommended by world-class experts in official public health programs is just irresponsible…. and stupid. Therefore, we should take Maher seriously on this & not minimize his statements as X does. Therefore we should attempt to understand why he opposes vaccinations as honestly and carefully as we can. Therefore we should include his (unrecanted) Pasteur quote in the article.

As to the “small group of fringe critics” who have disputed Maher on the basis of vaccination science… .Well, they include the aforementioned Healy and Reno as well as Kathleen Sebelius, the current DHHS secretary (on 60 Minutes last month), Howard Dean, Sen. Bill Frist, and those are just the one’s I’ve run across myself… (In addition to Gardner, Hemingway, Dr Gorski and Michael Shermer. And, I would venture to predict, virtually any public health official and almost all primary care and infectious disease physicians in this country!) So, who is on the fringe again? If anyone, it is Maher and other anti-vaccine activists like him.

Finally, X accuses me of making up a false or inaccurate Maher belief and then, after reading Maher’s “clarifications”, saying: "No - I think this is really your view.” But I am doing no such thing. I am simply quoting directly and accurately, in context and without interpretation, remarks he made on national television to senior government officials about a topic of great national importance… Remarks that give important and valuable insight into his thinking and rationale. Wikipedia readers deserve no less. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'd like some time to research this and determine a few things: 1) Is this quote valid. No offense but that seems to be a valid place to start. If that goes away we can stop. 2) If the quote indicates (or illuminates) the contradictions that are proposed as the basis for including it in the article.

This is gonna take a little while so give me some space. I'll do what I can. Padillah (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Tygart's last post above indicates some serious misunderstanding that I'd like to address, but I will do so in a new section below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this seriously, Padillah. We await your insights. In the meantime, if you don't mind, I will invite other editors to contribute.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Pasteur quote" be included in Maher article?

Would the above discussed "Pasteur quote" be a constructive improvement to the Maher article? (Sorry for the massive previous verbiage!!) Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC Responses from outside editors

In a case like this, there are two issues at heart:

1. Is the quote accurate and properly taken in context - did it happen?
2. Is the quote a significant event - what is the meaning and import of it, if any?

I think #1 has been well-established. But #2 is not. We can't interpret the meaning of a talk-show host's utterances in the midst of a parry-and-riposte conversation. Reliable sources can. So I would want to see a reliable source that is calmly, soberly, and seriously analyzing what Maher's Pasteur quote means with regards to his beliefs. Then, we can point to that source to justify that the quote is a meaningful reflection of his opinion. MarkNau (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved editors discuss RfC

You are putting the cart before the horse here. You have not cleared up the sourcing problems with the quote. It CANNOT be added until the sourcing problems are cleared up, regardless of its validity or lack thereof. The question is moot. Why do you not get this? This has been repeatedly pointed out and you refuse to acknowledge it. YOUR SOURCES SUCK! They are UNACCEPTABLE! Refusing to admit it does not change this. They *might* be okay in a different article, but this must conform to BLP. GEEZ! I used to think that Xenophrenic was a little over the top, but now I get it. You just refuse to admit it when you're in the wrong and just keep going. I'm staring to think that you might have mental problems. That's not meant as a personal attack. I think you might actually be in need of help. Like some sort of mental health services. Seriously. I'm trying to assume good faith here and that's the only thing that makes sense. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrymrx, I will ignore the personal smears. No, the sources most definitely don't "suck". They are valid & multiple. All I can do is quote myself from 6 Dec:

I don't agree. Show me the Wiki-policy that says an "editorial" in a publication like the Wall Street Journal cannot be used as a source. I disagree that the first source (Gardner) is an "editorial" (although even if it were, it would be still a good source...) I disagree with Xenophrenic's contention (above) that Skeptical Inquirer is not a valid source. It is a fine & reliable publication & the disclaimers Xenophrenic cites are mere boilerplate that many publications use... So what?. I disagree that there is a requirement that I provide a link to a "correct, verifiable transcript" of the Maher show. The accuracy of the quote is not in question. Even Xenophrenic admitted that much (several days ago)(No, Xenophrenic did not. -X) Show me the Wiki-policy that says I must provide an online, linkable transcript in order to cite a quote from a television broadcast when there are published sources (or even when there are not...). The real issue here is not whether the Maher quote is accurate: several published sources & even more blogs quote it at length.... Maher has not denied it & has even quoted it himself in his efforts to distance himself from it... The real issue is that Xenophrenic (alone, apparently) is adament that this quote must not be inserted on the basis of the quote itself, not its sourcing....

Again, please show me those relevant Wikipolicies (be specific) that would forbid this particular quote, which is multiply referenced. Otherwise, I think we simply disagree about this & will have to let a consensus of editors decide. Cheers, Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Tygart and Henrymrx aren't referring to the same thing? The proposed content has changed several times since it was first introduced and contested. One version stated that Maher is a germ-theory-denier, and doesn't understand microbes, and is "unique" in his views. Another version is hardly more than an alleged portion of a quote from Maher's comedy talk show, with no context or relevance included - presumably inserted to still imply Maher is a germ-theory-denier, without actually saying so. Tygart has cited only two opinion pieces (Hemingway and Gardner) as sources, and they not only convey different quote wording from Tygart's proposed content - these sources even disagree with each other on actual wording of quotes. As previously explained, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for factual content - they can only be used as a source of the originator's opinions. (There can be an exception when the publisher exercises full editorial control over the opinion pieces, which WSJ and SkepInq both clearly disclaim.) No amount of editor consensus can override Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the proposed content has not changed since I asked for discussion back on 16 Nov. (See immediately under this section heading -- Proposal: Insert Maher’s “Pasteur” quote -- above.) The two published sources, as well as the available transcript, contain the same wording, although both published sources insert "[germ]" or "[germ theory]" into the text. These bracketed words are not in the proposed quote.

Please cite (be specific) the "Wikipedia policy" that you think I'm trying to "override". I have looked for it & it does not seem to exist. This is the third time I have asked for this. Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Tygart has cited only two opinion pieces (Hemingway and Gardner) as sources, and they not only convey different quote wording from Tygart's proposed content - these sources even disagree with each other on actual wording of quotes. I.e.; one proposed version of content contains allegedly quoted words found nowhere in the Hemingway opinion piece. As previously explained, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for factual content. You keep referring to an "available transcript", but you fail to provide a citation - except to give the date of a comedy show, and say "I know the quote (and above partial transcript) are accurate because I have the show on tape." You have not met sourcing requirements. (Just FYI - I checked with HBO and the RT w/BM producers, and they don't have this alleged transcript either.)

I have already cited and linked, multiple times, the relevant policies - and I am quite finished. I won't be catering to your requests anymore. Perhaps you should ask someone else to explain your myriad policy violations to you, and you can give your denials to them, instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Set aside

It should be noted that this talk page is becoming a barrier to other editors being involved. What is needed is more input but the nature of the above discussion makes that difficult, especially the practice of breaking up each others comments with replies. While this may be an easy way to answer each other it does nothing to further discussion between the wider community and makes the entire discussion extremely difficult to follow. Weakopedia (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! I don’t like that style of call-&-response either.(personal attacks deleted -X) [Sentence blanked by Xenophrenic] Let me try & summarize: Back on 16 Nov, I became frustrated with Xenophrenic’s repeated reversions of my edit & I asked for discussion & attempted consensus. Since then (with only one brief exception) it has been only he & I going at it. Obviously, I believe the edit is a good one. Xenophrenic has objected to the edit on so many points that it would be hard to count them all: (1) That the quote is not authentic; (2) That inserting the quote somehow represents “original research”; (3) That the quote must be tied to a complete online transcript or be removed; (4) That the quote adds nothing; (5) That an “ellipsis” in the quote ruins it; (6) That the statement has been misinterpreted by the commentator (now two of them) who I referenced along with the original source; (7) That it does not really reveal Maher’s actual opinions; (8) That it does reveal his opinions, but adds nothing new; (9) That he has “clarified” the statement in some way that makes it invalid for inclusion; (10) That the statement is merely a joke; (11) That nobody cares about the statement; (12) That the statement has not caused any controversy (“He’s hardly taken any heat for it”) and so is of no interest; (13) That I am edit warring; (14) That I am a low down dirty dog, (15) etc, etc… Needless to say, I don’t think any of Xenophrenic’s arguments hold water. And I have answered them point by point. Still, we are where we are...

Tracking Maher’s actual opinions & statements on vaccines is complicated and confusing. For good discussions of Maher and his “alternative medicine” outlook by experts, see [here], [here] and [here]. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The above 'summary' misrepresents my objections. Again. For my actual objections to Tygart's various different edits, see above (or his talk page, or DyadTriad's talk page, or my talk page or the AN/I discussion page). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the RfC

• I have to agree with Weakopedia that the discussion here made it hard for people to weigh in on this RfC. Both of you (Xeno and VT) should tone it down and give the talk page some space for other people to become involved. Now that I’m off my soapbox, I would agree with VT that Maher has been inconsistent with his position and I would agree with Xeno that use of primary sources (like transcripts from his show) are ripe for abuse because no one like or segment has any notability in and of itself and can be cherry picked to find controversy where none exists (or where no one has commented on one). However with the Pasteur quote, the WSJ did pick up on it calling him an “advocate for pseudoscience” and based on this I think there is merit it inclusion in some form although the entire quote might be a bit lengthy. On the inconsistencies, while Maher has poo-pooed the H1N1 vaccine, he has also ridiculed religious folks (a favorite target of his) for their objections to the HPV vaccine. While we cannot independently cite this as a contradiction (WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR), its well within our ability to present the information and allow the readers to make their own conclusion. WVBluefield (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, WVB. I checked your links, and I don't see where the WSJ called Maher an "advocate for psuedoscience". I do see the opinion piece by Hemingway wherein she does some name calling of people as she tries to make her case that people become irrational and superstitious once they stop believing in gods, but nothing by the WSJ. Maher's personal aversion to vaccines is already documented in the Wiki-article, but as you have noted, he has been less critical in certain instances involving HPV, Polio and use in third-world usage. Are you suggesting we should include these somewhat pro-vacc views so the readers can make their own conclusions about possible contradictions? How would you phrase (and cite) such a content addition? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The "advocate for psuedoscience" is at the end of the article., don’t split hairs and argue semantics as it only destroys and degrades the tone conversation and turns people into adversaries. I would add Maher’s views on the HPV and add criticisms of his views on vaccines, including the Pasteur quote. I am sure it could be worded neutrally and I found another reliable sources for opinion on this matter. [1].WVBluefield (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The "advocate for psuedoscience" comment is from Hemingway, not the WSJ, and is in an opinion piece. That's like taking an opinion from Olbermann and trying to pass it off as cited to NBC. You have found another "source for opinion" (apparently plagiarized from Hemingway, point for point), but do we have any high-quality reliable sources for factual content about Maher's views in this area? I'm still interested in how you would phrase (and cite) such a content addition. Could you provide suggested wording? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have presented one RS in my first post here and another in an attempt to move this RfC forward, I could care less what happens in this article and have no dog in this fight. What we have are RS’s for Maher’s opinions as well as two second party criticisms of the Pasteur quote, and no shortage of critics of his views on vaccines in general. WVBluefield (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are not reliable sources for Maher's opinions. Those are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors. I was looking for reliable sources for factual content, if some exist. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

Are you talking about a transcript from the show? WVBluefield (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS: says that "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." It does not, however, say that "no Op-ed columns are to be considered reliable sources for statements of fact". A key distinction. Both Hemingway & Gardner state that Maher made the Pasteur remarks and then go on to comment on them. They are reliable sources that he made the remarks and they are reliable sources as their (the authors') opinions. They may not be reliable sources as to the truth or accuracy of their expressed opinions/commentary, but said opinions/commentary are not included in the proposed edit! All this is clear in the proposed quote with references. And all this complies with WP:RS. If Xenophrenic still disagrees, I suggest we have an admin arbitrate.

I am going to start tallying the "votes" on the proposal (with date) at the top of this section (support vs oppose). This is strictly for consensus on including the quote (or not)... Not on its exact form. WVBluefield? May I include you as a "support"? Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am leery about using an Op-Ed for any factual information, cant we just link to the transcripts for the show? Seeing as how Xenophrenic is so intent on non-cooperation here (its not a contest to see who can type the most) and has failed to put together a coherent argument with respect to the RfC you may mark me as a support for now. WVBluefield (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean up on Maher religion section?

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

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

Automatic archiving

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

Maher's stated views versus critic's portrayal of views

This Maher article presently has a section on his views and opinions on various matters, including political issues, religion and health. Following the WP:BLP policy that "We must get the article right", I question the reasoning behind the proposed insertion of this alleged 2005 quote into the views and opinions section:

"That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, and that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamps was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in." -Maher(?)

As an average reader looking for information about Maher's views and opinions on health, this quote leaves me baffled. I recognize the scientist names from biology class, and Maher obviously has an opinion on "terrain" versus invading germs, but what view, exactly, does it illustrate? Turning to the editor proposing its insertion for an explanation:

Notice that my edit does not editorialize to the effect that Maher meant to deny the “Germ Theory” in 2005. It is very clear to me that he did mean that... -Tygart

Maher is perhaps unique among modern public figures in rejecting the germ theory of disease. He believes that microbes play no role in human illnesses; this is the basis of his opposition to vaccines. -Tygart

Seriously? So Maher is a germ theory denier, and believes that microbes play no role in illness? The opinion pieces you cite as sources do try to give that interpretation. However, Maher himself has stated:

...let me say clearly I understand germ theory also -- I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters -- nor have I ever said I was a "germ theory denier." -Maher

I'm reading all this stuff on the internet lately about me and vaccines, and they're just making stuff up about me. What I said was: I don't want to get the flu shot. And I don't. But they have extrapolated this into - somehow - I had to go on my own show Friday night and deny that I don't believe in germ theory! No, I get it, I do believe in germs, I get that germs are bad; germs and viruses cause disease. What I have always said is that western medicine takes into account too little - that it is also the terrain. In other words, yes, germs can make you sick, but you have a better chance of withstanding that if you are in good shape. In other words, the "terrain" - the analogy would be the mosquitoes in a swamp - mosquitoes breed easily if there is a swamp. So if your body is a swamp, the germs breed easier. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in mosquitoes. -Maher

Here we have a conflict. A few of Maher's critics (and Tygart) point to a 5 year old quote and claim it shows Maher is a germ theory denier and doesn't believe germs cause illness. Maher specifically claims otherwise, and even says they are making stuff up about him. As we write this factual biography we must ask ourselves: who knows more about Maher's opinion - Maher, or the few critics citing this obscure 5 year old quote? Maher, obviously.

Quotes in context, or taken stand-alone out of context

I looked for other instances of Maher commenting on Beauchamps (or Beauchamp, or Bechamp ... it changes with each 'source') and deathbed recantations - no luck. That is strange, if this quote supposedly "clearly represents" one of Maher's views, as he frequently repeats his opinions as he moves from appearance to appearance. Lacking other instances of similar statements, let's look at the context in which this one was made.

The idea that looking at Maher’s statement “in the full context” of transcripts somehow changes the interpretation of them is just plain silly… The “Pasteur quote” in particular stands quite well by itself… -Tygart

Don't be silly. Swamps and deathbeds and mosquitoes and Beauchamps will mean little to the average reader trying to discover Maher's opinions on health. A medical biologist might be able to ascertain that Maher thinks it is flawed that we focus more on the germs instead of our terrain (bodies), but not the average reader.

I am simply quoting directly and accurately, in context and without interpretation, remarks he made on national television to senior government officials about a topic of great national importance… Remarks that give important and valuable insight into his thinking and rationale. Wikipedia readers deserve no less. -Tygart

You couldn't possibly give Wikipedia readers any less. A couple broken-word sentences containing a clumsy analogy and a mythological(?) event as he tries to express that he thinks some theory is flawed, or that it is flawed that we go by some theory, could be either. Valuable insight into his thinking? Heh. Not without a lot of synthesis and speculation.

I notice that you frame the quote as being from "an interview of former NIH administrator Bernadine Healy", perhaps to give it an air of credibility or relevance. The quote in question wasn't even in response to Healy. Seriously, it's from his comedy talk show. It's not an interview, it's a roundtable discussion involving several people, before an audience that expects to be entertained. That is what I mean by context. Just look at what you claim is a partial transcript and observe all of the applause, laughter and cheers - and Maher's use of colorful turns of phrase like calling the food industry part of the "axis of evil" and referring to Healy "insultingly" as part of the medical establishment. "Remarks that give important and valuable insight into his thinking and rationale," you say? Wrong. For that, you would need to go to reliable secondary sources that actually cover his thinking and rationale, as directed to by WP:BLP.

Whether Maher was “interviewing” Dr Healy or Janet Reno should not be a sticking point (another of countless ones X throws in along with the kitchen sink…). So, change the edit to say “In a discussion with Janet Reno and NIH administrator Bernadette Healy” for all I care.

We could say, "On a comedy talk show with Whoopi Goldberg and Dave Foley", and be more accurate, but you still miss the "sticking point" - the partial quote you are citing to ranting opinion pieces adds nothing to the Maher BLP article.

Misrepresentation

As to the “small group of fringe critics” who have disputed Maher on the basis of vaccination science… -Tygart

STOP Tygart, you just totally misrepresented what I said. I do not appreciate you portraying me as having said the opposite of what I really said. I did not include those that dispute Maher on vaccinations among the fringe critics. Here is what I said:

While there are reasonable criticisms to be made about Maher's positions (and many have been made), there is also a small group of fringe critics that have attempted to go even further and paint Maher as a blithering idiot. They have pulled short quotes like this one and used them to that end. -Xenophrenic

Please do not distort my comments, Tygart.

Finally, X accuses me of making up a false or inaccurate Maher belief and then, after reading Maher’s “clarifications”, saying: "No - I think this is really your view.” But I am doing no such thing. -Tygart

STOP Tygart, you just totally misrepresented what I said. I do not appreciate you claiming that my words about a particular Maher critic were instead about you. Here is what I actually said:

If Maher says "this is my view point", and a critic says, "No - I think this is really your view - just look at this 5 year old quote from your comedy show!" ... which should be in the "views" section of the BLP? -Xenophrenic

Xenophrenic (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)