Talk:Moonbat

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2004-07-30. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

Cute for the Parallell Dictionary of Neologisms

Sites that examplify "Moonbat"

I took them off because its POV.

good! Wjbean 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of 'Moonbat'

Why was Eric Margolis - a moderate conservative - described as a moonbat in some warblogs? Does "moonbat" now mean "non-Islamophobe?" - GCarty 14:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding that the definition, by usage, is rather fluid. Lately the term seems to apply to anyone who does not readily agree with the current White House or to anyone who disagrees with or criticizes G.W. Bush. Wjbean 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really worthy of an article?

A praze used by some right-wing bloggers. Is this really worthy of an encycopedia entry. Non-notable me thinks.--JK the unwise 13:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I came to wikipedia specifically to get some insight into this term. I'm glad the page is here. -- G.G.Salt, 10 Aug 2005

Yes, so did I. I'm glad there was an article explaining what it is. Joffeloff 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with G.G.Salt. I was recently introduced to George Monbiat's positions through The Age of Consent and I found this entry informative after reading the main George Monbiat entry in Wikipedia. Mundek 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is showing up all over the place. I've seen it in blogs, forums, and political cartoons where participants or targets, in the case of cartoons, have been called Moonbat. I thought the word was simply an insult for any left leaner. Without this article I would not have known Monbiat was the initial target or that a Libertarian publication had coined the term. Wjbean 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A praze used by some right-wing bloggers. Is this really worthy of an encycopedia entry. Non-notable me thinks.-"

I'm surprised how few people seem to understand what an encyclopedia is - if it is referenced elsewhere, and not axiomatic and only internally understood, it is worthy of an entry in both a dictionary and an encyclopedia, especially one that seems to want to be an all inclusive, non-specific encyclopedia such as this. Certainly it should be presented without a POV when presented, but certainly NOT feeling it worthy of inclusion is a POV as well.

Unclear definition

"Someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency."

It looks like you can call anyone making a logically consistent argument moonbat; because when sanity is not defined by the ability of logical reasoning it is in the eye of the beholder.R.H. 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prehaps the insainity lies in accepting the outcome of ones argument no matter how zany rather then rejecting ones premesis. Thus Moonbats are those that accept the full concequences of their political views even if that makes them raving revolutionaries. The article seem to imply that it would be better to be inconsistant. On another note prehaps I'm just a bit to extreme myself but I don't think George Monbiot is particulary extreme.--JK the unwise 15:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Unclear definition" is beside the point. The article describes the genesis and evolution of the term. There are several articles in Wikipedia with unclear and often conflicting definitions. However, the content in this article has value; possibly not to some, but it held value for me when I came looking for it. 138.145.211.130 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what he means is someone who is "consistent" ie does or says the same thing over and over , even though repeating that thing is illogical or even insane.Xerex 01:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Coining of Phrase "Moonbat"

Was this really coined only in 2002? I thought the phrase "moonbat" had been in use for quite some time previously. I know the first time I saw it on a website, discoverthenetwork.org, I immediately knew what a "moonbat" was, and seemed familiar with it previously. So it might not have originated on the web.

It certainly did not originate on the web. It appeared as the name of a space ship in Robert Heinlein's short story "Space Jockey," first published in 1947, paired with a ship called the Gremlin. The pairing of these names suggests that they are both fantastic creatures that were more-or-less well known, though I can't be sure (another pair of ships were called the Flying Dutchman and the Philip Nolan, named after a ship and a person who can never return home, respectively, suggesting a thematic naming scheme). Of course, none of this bears on the term's usage as a political epithet. --Ruds 11:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in use before 2002. It took me about a minute on Google Groups to find it used in the same context - by noted right-wing columnist Jonah Goldberg no less - back in 1999. I'm sure there are earlier examples if anyone feels like digging. All this talk of having coined the phrase is really little more than a blogger stroking his own ego. --User:PerrydAviland

No, that link is not the same context or usage. Please provide a better link and stop removing material until you have. -- JJay 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, it's there in black and white. If you don't like my edits, please rewrite the article to show that the use of the term by deHavilland as an insult toward Monbiot was all he deHavilland 'coined'. I'm sorry we're going round in circles, but we shouldn't be using Wikipedia to bolster a blog's pagerank or a blogger's notoriety by publishing easily falsifiable LIES. --User:PerrydAviland

Again, the usage and context is not the same. Please provide some real evidence. -- JJay 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg's usage is in the context of 'crazy politics'. That is the same context as deHavilland's usage. Is something so plainly obvious really worth starting a flame war over? Why exactly does the term need to have been coined by him, anyway?

--User:PerrydAviland

That is your interpretation. It is not how I see the context. It is also not the general thinking on blogs that have discussed the issue. Furthermore, if you want to talk about "flame wars", we might discuss your removal of material with no other explanation than baseless accusations regarding page rank, egos, and "lying". The similarity between your user name and the Samizdata blogger is also quite intriguing. Please stop the trolling. -- JJay 16:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Goldberg link stays in, I will go away. All I want to see is the truth. I ask again, why does it matter so much that this person coined the phrase? Why shouldn't Goldberg get some credit? --User:PerrydAviland

...Because the Goldberg link does not prove anything. Provide a source that "credits" Goldberg and he will get the "credit". -- JJay 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article archived in Google Groups has a Jonah Goldberg byline, which implies to me that it was he who put pen to paper. You may disagree about the precise context, but please the link in and let people decide for themselves. It may even encourage others to keep digging. --User:PerrydAviland

See WP:OR. Again, I reiterate, the Goldberg article does not use the word in the same way or context. That you disagree is fine. It is not enough to remove material or insist that the link remain. Samizdata gets the "credit" because there are sources that make the claim- not you or me, but reputable third parties. -- JJay 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same article is available at National Review Online, the link could be changed to point there if you like. But if someone's claim to fame is so precious as to warrant removal of the link, then so be it, I give up, wash it all down the memory hole and forget the whole thing. This episode has truly been an education in how 'freedom of speech' works round here. Goodbye! --User:PerrydAviland

I have a funny feeling our (trollish?) friend here might be on to something. If you search the National Review for 'moonbat' or 'moon bat' you'll find Jonah Goldberg using the phrase 'higher than a moonbat' a hell of a lot prior to 2002. This article nails it for me, including as it does the sentence "...many anti-state conservatives and libertarians think you’d have to be higher than a moon bat to support even the theoretical idea of a government-run TV network." - which is very, very close to (if not the same as) the usage of the phrase as discussed here. Perhaps there should be a paragraph about this in the article? --This Is Interesting 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound closer to the present usage. If you feel up to it, add the information with your reference. --JJay 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal article contradiction

Why do the first and second paragraphs directly contradict each other? The first paragraph states it was originally used to describe a left-wing commentator, and the second states it was originally coined to describe commentators on the *right*.

Most of this article, in fact, is somewhat confusing as to who "tends to be" called a moonbat more often, left or right. I suggest all of the "tendency" speculation be removed entirely, but I don't know enough about the issue to do it myself... Kimpire

Examples

I'm going to remove the line about "US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices." Hoping this doesn't make me sound like a moonbat, but there is some strong evidence to support motives related to oil. I'm not a political analyst or an extremist, but I don't think that's a safe comparison to make. Kimos May 15/2006