Talk:Moonbat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comment[edit]

Cute for the Parallell Dictionary of Neologisms

Sites that examplify "Moonbat"[edit]

I took them off because its POV.

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

Definition of 'Moonbat'[edit]

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]

A northern Irish seperatist with a idiosyncratic approach to getting things done. E.g. That Brian Guiney lad is a right moonbat!

Is this really worthy of an article?[edit]

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 glad it's here too, however I think there are flaws and cleverly couched POV bias in the way the definition is worded. For example, the very first sentence inaccurately describes Noam Chomsky as a "far left" moonbat. Chomsky certainly is liberal or left leaning in his views, but it's very easy to argue he is not "far left" or a "moonbat" as described here. "Far left" would be an anarchist, or Marxist Communist, not an established MIT academic who has written numerous thoroughly researched publications on linguistics and the Middle East. One gets the familiar feeling that persons with biased POV leanings wrote this definition-and made a point of taking an underhanded swipe at Chomsky here. For that matter the entire definition as laid out here has a POV conservative lean to it, which significantly weakens it's encyclopedic integrity. Notice the last sentence in the first paragraph makes a meagre half-hearted attempt at editorial balance by saying a "moonbat" could mean somebody "anywhere on the political spectrum", then mentions the rather obscure Pat Buchanan-and of course deliberately leaves out far more nutty and famous neo-con moonbats such as Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin. If there ever was a right wing/conservative moonbat who is perfect for this term, if you asked 10 people on the street in the USA Coulter would certainly take the cake...not Buchanan. Of course, no mention of Coulter here though. Definitely lots of need to thoroughly re-write this entire definition, methinks. Zamboni driver 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think to say that Chomsky is "liberal or left leaning in his views" is more than a bit of an understatement. Chomsky "describes himself as a libertarian socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism" (See Chomsky's Wiki entry for citation)
Are you implying that Buchanan is more obscure than Chomsky? I never even heard of Chomsky until I read about him on DU. As a "neo-con" myself, I would classify Buchanan as a moonbat, but not Coulter. She is simply "swiftboating" the left, ie., exposing the truth. Crockspot 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Coulter is not a moonbat. If you need a label other than the more accurate five letter word that starts with a "B" and is preceded by the word Nazi, she is a rightwingnut. And that is an understatement. And while we are on the topic of pejorative labeling of others, shouldn't your handle more accurately be "Crackpot" not Crockspot?Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2012 (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.

I found it helpful when I was trying to understand where it came from. I would like to see it kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuibguy (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term has nothing to do with Monbiot. If you think otherwise, please provide references to back up your claims. The person who coined the term, Perry de Havilland, as a descriptor of those holding the absurd extreme of whatever ism they belong to (thus it does not merely apply to the loony left, but also to absolutist anarcho-capitalist libertarians, similarly nutty conservatives, etc), did so long before he had even heard of Monbiot, or that Monbiot was anybody worth coining a term about. Adriana Cronyn defines it as someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency. See: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/glossary_archives/2002/09/barking_moonbat.html 71.95.151.21 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear definition[edit]

"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]

I'm going to remove the reference to Eric Raymond and the associated citation to http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact as Raymond's use of the term obviously has no political connotation and only further muddies this article. If someone wants to create another entry for moonbat, defining it in the sense that Raymond uses it, great. 24.219.173.93 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Coining of Phrase "Moonbat"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Howie Carr usage[edit]

I added a reference to Howie Carr for usage. He's been using it every day on his radio show, and in many of his Boston Herald columns. I don't have a way to source the on the air comments (I hear him use it every day), but for the Herald reference, I linked to a Herald database query using "moonbat" as the search parameter, which spits out quite a few columns by Carr. Crockspot 12:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a further definition of the term by Carr on his show on 2006-09-28. I added it in. As soon as an audio archive is available for that date from WRKO, I will post a link reference. Should only be a couple of days. Crockspot 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Howie Carr references as unverifiable since "only a couple of days" has more than elapsed. Furthermore, I deleted the former item #5 (reference to the Boston Herald search archives) under "Notes" as unverifiable as the site referenced required registration and payment in order to access. 24.219.173.93 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its current usage is solely as a political epithet. Since the 'list of political epithets' entry has been deleted, it doesn't seem reasonable to keep references to the term 'moonbat's use as a political epithet. Please see the discussion of 'Friedman Unit'. I suggest that Howie Carr's use of the term be merged into the 'Howie Carr' entry and deleted from the 'moonbat' entry. 24.219.173.93 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbat example[edit]

If you are okay with a person searching Wikipedia for the term'Moonbat' and being told'Word not found'...you might be a Moonbat.-Czarmangis

Organization and POV[edit]

The phrase stating explicitly, "that was not the original intention," is mildly POV because it implies that the "original intention" was better than the current one. Better to make it "original usage" or something similar.

All information about the history of the term ought to go in a second paragraph, after a brief introduction to the term that should include a generalized defintion of modern usage. Currently historical inofrmation is spread across all but the last paragraph.

Some of the definitions and usage statements are superfluous. The definition by Adriana Cronin-Lukas is cute but not useful. The three statements about de Havilland ought to be together.

The last two paragraphs are unclear and should be rearranged if not completely paraphrased.

The mention of ad hominem in the "See also" section has no business there. "Moonbat" is a perjorative. In all uses I have ever seen, it has never been used to reply to an argument or assertion, as the ad hominem article directly states. It is a simple insult that one uses to refer to a person, just like most other political epithets (see here).

There is no reason to associate the term moonbat with the term ad hominem, except to disparage its use. Yes, it is "against the person" but it is not a reply to anything.

Nescalona 01:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is often used as a reply. Very typical blog exchange is someone leaves a comment on a blog explaining some glaring right wing inconsistency and the next comment by a right wing fanboy says "Another moonbat posting ..." and a disparaging remark. (e.g. "did they leave the asylum open tonight") And thats it. By hurling this pejorative against his opponent the right wing fanboy specifically expresses that no other response to the comment is warranted, and so the smear definitely takes the place of a reply. Wefa 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a citation for this? By which I mean, a reliable source noting that the term's used in this way in general? Because we're going to get someone disagreeing with you and reverting your changes, and prolly sooner rather than later. Perhaps a re-phrasing of what you've writ might be wise? Sorry to be anal about this, but better me than someone with an axe to grind, nyet? Drjon 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I doubt blog comment sections a citeable - they expire too fast. But try it yourself - go to any of the usual suspects (free republic, little green footballs, redstate, malkin, you name it) and leave a comment debunking the usual nonsense held dear there. And wait for the responses (in case your posting and account survive long enough) Wefa 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least in practise, unless the 'blog in question is an authorative one, it's prolly not a good citation. If it *is* an authorative one, it'll have citations of its own which can be used instead. And I'm afraid I've got too much on my plate at present to help, sorry. Keep in mind that what you prolly need here isn't an example of the practise, but an example of the point you're making being analyzed and demonstrated, for instance in a paper analyzing semantic content of 'blogs. Drjon 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbat might refer to a crazy person e.g. 'that Murielle is a right moonbat'

Self-contradictory article[edit]

"Moonbat is a political epithet coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata.net a libertarian weblog. It was originally used as a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian."

versus

"De Havilland says it was not originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian"

Along the same lines: Several parts of the article (esp. paragraphs 2 and 6, as of Nov. 6, 2006) seem to overlap. --Ibn Battuta 18:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology Count[edit]

Three!

Origins of the term: Sun Myung Moon[edit]

All of this is completely inaccurate, the term moonbat relates to Sun Myung Moon and the readers/followers of his far right outlets, specifically The Washington Times and the Unification Church.

Of course, the fact that reality is contnuously ignored on wikipedia doesn't surprise me at all, which is why it has become little more than a partisan battleground full of mudslinging and organized consensus on misinformation to further specific beliefs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.214.1 (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Moonbat does not appear to be related to moonie. The sentences alluding to this have been removed, since this is unsupported by any context or sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.196.188 (talk • contribs)

I have been using the term moonbat for several years, and this is the first time I have ever heard of any origins related to Moon. There are no sources to back up this claim either, so I am assuming it is a hoax or a fantasy. Crockspot 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some shuffling[edit]

I did some copyediting to improve the flow. Basically just took what was already in the article and shuffled it all around so that it makes more sense. I did some cite formatting too, still need to reformat a couple. I think it's much better now. I'm tired, I'll come back for another pass later. Crockspot 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. Fixed. Now it reads like an encyclopedic article. All text that didn't meet POV and RS requirements was justifiably excised. Blogs, radio shows, and published sources without fact-checking aren't good sources for encyclopedia articles. 71.100.230.32 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I reverted you. You blew away eight sources, only some of which is of questionable quality. You wouldn't be attempting to prep this article for AfD, would you? - Crockspot 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues[edit]

I want to run through the blog sources one by one, because I think there are some issues overall.

  1. historybuff.com - I think this one can be considered reliable. The author is the founder of a newspaper collector's society, and he has access to primary sources. He has also written prolifically on his website. I'm still checking to see if he has anything published in print, but I think he can be considered a somewhat notable expert historian.
  2. BMEWS - Is there any reliable source crediting this blog with popularizing the term? While it's interesting, and I don't mind it being in the article, it probably doesn't meet WP:RS. Perhaps if it was just shown as an example of use, rather than making the claim that it popularized it, it would be less problematic. (see next point)
  3. The three blog examples added at the end. Again, I personally don't mind them, because they are just showing examples of use, and not supporting a claim. But under strict interpretation of the rules, someone else might remove them.

We're better off looking for more RS sources of usage, like published columnists. - Crockspot 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "Some right-leaning users of the term..." is very unencyclopedic and begs for citation. Anyone can make any claim about anything and say that 'some [unidentified] people' believe it. In addition, it doesn't add anything to the article that the 'definition' in the first paragraph doesn't already address. - 24.219.173.93 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this page is just terrible. The citation to Safire's article leads to an International Herald Tribune page with no article on it, the Jonah Goldberg citation leads to an imaginary conversation in which Goldberg apparently has Bill Clinton using the phrase "high as a moonbat", and the Allen Kelly citation references a blog, which clearly doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. None of these are encyclopedic. I'm deleting them. 24.219.173.93 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were too hasty in your deletions. The Safire citation was and is perfectly fine, the link goes to a reprint of his NY Times column about language on the IHT web site. I've reinstated this information, which I think was just about the only useful piece of information in the article. I'm agnostic as to whether the Goldberg or Kelly stuff should be there and thus did not reinstate it. However with the recent deletions the article looks fairly ridiculous now (and it was hardly stellar before), as the only example of "current use" is a Boston newspaper columnist using the term in reference to the state's governor. More examples of "current use" probably need to be added in, or better yet the history of use section could be expanded.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added in quite a few more Herald uses from two other columnists, all from 2007 columns. There are a LOT more recent reliable sources (news columns) as well. Use of the term is going more mainstream all the time. I'll add them in as I have time. Crockspot 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also something worth mentioning (I should make up a template for this, since I have to repeat it on so many article talk pages). A proper citation, particularly of a newspaper, does not require a url. As long as there is enough publication info to look the article up at a library reference desk, it's a valid cite. Courtesy links to full free articles are great when they are available, but if they go dead, simply remove the URL, not the entire citation. Links to abstracts or pay-per-view opportunites to purchase the article are also acceptable. Most holders of a library card can access these articles for free through their library, either online or in person. - Crockspot 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbats in 1835? Probs not[edit]

I have deleted the following from the section explaining the History of Use:

The first documented use of the term was in a newspaper hoax perpetrated by the New York Sun in 1835, claiming that a British scientist, Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell, using a new fangled type of telescope, the "Batscope", had discovered a race of bat-type creatures living on the moon.[1]

You'll see some of the problems with these claims if you actually follow the link to the article on the History Buff web page which this passage cites (it seems no one has checked out this source before). The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 is well known and wikipedia has an article about it. But the astronomer in question who supposedly looked at the moon was not Bernard Lovell (he was born in 1913) but rather Sir John Herschel (who was actually alive in 1835). The hoax was quite a big deal, but the article at History Buff makes no mention of "moonbats." Part of the hoax was to say that there were, as the cited web site puts it, "furry, winged men resembling bats" on the moon but History Buff suggests they were called "man-bats" rather than moonbats.

I think the original article series from the New York Sun that created the whole moon hoax story is online somewhere so someone who cares could take a look at it and see if the phrase "moonbats" appears somewhere. If so the above sentence could be reinstated, but obviously with reference to Herschel as the astronomer rather than Lovell. My guess though is that there is no such reference. The original sentence mentions the "batscope" which sounds ridiculous to me and which has nothing to do with Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell, Sir John Herschel, or the Great Moon Hoax as far as I know.

Safire's column is much more informative on the term "moonbats." He does date the earliest reference to Heinlein (and he apparently spent some time trying to figure out the etymology) so I think we should keep it at that and maybe even expand the History of Use section with some more info from the Safire piece.

Actually, to be honest, I think this whole article is still somewhat worthy of deletion but won't bring that up in a formal fashion. And incidentally, wherever the term came from, it does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary.--Bigtimepeace 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the text of the Sun articles: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. You are correct, the word moonbat, or moon bat, does not appear in them. - Crockspot 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the term "moonbat" is meant to evoke something (or someone, in this case) radical, out-of-touch, fantastical or fantastically-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if the origins of the term actually did date back to the moon hoax, or rather to someone more recent thinking the hoax was especially funny and integrating it into his or her personal vocabulary. But there's no evidence. I think this could be integrated into the article as a possible theory, but... well, that would require someone having written about it, wouldn't it? WP is not for theorizing. So I think we've got pretty good coverage of WP-worthy info here. 71.246.90.113 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution to Instapundit[edit]

here's a reliable source that attributes popularizing the term moonbat to Instapundit. - Crockspot 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source leads[edit]

I've recently discovered that Google News has a new archive search. It's pretty useful, and I've pulled up articles on some subjects that were more than 200 years old. Often you only get an abstract, but it is enough to write a good cite. I searched for "moonbat", and every hit before 2003 was in reference to an unrelated footrace. (Obviously it isn't perfect, because it missed some of the earlier sources that have already been documented.) But here are links to the searches that did yield good results (by year).

Crockspot 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be longer[edit]

Could someone lengthen the article (and maybe shorten the references? The reference section is almost as long as the article)? Purple Is Pretty 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the first sentence.[edit]

The first sentence in the entry reads: "Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left. "Wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as the analogous epithet aimed at extremists on the political right.[1]"

The highlighted texts indicate an apparent bias on the author's part. People on the left of the political spectrum are described as liberal or on the left, while those on the right are identified by the pejorative term "extremists". Does this mean that one can only be an extremist if one's views are conservative, or to the right of the political spectrum of opinion? Left-wing or liberal politicians cannot be extremists?

I also find the grammar to be a bit dodgy in places.

I suggest changing this sentence to read: Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy")is a term often used in U.S. political discourse as a pejorative epithet referring to anyone regarded as being liberal or on the left. Likewise, "wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as an analogous epithet for referring to anyone regarded as being conservative or on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.206.168 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safire's misunderstanding of Heinlein's Moonbat[edit]

This is probably very pedantic and nitpicky, but the Moonbat as described in Heinlein's 'Space Jockey' was not the third stage of a single rocket, but was rather a spacecraft in its own right. Safire appears to have misinterpreted what Heinlein wrote, which was that the Moonbat carried out the third step of the Earth-moon journey, from a space station orbiting the moon to the lunar surface (the first two steps being from Earth's surface to a station in earth orbit in one ship, then from the Earth station to the lunar station in another). Perhaps the current text: as the name of the third stage of a rocket bound for the moon, should be replaced by something like: as the name of a spacecraft used to travel between a lunar space station and the moon's surface. 82.4.213.71 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what any of this has t do with the usage of the term that is the subject of this article escapes me. There is no similar discussion of the mechanical fastener on the wingnut (political term) page. Wschart (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did admit I was being pedantic and nitpicky, didn't I? I would also argue that the origin of the word wingnut is not discussed on the corresponding page precisely because it is a familiar term used for an everyday physical object. The term moonbat, on the other hand, is a neologism that does not refer to a real creature, and it is therefore worth examining the term's origins.82.14.89.77 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

This article states: "One explanation for the current political use is that the term was derived from the name of liberal English author and activist George Monbiot." This appears to be obscure in the extreme - why would a term in the U.S. refer to some unknown Brit? Where's the reference for this? It certainly doesn't come from the only reference cited in the paragraph - indeed, that reference does mention the Heinlein story and also the bat-like XP-67 experimental pursuit plane (not bomber as the original NYT story mistakenly identifies it) which isn't even mentioned in this wiki piece. Suspect this is another attempt to wrangle in a UK connection into every wiki article - surprised this whole thing hasn't been re-written in UK English because this clearly is UK-based content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This claim has been repeatedly reinstated; I just removed it again, as it's entirely unsourced. It seems some people have mistakenly got the idea that George Monbiot was the inspiration of the term, but there's no source that makes that claim; the only source that mentions him, samizdata, does so specifically to deny any connection: [7] Robofish (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Usage?[edit]

The cartoon strip "This Modern World" by leftist cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has a pair of characters -- one of whom is a would-be Sherlock Holmes named "Conservative Jones". The other is his Watson-like sidekick . . . Moonbat McWacky. The usual pattern of strips when these two appear is that Conservative, who is dressed as a detective, asks Moonbat questions about politics. Moonbat gives reasonable answers, which Conservative turns into illogical statements about liberals. So this would seem to be a "counter-usage" of the term as it is defined here. [jalp] 209.172.14.154 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moonbat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moonbat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Moonbeam[edit]

May be connected to "governor moonbeam", an unflattering nickname of Jerry Brown Jr. as governor of California... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

Greetings, all. The current definition of the term in the article is as follows: " a pejorative political epithet used in United States politics, referring to liberals, progressives, or leftists (especially the far-left)." In the text itself, though, an example cited of the term's usage shows that "moonbat" is also used for conservative commentators such as Jonah Goldberg. I'd suggest we need both stronger sourcing and a more nuanced definition. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moonbat&oldid=1209153590"