Talk:Real Time with Bill Maher

message: Bill Maher really isn't an Atheist, or at least hasn't said so. He is clearly against religion, but has never stated he is against the idea of God. In fact he said on an interview on Scarborough Country on MSNBC, "I never said I didn't believe in God! I said that I didn't believe in religion!".    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYW2xXxFVtU&feature=related    <---The link to the interview.
Saying he is Agnostic would seem more along the lines, or instead of saying "his Atheistic Views", say his Anti-Organized Religion views.
RiseAgainst01 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnostic 

message: Does anyone know how many viewers Real Time averages? I haven't had any luck when I've searched for myself, but I'm not very good with these things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.164.179 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewers 

message: Any idea when the next season will start?
Seems like this should be a standard part of television show descriptions, when the next season is expected to start.  68.204.85.127 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New season? 

message: I don't like the one on one format, what brought that on?  I see tonight on July 19th that there is a three panel format. I don't understand why it keeps on switching. Is there a new producer(s) ?
Larry King does the one on one format. It might work well if you are on nearly every single night, but not with limit amount of nights, for the lack of interests in many of one on one peopel who could be interviewed. Furthermore, abstract material, such as politics, is more interesting than personal life biographical information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  one on one format 

message: it says he disagrees with the democrat party platform. But honestly, he supports the entire obama agenda. strong advocate for cap and trade, supported obamacare, financial regulation. which part does he not agree with?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that Maher is not a liberal Democrat is absolutely hilarious.  I always get a laugh from those, including the author of this "encyclopedic" entry, who try their hardest (and fail) to make it seem as though Maher is somehow an independent critic of both parties when in fact he is a doctrinaire liberal who pretty much walks in lockstep with the Democratic Party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  political views 

message: A nomination is not an award is it? The show has been nominated six times for primetime emmy awards and has never won. Is there any point listing nominations especially under the title of awards? -- Barrylb (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Awards" section 

message: Repeatedly referring to Maher by  his first name, as if the author of the piece is somehow friends with Maher and on a first name basis, is inappropriate and highly annoying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a word search on  "Bill" in the article.  I can only find one sentence (by likely one editor) in the entire article where "Bill" is used in a form that is not referring to his full name or in a title.  Repeatedly is certainly not an accurate criticism. Trackinfo (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, you really put me in my place.  Perhaps the entry has been changed since I wrote it because it seemed as if he was referred to as Bill more than once.  However, even if he wasn't once is too many.  Referring to individuals by their first names, a very common problem on this site, as if the authors of the various entries and the entry subjects are buddies is inappropriate, regardless of how many times it is done.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just answer for myself, that I have not gone into the article to "fix" that particular sentence because it is an unsourced statement.  When it comes to what we call Original Research, if I don't know about that subject, I keep my hands off of it.  Frankly, I suggest everybody keep their hands off of subjects they don't know about.  No source, I can't verify anything in it.  Even if my fix were a formatting or grammatical correction, my good name (as it were) could get tied into that content, to which I do not want to attest.  Other editors, even you, are welcome to make the fix. Trackinfo (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bill" 

message: The content listed under "Christine O'Donnell" does not warrant its own section.  It does not fit in with the other categories of "Format/Episodes/Politics" that would normally be associated with a political TV show.  The Christine O'Donnell section should be factored out into a new section such as "Controversies" or perhaps removed altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trirachodon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christine O'Donnell" section 

message: Come on there has to be some negative one`s just to keep the balance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.150.69 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only positive reviews? 

message: While I understand that this is a political show, I don't see why this article needs details of who Maher endorsed in every election, how he stands on legalizing marijuana, etc. If anything, they should be included on Maher's own article. Mellamelina (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Politics and current events" section