Talk:Bill Spadea

Articale neutrality concerns

I have edited the article to ensure it is neutral. I will remove the neutrality template from the page. TonyO13 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)TonyO13

References

Could folks look at WP:RS and WP:CITE? "Here's a raw link to a YouTube account, dumped into the middle of an article" does not constitute providing verification of an assertion. Press releases do not constitute reliable sources, even if the reference was properly formatted; and raw links to search engine results do not meet WP:CITE. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are a number of problems with the references on this article, as many of the references are either misleading or not permitted, such as YouTube references. It seems that is likely that the article's subject has also been a contributor to the article content... The fact that dates seem to have been removed make it even more problematic...Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617043232/http://www.minormusings.com:80/College_Republicans.pdf to http://www.minormusings.com/College_Republicans.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606143324/http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2004/10/21/11178/ to http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2004/10/21/11178

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Views on vaccinations

There are two reliable sources about Spadea's vaccine stance cited in the article:

• New York Times find it significant enough to mention in its article on a state bill: Among the radio personalities who opposed the bill was Bill Spadea, a Republican who supports President Trump and hosts a morning show on one of New Jersey’s largest radio stations. The bill being referred to in the article: New York lawmakers passed a bill ending all nonmedical exemptions to immunization

• The app.com article gives significant coverage to Spadea's stance on vaccines: Dr. Marc Feingold, a primary care doctor in Manalapan, has been spending plenty of time with his patients in recent weeks trying to debunk misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine, falsehoods heard everywhere from Facebook and the TV networks to New Jersey radio, including Bill Spadea's popular New Jersey morning-drive talk show. And much of the rest of that article is about Spadea.

In sources not currently cited in the article:

• A USA Today article (reprinted in Asbury Park Press) about a potential lawsuit against Spadea describes him as a well-known conservative media personality with some controversial opinions, including those on vaccines.
• Politico calls out his vaccination stance.
• Newsday, writing about George Santos and a gala, mentions vaccine misinformation in conjunction with the mention of Spadea.

When it has become a common descriptor in reliable sources, the content is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

I added the npov tag but just to have some documentation for that here I found a bunch of instances of both positive and negative bias toward Spadea, for example there was a bunch of aggrandizing language about him campaigning for the gop, and also a bunch of really harshly worded stuff about him first supporting trump, then not, and then reconciling (made it sound like a betrayal instead of a change in ideology). I'm going to go through the article soon enough but just to alert any readers or editors ill add this here. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Should Politico be used as a viable source?

Until the details of the payments to Politico from USAID, which made up more then half of politico’s revenues in 2023, are clear should we even consider Politico as a viable source of information especially since there are several misleading statements made in many of their articles especially about COVID-19 and vaccinations. Nurse07734 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss such things. For that you need to got to WP:RSN. Also, sources are not investigated according to their funding but according to the truthfulness and their history of rectifying mistakes.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)