Talk:Bill Maher

Suggestion for white space (to help with "parsing")

Sentences with long "interposed" subordinate clauses

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Political views" section of this article -- at least, based upon the "Latest revision as of 12:29, 7 August 2025" version of this article -- seems (with the help of www.charactercountonline.com ) -- to have about 58 words.

The above sentence (which I just wrote) has -- thanks to the same "charactercountonline dot com" website -- about 44 words (or maybe more, if you count the ['non-displayed'] URL that is the target for the "Latest revision..." hyperlink.)

As you can see, I am not opposed to long sentences. I am offering this "suggestion" simply with the goal of helping readers "parse" (figure out) what previous text (spoiler alert: it is "He has addressed his Republican fans") goes with the words "by saying that..." once the reader finally "returns" -- (like a Fortran subroutine -- perhaps a lengthy one! -- "returning" to the calling program that invoked it) -- from the 40-word (long) "subordinate clause" or sentence fragment saying

who have asked him why he after frequently criticizing the Democratic party over the years for various policies and decisions and being "so good in roasting the woke nonsense-peddlers" won't just " go all the way and join" the right-wing

that is interposed before continuing ("resuming") with the words "by saying that [...]" to finally end the sentence.

"Suggestion" for a simple [easy] change

I am not "suggesting" moving nor inserting any sentence boundaries, nor changing the order of any of the words. I just think it would make it a lot easier [for the reader] to parse, if the 40-word (long) "subordinate clause" or sentence fragment (see the <"blockquote"> above) were surrounded by some "white space" and/or some other punctuation.

That long "subordinate clause" or sentence fragment will probably cause that sentence to require a lot of time -- and effort! -- to 'parse' or "figure out", if it is left as it appears now.

It could be set apart by using a "<blockquote>...</blockquote>" construct -- just like the <blockquote> shown in the above sub-section of this [Talk:] page section.

Personally I would be OK with the idea -- in fact, I think it might be a good idea -- to also surround that </blockquote> construct with some parens or brackets ... and maybe even some em dashes (or double minus signs), too... in addition to the white space.

Just a "Suggestion"

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) This does not seem like the kind of proposal that needs opinions from uninvolved parties. Did you try to do this already, and someone disagreed? RfCs are typically a dispute resolution mechanism, or otherwise when something needs broad participation. This seems almost like the opposite -- like it would be better to get opinions mainly from people familiar with the structure of the article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• I pulled the plug per WP:RFCBEFORE. If the editor who opened it can get this down to a brief question feel free to reopen. Nemov (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Rightward Shift

What do people think about adding a section detailing his perceived rightward shift? Gweeble (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree there has been a rightward shift, but I don't think there should be an explicit section - I think we can add his more recent views and describe perceived shifts (with citation) under political views.

I think it would make sense to remove Maher and his show from the "Liberalism" categories - given his heterodox views, I wouldn't necessarily lump him in with other people traditionally known as "Liberal." Dofrg (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources that would support this? And I agree that it shouldn't be a separate section: some of his views have changed over time, but to only focus on perceived rightward shifts risks violating WP:NPOV by undue framing and selective citation. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: Maher's "rightward shift," the only reliable source I can find that explicitly discusses it is The Hill, wherein Maher frames it as "I've not changed; the left has." Whether or not that is true can be debated, but I think the idea that he "left the left" is worth considering in this discussion. If we can find more reliable sources, this may be worth inclusion as opposed to an explicit shift rightward.

I think it is difficult to find reliable (non-tabloid) sources that discuss his behaviour because he is a celebrity, not a politician. When I do a quick search of Bill Maher, the most relevant results are from the New York Post, Mediaite, or other partisan opinion/tabloid outlets. And because perceived ideological shifts like this are so subjective and niche, they just are not great material for reliable news outlets. Dofrg (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We should let major themes that consistently emerge in reliable secondary sources determine article structure and emphasis, preferably from analytic pieces that take a somewhat long-term view, not myopic op-eds or sensationalist clickbait about what he or a guest said on any given show. With him set to receive a major award soon there will hopefully be some more retrospective pieces to better evaluate due weight of various aspects of his career and views. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

PETA board member

Do we know if he is still on the board of PETA? I can find no reference to him on PETA's website, and the only sources in the article are interviews that are at least 10 years old. 1something (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

"Views" vs "Political views"

Looking at the list of contents, how are healthcare and legalising cannabis not political? Richard75 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)