Talk:Joe Rogan: Difference between revisions
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::Cause we include all his other views as well so no reason to remove political views --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
::Cause we include all his other views as well so no reason to remove political views --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::it's not even views. it's who he voted for [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|<span style="color:orange">d</span>]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::it's not even views. it's who he voted for [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|<span style="color:orange">d</span>]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
*IMHO we should at least remove the stuff cited only to [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources. In particular {{tq|Rogan has said that he holds a wide variety of political views and does not easily fall on any particular side of the political spectrum}} seems to me to be unduly self-serving in context and therefore not something we should include if the only source is his podcast. OTOH things that have high-quality secondary sourcing (like several of his endorsements) could probably be kept. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:56, 21 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Rogan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it promoted discredited COVID treatments and used false anti-vaccine claims to dissuade people from COVID vaccination.”
Ivermectin and HCQ were maliciously discredited.
Vaccine claims were not false. 72.189.34.155 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently cited sources disagree with you. Cannolis (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
4 October 2023
- Thread retitled from "Fake news and libelous".
"Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the podcast has received criticism for spreading conspiracy theories and health misinformation." Needs to be removed as it violates Wikipedias neutral policy 2600:100F:B120:1AAA:0:1F:57E0:4B01 (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- How? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- This sentence completely ignores the long history of the podcasts. Controversies of Joe Rogan PREDATES COVID, and over the years he had invited all kinds of people, including Elon Musk, Alex Jones, Dave Mustaine, Mike Tyson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Henry Rollins, Bernie Sanders, and many more.
- This current last sentence is like trying to describe 70s and 80s Black Sabbath but ending the main paragraph with "Black Sabbath has been involved in controversies since they performed in apartheid-era South Africa in 1987" - ignoring the Satanic accusations, cocaine abuse, legal troubles with old managers, the Stonehenge and all their classic albums.
- That's why I consider any rollback to this as "worse than subpar". Vc06697 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
10 October 2023
Off-topic ranting by banned user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If anything other than soapboxing will be entertained here on the supposed "talk" page, let's have it. I put a lot of trouble into massaging the language of the Rogan article toward neutrality, so it was just casually reverted as "not an improvement." Not one speck of the attitude Wikipedia CLAIMS to take toward public editing, instead just reeks of tone policing and reversion to bias. It seems it was a disimprovement precisely because it moved the article toward what Wikipedia claims to be and away from what Wikipedia is actually becoming. Literally, every single BS WP:HOWWEDOTHINGSHERE is suspended for all your most slanted pages — anything but the most perfect goose-step will be shot down. So: let's talk. What the heck was so imperfect about my last edit? And why was it just completely dismissed, rather than modified out of its imperfection? Destrylevigriffith (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Should the list of professions be re-ordered?
The article currently starts with
"Joseph James Rogan (born August 11, 1967) is an American UFC color commentator, podcaster, comedian, actor, and former television host."
Would it not be more appropriate to re-order the professions as the following?
"Joseph James Rogan (born August 11, 1967) is an American comedian, podcaster, UFC color commentator, and former actor and television host."
He is most well known as being a comedian and podcaster (order here can be discussed as well). It could be argued that the actor and television host mentions can be omitted as well. AlekseyFyodorovich (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that actor can probably be moved to "former" or omitted completely as it's not what he's known for nowadays. Same with television host --FMSky (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscientific transgender views
The article currently says:
"Rogan has offered a pseudoscientific critique of transgender martial arts artist Fallon Fox, saying "If you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a fucking man"."
Isn't it a bit strong to say that the view is pseudoscientific if only a single article published in a communications journal states so?
Also considering that the Wikipedia article “Transgender People in Sports” provides numerous examples of articles advocating the physical advantage of trans women. I find this a contradiction between two Wikipedia articles. Kratokin (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine. Unless you have some counter RS saying Rogan's words were properly science-based. Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The source unambiguously describes it as pseudoscientific; it would be misusing it to not make that clear. If you have another source, go ahead and present it, but there's no reason to think it's controversial and we do have to be clear when discussing scientific things. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@fmsky: ok. why do you disagree? ltbdl (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- IMHO we should at least remove the stuff cited only to WP:PRIMARY sources. In particular
Rogan has said that he holds a wide variety of political views and does not easily fall on any particular side of the political spectrum
seems to me to be unduly self-serving in context and therefore not something we should include if the only source is his podcast. OTOH things that have high-quality secondary sourcing (like several of his endorsements) could probably be kept. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- Old requests for Biography peer review
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class American television articles
- Low-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class New Jersey articles
- Low-importance New Jersey articles
- WikiProject New Jersey articles
- B-Class mixed martial arts articles
- B-Class Martial arts articles
- B-Class Kickboxing articles
- Kickboxing task force articles
- B-Class Comedy articles
- Mid-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- B-Class podcasting articles
- Mid-importance podcasting articles
- WikiProject Podcasting articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report