Talk:Joe Rogan

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

“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.
Thread retitled from "From the Soapbox to the Sandbox: Can We Pretty Please Wipe Some of the Bias Off the Rogan Article?". 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) The WP:PROFRINGEiness. For example replacing the knowledge (that Rogan spreads misinformation and falsehood) with wishy-washy-weasel editorial about "idiosyncratic" and "diverse" views. Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC) First, we all know who the only kind of people who go around calling things "misinformation" are — it is not Wikipedia's job to state, for example, which Covid treatments ones should practice, but rather only repeat what *others* have stated. Rogan has been DESCRIBED as spreading misinformation, accused of it, pick your verbiage. It has become completely obvious to us with weasley side -taking like this exactly when Wikipedia is biased (your other favorite words to indicate which side you're on in are "what they perceive as", as would likely be the case I believe if Rogan we're liked rather than disliked by the people who seem to hold most sway over Wikipedia (it's a bit of a vicious circle between editors' political values and the political values of editors' preferred "acceptable" sources (another smart and very Weasley way to slip bias in — all sources that disagree with us are simply invalid). This case, if Wikipedia were taking sides for Rogan as strongly as they have been taking sides against him, the language would probably be that he's been accused by many of spreading what they perceive as misinformation. Second, you have a point, and when I reread my verbiage recently I couldn't help but see it. It does sound a little bit like the Rogan staff snuck in there and were trying to advertise for him. If you have more neutral verbiage that suggests that these are mere accusations and that his views are all over the place, what do you think they would be? Anyone with a wide range of views is bound to offend someone. You don't filter language that makes negative connotations about him, so how is it neutral to filter any and all language that might accidentally be interpreted as positive by someone? I meant diverse and idiosyncratic literally, without connotation, but I can see how they have positive connotations. If you have negative-connotation words that you prefer that acknowledge that he has views that are all over the damn place and he simply has a wild selection of guests who often court criticism and controversy, please tell me your preferred wording and I'll work it in. Finally, as to my other, more blandly factual edits, like the insertion of context-establishing material that makes the article make more actual sense, still unaddressed. You aren't practicing Wikipedia standards at all when you simply delete rather than correct. And especially when you detect that someone's politics is not the same as your own and then delete all edits in bulk (my others were a bland correction and an added bit of context from the same source already cited. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Sound like conspiracist drivel ("we all know who the only kind of people who ... "). Your edit degraded the article and so was reverted. If something is false, Wikipedia has to call it out as false using reliable sources, because of the NPOV policy. Rogan spouts falsity; RS tells us that; Wikipedia reflects it. Neutrality achieved and job done. I suggest we're done here. For further input from a wider audience try WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC) You're right, I do not think you can be reasoned with, so no point continuing. I suppose I should be a grateful at least for not having been given a long, condescending WP:HOWURDUM. It's like trying to reason with a "peace" officer... Right: Sources. Yeah, that's why you won't even review my correction edit where I USED THE SAME SOURCE ALREADY CITED. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Also before I read the reply that just came in I wanted to mention Something about myself and I think it's important to note. Which is, I'm perfectly happy to play nice with other editors, and M completely content seeing my improvements to a page themselves be improved, toward Wikipedia's actual stated standards. I love it! Destrylevigriffith (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Sources are all. Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) The current wording is very well supported by sources; there's no need to euphemise it when it's now a prominent aspect of secondary coverage of his podcast. DFlhb (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeing any improvements in Destrylevigriffith's recent changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) I concur that Destrylevigriffith's recent changes weren't improvements. But the statement Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the podcast has received criticism for spreading conspiracy theories and health misinformation. in the lead raised my eyebrows. The sources specifically mention misinformation related to COVID, not generally "since" its onset. The wording in the source supporting "spreading conspiracy theories" (which states ...The episode has been criticized for promoting baseless conspiracy theories,” according to the letter.) won't normally be strong enough to state it in wikivoice. Disclaimer: I don't follow the controversies related to the subject of the article and came here from the WP:FTN. If newer sources support the statement in the lead, IMO, they should be used to expand the article's text before making sweeping statements in the lead. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC) The lede should summarize the body faithfully. Seems plenty of sourcing to support misinformation etc. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Well, my point is, it doesn't summarise it. Body says he spread misinformation about Covid, lead – that he spread health misinformation in general since Covid. I have no idea which of these two statements is true, but the discrepancy is there. And the sourcing for conspiracy theories is extremely weak (an opinion stated in an open letter), below what would normally be considered sufficient for a WP:BLP. (Based on currently used sources.) PaulT2022 (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Might be a problem with the word since. Attempted to clarify. I think an open letter from scientists is an okay source for calling obvious misinformation what it is. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 14 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)

special:diff/1219902982

@fmsky: ok. why do you disagree? ltbdl (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cause we include all his other views as well so no reason to remove political views --FMSky (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

it's not even views. it's who he voted for ltbdl (talk) 15:33, 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)