Talk:Joe Rogan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 October 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

How? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should the list of professions be re-ordered?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudoscientific transgender views[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Cause we include all his other views as well so no reason to remove political views --FMSky (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's not even views. it's who he voted for ltbdl (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]