Talk:Joe Rogan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Deathsquad network" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deathsquad network and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Deathsquad network until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfair portrayal of Rogan's views on the election

The following line regarding the petition for Rogan to moderate the presidential debates seems to give a rather biased portrayal of his views on the candidates:

"It currently has 300,000 signatures and claims that Rogan is qualified to handle the debates because he is nonpartisan, but Rogan's continual attacks on Biden make this possibility unlikely."

Rogan has repeatedly been just as critical of Trump as Biden in his podcasts. Moreover, he has not "attacked" Biden, merely expressed measured concern about his suitability as president (a critique he has also made of Trump). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.177.185 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be fixed to be neutral. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What about the conspiracy theories?

This makes it sound like Rogan is practically mainstream, rather than a tin-foil hatter who has been hit in the head too many times while playing at martial arts. Well gatekept, have a badge. 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:74E8:5CFE:FDDA:F0B6 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the case could be made that Joe Rogan is mainstream. He hosts one of the most popular syndicated shows on the internet.

I shouldn’t have to dig into ad hominems pertaining to tin foil hats or baseless assertions that Joe’s beliefs are the result of brain trauma.

To the extent that Joe enjoys discussing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, it is not unlike a historian’s muse in mythology and fiction. He is not even a trained epistemologist, logician, journalist, writer, philosopher, or historian. He comes from an entertainment background, and I think his frankness of this on his program reflects the gravity with which you should accept information on his show as an authoritative source on any of the aforementioned topics, sans an experienced or otherwise publicly vetted individual sharing his or her professional opinion.

Joe is not perfect. It is not my job nor my intention to defend Joe to the last degree. Yet my observations don’t warrant classifying Joe as a conspiracy theorist nor even as someone who makes a living distorting the truth. He has on many occasions corrected errors of fact made in previous episodes, and in any case makes reasonable effort to distinguish what he believes to be fact from opinion. His taste in alternative narratives involving aliens and the CIA could be described as childish and annoying, but these topics don’t seem to emerge on the Joe Rogan Experience in ways dissimilar from any other topic, i.e. as a source of entertainment and as a means for the guest and host to learn about one another.

I could say a number of unflattering things about Joe Rogan that reflect my honest opinion, which would probably even be agreed upon by a substantial plurality of the readers of this article. Yet that does not make the Joe Rogan Wikipeda entry any less objective as it is. The lack of a section dedicated to conspiracy theories is also not a license to accuse this entry as being gatekept.

If you are so sure that conspiracy theories is integral to the biography of Joe Rogan, come up with an objective way of describing how this page can be related to the topic of conspiracy theories. You are, after all, free to edit the page. But understand that your edits may be evaluated as unnecessary if they don’t meet the community standards for objectivity. Alternatively, go check out conspiracy theory or epistemology to see how much of a mess this topic is in general. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

Rogan's stepdaughter is actually the child of deceased H-Town lead singer Kevin Conner. https://www.iloveoldschoolmusic.com/after-h-town-singer-died-his-daughter-was-adopted-by-a-white-sports-legend-shes-a-grown-woman-now/ Cjb-2020 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Diarrhea

When we say the carnivore diet "negatively impacted his digestive system", are we being censorious? Rogan said it gave him diarrhea: "No, I get the meat explosive diarrhea. Dude, I had diarrhea you could write home about. Like you could write books about the diarrhea I had. Like it wasn’t just diarrhea. It was like oil was coming out, like crude, like black gold, Texas Cream.” Why don't we just say it gave him bad diarrhea? 2600:1012:B02F:8385:CDB0:34D7:732B:98AF (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Supplement marketing and health misinformation

@FMSky I do not agree with your reverting my edit, which aimed to reflect article content in the lead. Rogan is the cofounder of supplement seller Onnit, which was sold to Unilever. He still markets Onnit's products. This is a significant part of Rogan's life (and income) and should be in the lead.

In addition, as discussed in the article body, Rogan has received substantial attention for promotion of conspiracy theories and misinformation. (especially recently) I welcome other suggestions for wording and citations, besides what I added:

Rogan's podcast is known for spreading conspiracy theories and health misinformation. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the podcast promoted discredited COVID treatments and used false anti-vaccine claims to dissuade people from COVID vaccination.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This isnt what his podcast is primarily known for, so its WP:UNDUE. The addition of "supplement marketer" is also clearly against MOS:ROLEBIO --FMSky (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Who decides what someone is primarily known for? (BTW, you switched the person and his podcast; and another BTW: I would not know this guy at all if it were not for his fringe ideas.) Isn't it the WP:RS quoted in the article, and do they not talk about this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky My edit did not say Rogan was primarily known for anything. It simply reflects existing article content and reliable sources that describe how his among-the-most-listened-to podcast (Rogan and/or his guests) promotes conspiracy theories and health misinformation. (And other misinformation) I'm fine with removing "is known for spreading" and replacing with "spreads" or "has spread."

Rogan is a supplement seller and marketer. See articles in Men's Health, Washington Post, and this article's citations. From Washington Post's Philip Bump:

Rogan is an active promoter of nutritional supplements, with fans putting together extensive lists of what he purports to take. His website includes an ad promoting products by the company Onnit, including a supplement called “Alpha Brain.” In 2014, Rogan participated in what could be described as an infomercial for Onnit, touting the company’s products. Those looking to buy Onnit products can use the promotional code “ROGAN” for 10 percent off.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Look again at the current version, i think this is a good compromise. Again, it is undue to have an own lead section for it alone --FMSky (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer Science Flyer's version and it is supported by RS. This is an aspect of his career that he is known for. So, it should go back into the lead. The touted compromise version seems more muddled than Science Flyer's version. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

what about now? its also completely inappropriate to have a seperate paragraph just for two sentences, especially if one of the paragraphs already talks about the podcast. incorporating it into this one makes a lot more sense --FMSky (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The current version seems fine. DFlhb (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

👍 --FMSky (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This Works for me too. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

Joe Rogan adopted Dino from H Town’s daughter, not just a “child from a previous relationship” 2600:8801:219:F400:2C7A:F5CB:27EA:5721 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Now the WHO has stated children and teens may not need a covid shot

Pointless ranting. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
is biased agenda riddled Wikipedia going to update the controversies part of Joe's page and confirm he was correct after all? 2600:1700:94F0:4110:6C74:2ECB:3D1B:2598 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC) @2600:1700:94F0:4110:6C74:2ECB:3D1B:2598 *covid shot 2600:1700:94F0:4110:6C74:2ECB:3D1B:2598 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC) I just found myself spending a few minutes crafting an answer that simply tells the truth, with no rude language, no swearwords, simple analogies and fair comparisons, about Wikipedia's general censoriousness of anything that offends them... ...when I realized that I was putting myself at risk of being blocked, potentially unable to participate in Wikipedia at all for as long as a year, or longer, by simply voicing a disagreement or dissenting opinion — I think THAT says it all. And so naturally, of course, partly because I have a good point, and partly because it will officially be in violation in their minds of some feels-are-truth based "offensiveness" or "harassment" policy of some sort or another, they will probably delete this post, or move it to archive, and suggest a block for me anyway, just for stating that they might do so, and that I feel like Wikipedia has become a unsafe space for dissent by a constant and consistently biased silencing of (certain) dissenters with their wide variety of semi-consistently and very conveniently deployed reasons. Rogan will be presented neutrally here when and if a sufficient number of liberal academics decide he's an OK guy. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Like, calmly deleting, rewriting, and posting about how thin the ice has become around here for any kind of not-approving-of-wikipedia view, I'm honestly afraid is about to get me blocked from being able to participate at all. If there's a more clear way for a space to say "You better agree with us, or else.", I don't know what it is. Naturally of course my life and general freedom to participate in society would not be in danger because of Wikipedia deciding I am an unperson. But I think we all know which kinds of practices, from which kinds of societies, and what periods of history, this pattern of behavior most resembles. If Wikipedia were serious about it's stated values, this would be one of their convenient little essays they would link everyone to when they need to be chastised for violating the Wikipedia ethos by overcensoring others. Instead, of course, these pieces will simply be censored. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC) You're soapboxing here, but let's just remember that you're talking about the guy (however engaging he is) who said, "...the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous. That's like saying Italians aren't into pizza. It's fucking stupid." Spare us the histrionics. Carlstak (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Fair. If I dispense with how this might be used or conveniently perceived, and instead just take your point of view, I can see how much of the debate between certain factions has become one of whose behavior resembles, versus who's VIEWS resemble, certain historical parties. I have, however, a hard time imagining that Joe Rogan, just to listen to him, has anything whatsoever against Jews. I do not, however, have a hard time imagining that the Wikipedia culture has anything against literally almost any kind of dissent or complaint within its ranks. There is definitely something going on, and the more you guys act like it isn't, the more clear it becomes that it is. I would hazard a guess that every super legalistic culture in history has found highly internally legitimate reasons to block all outside, threatening views. I would be happy to bet you, 10-to-1, that all of Chinese, Russian, and North Korean information sources are currently in absolutely perfect and full compliance with all of their internal dictates as to the dissemination of information and their truth standards as they do so. Am I soapboxing conveniently here? Yes. Could you tell me where I could do so anywhere else? Ahh yes, that's right. People who don't like the standards where they are can always "go back to where they came from". So go ahead. Kick me out of Wikipedia. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC) His covid info was proven to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CA00:6060:1D7E:AD1:ECAE:168F (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) See "Posts misrepresent WHO guidance on COVID vaccines for youth." (AP April 27, 2023) Did you get this misinformation from Joe Rogan's show? TFD (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)