This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
@ K.A.Gesell: This page was changed to a redirect under AfD consensus on December 4, 2014 and again on April 10, 2015 after you recreated it. The issues of notability presented at that AfD have not changed in the article you just recreated. I have reverted your edits that recreated this page against consensus. General Ization Talk 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@ K.A.Gesell: - I've restored the redirect, per the existing AFD result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Rogan Experience. This is a result with which you are already familiar per this and this on your user talk page. Also, your restoration of the content under a different article name was already previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Joe Rogan Experience. If you want to create the article again, you will need to first go through WP:DELREV. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of technical details about how the show is produced and who worked on it at what time, but after reading the article I still know very little about the show itself. If this is one of the most popular podcasts, surely the reasons why it's popular are noteworthy. DrDoog ( talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
From Footnotes section
Also in the podcast with Tim Kennedy, Rogan discussed a premise from his Netflix comedy special Triggered in which he jokes that the women of Keeping Up with the Kardashians had influenced Caitlyn Jenner to become a woman, specifically saying, "Maybe if you live with crazy bitches long enough they fuckin' turn you into one." On TMZ Live on September 16, Jenner labelled Rogan a "homophobic, transphobic ass", and said, "It's not a joke. It's very serious stuff."[55]
This should be removed as it is only an attempt to misrepresent the podcast host and the nature of the podcast itself. This is in no way informative about the podcast and is designed to make people who have not listened to it come to negative conclusions about its content.
I want to edit the history section and make it flow a little better. I want to reorganize the first paragraph in the history section and make sure all information is in chronological order. I want to remove the part about Brian Redban befriending Stanhope and Rogan because it is unnecessary and it is already implied that he had an amicable relationship with Rogan. there should be more information about popular episodes and famous guests. I also want to add a new section about criticisms/controversies around the podcast itself and what has been said or done on the show. Freemjd ( talk) 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
let me know if you any issues with the edits I am doing. Freemjd ( talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey :) I'm interested in adding more info about each podcast. So like a table with episode number, date aired, who the guest is etc. Do you think this would be appropriate?
Thanks Eat Your Makeup ( talk) 20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Were the 'banned' episodes ever uploaded? I recall Rogan saying they would be added at some point? Might be worth summarising the recent reports of Spotify employees threatening to strike if Rogan's podcast isn't controlled - not sure how accurate these reports are. If so, looks like the demise of a once great show is on the cards. WisDom-UK ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a breach on free speech.The episodes which are conspiracy theories or hate spreading must be allowed with viewer discretion Abhik223 ( talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! The Guests section is getting out of hand now. It's no different than a guest list, which I believe we don't need. Any thoughts on this? I suggest the section is removed completely or it's developed it into prose with sources. Thanks, LowSelfEstidle ( talk) 13:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Now that the guests section is removed, the Notable Guests section looks very poor. Links to arbitrary episodes of JRE aren't adequate. Only Fravor's appearance seems adequately sourced to be described as notable. I'm not sure what criteria would be appropriate for generating a list of notable guests, however. There are many lists of "best" podcasts and there is a list of the most viewed during the YouTube years. SmolBrane ( talk) 06:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be nice to see a table or section with the 10-20 most viewed videos from Youtube or most downloaded/listened to audio episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.7.131 ( talk) 19:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Though last time I checked Spotify didn’t publish audience size per episode. JustinReilly ( talk) 10:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
On what basis? @ UpdateNerd: The Spotify era section contains statements on Spotify stock price, statements on Jamie Vernon's COVID status, which is somehow notable, as well as Kanye West's potential presidential run. In the context of what's already included I think an episode that is the “first ever emergency podcast” as per the host, should be notable enough to include. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM are not convincing when the word “emergency” and “first-ever” are used. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I would draw attention to the ongoing noticeboard discussion regarding Vice where the fringe theory proponents have been arguing with passion that any current dissent regarding Ivermectin/weinstein/JRE etc is covid misinformation and should be listed in recent podcast entries and on BOLP entries. I suggest everyone participate and I strongly disagree with VICE being used as a neutral or reliable source and with the idea in general. Please see the Bret Weinstein talk page for more details regarding the ongoing debate and I encourage you all to contribute opinions. FrederickZoltair ( talk) 02:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree broadly but strongly with @SmolBrane JustinReilly ( talk) 10:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
1. Should the Joe Rogan Experience article mention the “first-ever emergency podcast” in the Spotify era section? 2. If so, should it mention the guests(Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory)? 3. And should it mention the subject of their discussion(allegations that “a promising treatment(for COVID) is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry”)? 4. And should it include a warning about misinformation(Under
WP:PSCI)?
Sources:
VICE,
primary source
SmolBrane (
talk)
18:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
An additional source was found -
SmolBrane (
talk)
20:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
References
neither of you has enough experience to understand our policies here. Your line of reasoning has no connection to how things are done on Wikipedia. It does not matter what he calls it because he is a primary source. It does not matter whether you deduce that he is sincere. Even if it was not hype when he said it, it would be hype if Wikipedia said it. It does not matter how completely different articles talk about completely different things in completely different contexts. Those completely different articles may even have got it wrong, and copying their way of doing it could be multiplying an error! "Diminishing" his statements is exactly the right way to do it because Wikipedia is not Rogan's propaganda platform that needs to carefully echo whatever he chooses to say. Instead of looking at his opus and picking the things from it which we find interesting, we rely on secondary sources to do that for us. All you have is one such source, and you want to milk it dry as well as use Rogan himself. That is just not how it works. Wait until this has made much more waves, then it will be relevant enough to include. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think Rogan’s should be considered a reliable source re his opinion on the merits of his guests’ judgments/conclusions. However, his judgment that this is “the first ever emergency podcast I’ve had to do,” is worth mentioning as is a brief treatment/mention of the episode. JustinReilly ( talk) 10:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Favor inclusion: In any event, CNN et al. has made this whole thing into something noteworthy with its extremely misleading statements the “Rogan took a horse dewormer.” JustinReilly ( talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering how DUE this is. Rolling Stone is deprecated for societal commentary, any better sources? SmolBrane ( talk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
In the COVID-19 section of this article, it claims Joe Rogan made "false remarks" regarding COVID-19. Cited are two opinion pieces both stemming from the same statement by Dr. Fauci. A single doctor disagreeing with a statement does not make it incorrect, nor is the single doctor a prophet of truth. Who wrote this article? This is pitiful. Of all my years in university this would be thrown out as tabloid documentation. Furthermore, if one were to include the data around young and athletic deaths from COVID - it would go to show Rogan's opinion holds water as two of the defining characteristics of COVID survivors are their age and physical fitness. This either needs to be completely removed, or framed as two differing opinions, not objective fact. The author should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe there was a successful edit on the article changing the phrase "false remarks" to "unpopular remarks". Good on the editor, yet I can't help but feel like your comment which came after the edit, is inaccurate to the original article. In which, it clearly stated Jow to be false as opposed to unpopular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't write that a remark of Rogan is false --he really did think what he stated in his remark-- if what we mean is that we disagree with Rogan's suggestion, and that notable people also disagreed. (Therefore I had to revert the latest unmotivated revert.)-- Corriebertus ( talk) 06:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not present opinions as equal to scientific consensusper WP:FALSEBALANCE. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
"Several sources note that vaccinations have a different risk/reward with younger people"Which sources? Do they mention that in the context of Rogan's comments or is this your own WP:SYNTH? – dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. I would say that in most of these cases, it's contextually obvious that Rogan's claims are what they're talking about when they bring up Spotify's policy against false COVID-19 info, but I'll grant you that only the Snopes article is explicit in saying that Rogan's claims from April of 2021 were false. That'd leave us with one source that uses the term "false" explicitly, one source that quotes Dr. Fauci's use of the word "incorrect", a handful of sources that imply Rogan's claims were false, and no sources that explicitly or implicitly call his claim incorrect. Whether to use the term "false" or "incorrect" is quite a minor dispute, but I think it's still easy to conclude that "false" is closer to what sources are using than "incorrect." Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an NPOV noticeboard conversation that relates to this here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Emergent_changes_of_strategy_in_the_COVID_arena -- SmolBrane ( talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should mix together "media outlets" with actual scientists (i.e. Fauci) as critics of Rogan's medical claims, because media outlets are no more qualified to take part in medical discussions than Rogan. If their articles refer to any scientists, mention the scientists. If they don't, I see no point in having them there. – Turaids ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
@ K.A.Gesell: This page was changed to a redirect under AfD consensus on December 4, 2014 and again on April 10, 2015 after you recreated it. The issues of notability presented at that AfD have not changed in the article you just recreated. I have reverted your edits that recreated this page against consensus. General Ization Talk 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@ K.A.Gesell: - I've restored the redirect, per the existing AFD result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Rogan Experience. This is a result with which you are already familiar per this and this on your user talk page. Also, your restoration of the content under a different article name was already previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Joe Rogan Experience. If you want to create the article again, you will need to first go through WP:DELREV. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of technical details about how the show is produced and who worked on it at what time, but after reading the article I still know very little about the show itself. If this is one of the most popular podcasts, surely the reasons why it's popular are noteworthy. DrDoog ( talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
From Footnotes section
Also in the podcast with Tim Kennedy, Rogan discussed a premise from his Netflix comedy special Triggered in which he jokes that the women of Keeping Up with the Kardashians had influenced Caitlyn Jenner to become a woman, specifically saying, "Maybe if you live with crazy bitches long enough they fuckin' turn you into one." On TMZ Live on September 16, Jenner labelled Rogan a "homophobic, transphobic ass", and said, "It's not a joke. It's very serious stuff."[55]
This should be removed as it is only an attempt to misrepresent the podcast host and the nature of the podcast itself. This is in no way informative about the podcast and is designed to make people who have not listened to it come to negative conclusions about its content.
I want to edit the history section and make it flow a little better. I want to reorganize the first paragraph in the history section and make sure all information is in chronological order. I want to remove the part about Brian Redban befriending Stanhope and Rogan because it is unnecessary and it is already implied that he had an amicable relationship with Rogan. there should be more information about popular episodes and famous guests. I also want to add a new section about criticisms/controversies around the podcast itself and what has been said or done on the show. Freemjd ( talk) 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
let me know if you any issues with the edits I am doing. Freemjd ( talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey :) I'm interested in adding more info about each podcast. So like a table with episode number, date aired, who the guest is etc. Do you think this would be appropriate?
Thanks Eat Your Makeup ( talk) 20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Were the 'banned' episodes ever uploaded? I recall Rogan saying they would be added at some point? Might be worth summarising the recent reports of Spotify employees threatening to strike if Rogan's podcast isn't controlled - not sure how accurate these reports are. If so, looks like the demise of a once great show is on the cards. WisDom-UK ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a breach on free speech.The episodes which are conspiracy theories or hate spreading must be allowed with viewer discretion Abhik223 ( talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! The Guests section is getting out of hand now. It's no different than a guest list, which I believe we don't need. Any thoughts on this? I suggest the section is removed completely or it's developed it into prose with sources. Thanks, LowSelfEstidle ( talk) 13:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Now that the guests section is removed, the Notable Guests section looks very poor. Links to arbitrary episodes of JRE aren't adequate. Only Fravor's appearance seems adequately sourced to be described as notable. I'm not sure what criteria would be appropriate for generating a list of notable guests, however. There are many lists of "best" podcasts and there is a list of the most viewed during the YouTube years. SmolBrane ( talk) 06:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be nice to see a table or section with the 10-20 most viewed videos from Youtube or most downloaded/listened to audio episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.7.131 ( talk) 19:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Though last time I checked Spotify didn’t publish audience size per episode. JustinReilly ( talk) 10:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
On what basis? @ UpdateNerd: The Spotify era section contains statements on Spotify stock price, statements on Jamie Vernon's COVID status, which is somehow notable, as well as Kanye West's potential presidential run. In the context of what's already included I think an episode that is the “first ever emergency podcast” as per the host, should be notable enough to include. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM are not convincing when the word “emergency” and “first-ever” are used. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I would draw attention to the ongoing noticeboard discussion regarding Vice where the fringe theory proponents have been arguing with passion that any current dissent regarding Ivermectin/weinstein/JRE etc is covid misinformation and should be listed in recent podcast entries and on BOLP entries. I suggest everyone participate and I strongly disagree with VICE being used as a neutral or reliable source and with the idea in general. Please see the Bret Weinstein talk page for more details regarding the ongoing debate and I encourage you all to contribute opinions. FrederickZoltair ( talk) 02:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree broadly but strongly with @SmolBrane JustinReilly ( talk) 10:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
1. Should the Joe Rogan Experience article mention the “first-ever emergency podcast” in the Spotify era section? 2. If so, should it mention the guests(Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory)? 3. And should it mention the subject of their discussion(allegations that “a promising treatment(for COVID) is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry”)? 4. And should it include a warning about misinformation(Under
WP:PSCI)?
Sources:
VICE,
primary source
SmolBrane (
talk)
18:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
An additional source was found -
SmolBrane (
talk)
20:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
References
neither of you has enough experience to understand our policies here. Your line of reasoning has no connection to how things are done on Wikipedia. It does not matter what he calls it because he is a primary source. It does not matter whether you deduce that he is sincere. Even if it was not hype when he said it, it would be hype if Wikipedia said it. It does not matter how completely different articles talk about completely different things in completely different contexts. Those completely different articles may even have got it wrong, and copying their way of doing it could be multiplying an error! "Diminishing" his statements is exactly the right way to do it because Wikipedia is not Rogan's propaganda platform that needs to carefully echo whatever he chooses to say. Instead of looking at his opus and picking the things from it which we find interesting, we rely on secondary sources to do that for us. All you have is one such source, and you want to milk it dry as well as use Rogan himself. That is just not how it works. Wait until this has made much more waves, then it will be relevant enough to include. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think Rogan’s should be considered a reliable source re his opinion on the merits of his guests’ judgments/conclusions. However, his judgment that this is “the first ever emergency podcast I’ve had to do,” is worth mentioning as is a brief treatment/mention of the episode. JustinReilly ( talk) 10:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Favor inclusion: In any event, CNN et al. has made this whole thing into something noteworthy with its extremely misleading statements the “Rogan took a horse dewormer.” JustinReilly ( talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering how DUE this is. Rolling Stone is deprecated for societal commentary, any better sources? SmolBrane ( talk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
In the COVID-19 section of this article, it claims Joe Rogan made "false remarks" regarding COVID-19. Cited are two opinion pieces both stemming from the same statement by Dr. Fauci. A single doctor disagreeing with a statement does not make it incorrect, nor is the single doctor a prophet of truth. Who wrote this article? This is pitiful. Of all my years in university this would be thrown out as tabloid documentation. Furthermore, if one were to include the data around young and athletic deaths from COVID - it would go to show Rogan's opinion holds water as two of the defining characteristics of COVID survivors are their age and physical fitness. This either needs to be completely removed, or framed as two differing opinions, not objective fact. The author should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe there was a successful edit on the article changing the phrase "false remarks" to "unpopular remarks". Good on the editor, yet I can't help but feel like your comment which came after the edit, is inaccurate to the original article. In which, it clearly stated Jow to be false as opposed to unpopular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't write that a remark of Rogan is false --he really did think what he stated in his remark-- if what we mean is that we disagree with Rogan's suggestion, and that notable people also disagreed. (Therefore I had to revert the latest unmotivated revert.)-- Corriebertus ( talk) 06:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not present opinions as equal to scientific consensusper WP:FALSEBALANCE. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
"Several sources note that vaccinations have a different risk/reward with younger people"Which sources? Do they mention that in the context of Rogan's comments or is this your own WP:SYNTH? – dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. I would say that in most of these cases, it's contextually obvious that Rogan's claims are what they're talking about when they bring up Spotify's policy against false COVID-19 info, but I'll grant you that only the Snopes article is explicit in saying that Rogan's claims from April of 2021 were false. That'd leave us with one source that uses the term "false" explicitly, one source that quotes Dr. Fauci's use of the word "incorrect", a handful of sources that imply Rogan's claims were false, and no sources that explicitly or implicitly call his claim incorrect. Whether to use the term "false" or "incorrect" is quite a minor dispute, but I think it's still easy to conclude that "false" is closer to what sources are using than "incorrect." Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have opened an NPOV noticeboard conversation that relates to this here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Emergent_changes_of_strategy_in_the_COVID_arena -- SmolBrane ( talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should mix together "media outlets" with actual scientists (i.e. Fauci) as critics of Rogan's medical claims, because media outlets are no more qualified to take part in medical discussions than Rogan. If their articles refer to any scientists, mention the scientists. If they don't, I see no point in having them there. – Turaids ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)