Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recreation of redirected page

@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)

I note that your repeated recreation of this page and specifically the page using the alternate title Joe Rogan Experience was discussed at the Administrators' Noticeboard in November 2014, and the recommendation was made at that time that "If they revert it [the change to a redirect] again they should be indeffed" (blocked from editing indefinitely). I urge you not to recreate the page again, or I will bring the issue up at ANI yet again with a link to this earlier discussion, which will almost certainly result in the loss of your editing privileges. General Ization ^Talk 16:17, 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)

What is this podcast about?

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)

It's a long-form discussion. There are recurring topics, but narrowing down to single/few ideas is contrary to the whole idea of long-form. Sjmantyl (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2020 (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.

Edit and additions to History section

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)

Edit and additions to History section

let me know if you any issues with the edits I am doing.Freemjd (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Expansion Interest

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)

Well, you could. There are thousands of episodes though. You really want do all that and keep it updated? WisDom-UK (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Spotify 'censorship'

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)

Guests section

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)

Might be worth creating a List of The Joe Rogan Experience guests or List of The Joe Rogan Experience episodes to split the lists out a bit. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 09:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi LowSelfEstidle and Lollipoplollipoplollipop, I normally remove any guest lists on podcast articles because they are often completely arbitrary and could easily become hundreds or thousands of names long. Without a reliable and independent secondary source that takes note of the guests appearance I see no reason why the guest should be listed at all. Regardless, all of the guests can easily be listed in an episode table without running into issues of determining what merits a "notable" guest. I would have removed the guest list immediately, but this article seems to get a bit more traffic and I was curious whether anyone would oppose the removal first so I came here and found this discussion. Do either of you oppose the removal of the guest lists? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell if pinging the two of you worked so I'm doing it again @LowSelfEstidle: @Lollipoplollipoplollipop: TipsyElephant (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully support the idea of removing the Guests section altogether. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2021 (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)

Hmmm. I question this decision, not just because, as you say, it suddenly makes a few of the guests unduly prominent. Per WP:NOTPAPER, I think that more information, especially non controversial info, adds to the encyclopedia. However, I've had this argument on other pages with varying success. Different types of pages have different types of looks and associated editors. There are a fair number of editors who have a "less is more" aesthetic. At any rate, TipsyElephant's concern that podcast guests will run in the hundreds of thousands is over stated, because successful podcasts run in the hundreds. What's more, this is the most popular podcast in the US (the world?), so any appearance is quite significant, and not at all, as Tipsy says, "arbitrary". I think a list of guests is quite handy. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Listing the guests for a show with 1700+ episodes isn't practical so we need a criteria to generate notability, like TipsyElephant said above. But a secondary source alone would probably produce a long list of guests so I don't think it's sufficient for "notability". I'm going to remove the Notable section since Fravor is the only mention that's reasonably sourced and he shouldn't have a section to himself. SmolBrane (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we add a table/section for the most viewed/most listened to episodes?

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 added this but someone deleted it :( WisDom-UK (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What were you sources? If you were relying on WP:Primary sources, it's not surprising it was removed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well seeing as there's no scholarship on Joe Rogan's podcast funnily enough, I just ranked the list of episodes on YT by views and used that.WisDom-UK (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2020 (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)

“First-ever emergency podcast” is not DUE???

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)

• For context: The JRE article has a whole paragraph on Kanye West's appearance and presidential bid. The sources in that paragraph are as follows: JRE, twitter, twitter. The “Other guests” section mentions Bob Fay, then a ufologist, then Fravor(the Nimitz witness), then the “world's most famous 'alien abductee'”. The sources are JRE, Rolling Stone, Men's Health, JRE. So this addition is adequately sourced when compared with what's already being used. Is it DUE? I think so, on the basis of “first-ever” and “emergency”, and in the context of the material already in the article. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM are unpersuasive for the same reason, and for the significance of COVID related conversations. So I say Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe. The real challenge is on #4. Alexbrn's modification removes the subject of the conversation, which I don't really like, and adds the caveat of “Both Kory and Weinstein have spread misinformation, claiming that ivermectin can prevent and cure COVID-19.“ While a statement along these line might be warranted, it reads strangely when it is simply tacked on to the sentence. It also may not be appropriate to characterize their discussion as fringe and pseudoscience, especially since they do discuss the in vitro COVID study that is currently featured prominently in the COVID-19 research section on ivermectin, among other issues that may not be considered misinformation. SmolBrane (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• On WP:PSCI: The section ends with “See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.” WP:FRINGE/QS may apply: “Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.“ Also, WP:FRINGE/ALT “Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective.“ To further complicate things, neither WP:FRINGE or PSCI address misinformation specifically. SmolBrane (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  You would need reliable secondary sources to explain what those terms mean in the context of a podcast. The Vice article I read doesn't seem the best place to start. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I already stated, the current state of sourcing material for the article does not indicate that I need a reliable secondary source. There is a substantial amount of info in the article that is only primary sourced. In fact, VICE is already used as a source for references 25 and 30, and #30 is used to state the following:

  ”VICE later reported that Spotify CEO Daniel Ek defended having episode no. 1,509 on the platform, which had Rogan and author and journalist Abigail Shrier discuss topics that some deemed transphobic, causing some Spotify employees to voice their concerns to management. A Spotify spokesperson said the episode was within its content guidelines.“

  I'm certain that a characterization such as this has equal if not more need for a reliable source, yet VICE is reliable enough here. Further, I find your initial reply over at Joe Rogan innacurate, since you characterize the JRE as a comedy podcast(???), and you go on to say:

  “I'd be cautious about citing any article promoting the "Intellectual Dark Web" narrative, as it seems to be based on opinion, not fact.“

  Wikipedia has a very substantial article on the IDW. Your objections are not well founded, and I feel like you are not hearing me. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The other insufficiencies of this article are not an excuse to add flimsy narratives from a small number of sources. I'm aware of Wikipedia's IDW article, I just don't think the Vice article properly represents the subjectivity of the concept, and is mostly just dropping buzzwords to stir controversy and generate readership. Nothing objective or factual, but that's my opinion. I actually think Vice is as good as most internet sources, but varies greatly with the article. As far as your IDHT claim is concerned, you didn't answer my objection that terms like "first-ever" and "emergency" (which were self-appointed by the podcast) need explaining to contextualize why that makes them worth discussing. The podcast has a long history and much more notable events... This is an article about a podcast, not a list of short-lived controversies it has triggered. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What's subjective is your characterization of this “narrative” as “flimsy”. We have a quote from a primary source in a secondary source. Simple as. I believe that “first-ever” and “emergency” are contextually valuable enough given the long history of the show and the strength of those terms, and what is currently included as DUE in the article. If you don't think this is sufficient to warrant inclusion on the basis that we are quoting Rogan, than so be it; I do not have the experience editing to refute that particular point, but your rebuttals have been less than persuasive and I would appreciate further input from other editors. Further, the current status of sourcing on the article generates a precedent whether you want it to or not. If we do not edit consistently w/r/t precedent, then we are likely to run into NPOV issues where editors exclude controversial sources depending on the POV of the content that they write. WP:IAR would suggest that the current state can be applied in the interest of improving the article. As a new editor I have to assess relativistically. SmolBrane (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Another source on this content - SmolBrane (talk) 20:00, 15 July 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)

That section has been archived, here is the last change in it: [1]. But you misspelled "fringe theory opponents". Fringe theory proponents are the ones who are spreading the misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree broadly but strongly with @SmolBrane JustinReilly (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC for emergency podcast

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)

Response

• Disruptive RfC with no WP:RFCBEFORE. Suggest close and trout filer. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm far too new to get a trout for editing in good faith. You should get a trout for suggesting it. SmolBrane (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Use frozen trout, (on filer) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• What the? Your second edit here is an RfC about an unexplained and ultimately meaningless edition of the podcast? Where did you [[discuss the question(s) with other editors? Where did you collaboratively hone the options? Why does this "RfC" seem more like POV pushing than making editorial decisions with the community? Withdraw or close premature (at best) RfC. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Both editors that opposed this addition did not respond to my comment on the talk page after reverting. When this occurred over at Drew Pinsky I was advised to start an RfC. I am trying to produce collaboration. If this is considered premature then I apologize. SmolBrane (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair, the editor first brought this to discussion on the Joe Rogan article, then made a WP:BOLD edit which I reverted. But yes, needs to be discussed on this talk page before an RfC. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Please see the discussion above on the talk page. Reasoning for exclusion seems very weak. SmolBrane (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe - Clearly DUE, clearly adequately sourced, guests and subject should be mentioned, #4(how we characterize this information) will require further collaboration. SmolBrane (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Needs more commentary Please see the noticeboard discussion regarding Vice. Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:DUE claims have not been address nor has the noticeboard regarding vice concluded and in general I am noticing a lot of the fringe theory/scientific consensus crowd injecting information into various articles to highlight potential misinformation before it is been certified. FrederickZoltair (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. There are a number of conversations going on around this issue and it's hard to keep up/find all of them. I read the conversation at RS/N and NPOV/N. Put briefly, I think whatever the outcome is for the Bret Weinstein lead will be an appropriate outcome for #4 here. Since it's functioning the same way(characterizing the ivermectin/misinformation discussion). #1, 2, 3 remain notable and reasonably sourced given the simple content and the precedent on this article. On sourcing: we are not relying on VICE for an analysis here. Additionally, a brief assessment of the references shows that the amount of primary and non-perennial secondary sourcing on this article is very substantial.

Example text:

In June 2021, for episode #1671, Rogan hosted Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory on the first-ever “emergency” episode of the podcast, which contained allegations that “a promising treatment[for COVID-19] is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry”. Weinstein and Kory have been criticized for spreading misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. (With this last sentence being lifted from the conversation over at NPOV/N). SmolBrane (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am surprised at the lack of input for this Vital article. Perhaps I am wrong about the DUEness and the sourcing on this material, but objections have been weak on the basis of the current state of the article. So that leads me to ask, is there a general issue with the state of this article, and that's causing people to hesitate on commenting? Because I cannot reconcile why this article mentions a two year fleshlight sponsorship that ended in 2012, citing only tweets, then has a whole paragraph on Kanye West, again citing tweets and the primary source only, then mentions a non-notable person who looked for Bigfoot(under Other guests), NONE of which feature ANY secondary sources, but this secondary-sourced content on a self-described first ever emergency podcast(in 1600+ episodes) with notable guests(who have their own standalone articles) is not acceptable. An explanation would be appreciated; it is very difficult to edit constructively as a new editor when inconsistencies like this persist. SmolBrane (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @SmolBrane: You started this discussion so it goes without saying that you support the inclusion of the material. Over half of the comments in this request for comment discussion are your own. Also, I thought this was RfC was deemed undue and actually closed, but perhaps that's my faulty memory. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I do support inclusion, but more significantly I support discussion, something that has been lacking here ever since my BOLD edit was reverted by experienced editors with nothing more than edit summaries. This RfC was never closed, I suspect because arguments alleging UNDUE have not been substantiated. Can you qualify how “minority views or aspects" apply in this case? Has Rogan qualified other podcasts as first ever emergency podcasts? Can you demonstrate a “majority view” that suggests that this was not an “emergency” podcast? Please note that we are discussing the occurence of the podcast, not the allegations within it; while this content is DUE for the JRE article, it is clearly UNDUE for the ivermectin article. SmolBrane (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• No secondary sources you really need these if you want to show it isn't WP:UNDUE. Vice doesn't call it an emergency podcast. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC) @SmolBrane: should have pinged you as you say there is a secondary source. Ping me if you reply please. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes secondary source.@Doug Weller: The VICE article is a secondary source for the following, which was included in part in my addition:

"The overall point of Rogan’s conversation with Kory and Weinstein was to make the case that a promising treatment is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry."

I am using the primary source to quote Rogan, which is perfectly reasonable as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:PRIMARYCARE. WP:DUE states that “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources(the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered).

Can you demonstrate how Rogan's characterization is not a significant viewpoint? I have rephrased my suggested addition to include attribution:

In June 2021, for episode #1671, Rogan hosted Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory for what he described as the “first-ever” “emergency” episode of the podcast, which contained allegations that “a promising treatment[for COVID-19] is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry”. Weinstein and Kory have been criticized for spreading misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.(statement/citation here pending convo at NPOV/N)

We can cite Spotify for the first quote, and VICE for the second.

Here are some quotes from primary sources that already exist in the article, as an example of DUEness:

That year, Rogan said that the podcast was helping his stand-up comedy as he would take ideas that arose during conversations and develop them into routines.

In April 2019, Rogan said that the podcast had 190 million downloads each month.

DUEness is complicated, but the significance of “first ever” and “emergency” is clear. Sourcing, again, is adequate. SmolBrane (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Yes, Yes, Yes. Instead of fourth we may simply link to COVID-19 misinformation as an aside. Yegourt (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • • @SmolBrane and Yegourt: I don't mean to be rude, but neither of you has enough experience to understand our policies here. Vice does definitely not call the podcast an emergency podcast, note the quotation marks that they use. Basically they just repeating what Rogan called it. WP:DUE says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." And one source isn't even a tiny minority. Until this material is discussed in several mainstream sources it doesn't belong in this article, and even then Wikipedia should not call it an emergency anything, that's just hype. This isn't a 'Vital" argument in the normal sense of the word, someone simply nominated it at the lowest level of the 50,000 that should have a Feature Article. Frankly I think that there are many more important articles than this one. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Joe Rogan may be one source but he is a significant one. I don't see any evidence suggesting that Rogan's statement qualifies as “hype”, I would love some evidence of that; Rogan has no history of embellishing along these lines so we have to assume that his statements are genuine. Watching the video shows he is definitely sincere. And diminishing the “vital”ness of this article does not strengthen your case, in fact it suggests a lack of good faith. Editors are attempting to diminish Rogan's statements and this is a POV problem.

Compare with Jeopardy!, where we quote Trebek to say things like:

Trebek said the odds of his retirement in 2020 were 50/50 "and a little less".

Trebek noted that the strategy not only annoyed him but the staffers as well since it also disrupts the rhythm that develops when revealing the clues and increases the potential for error. (on a particular strategy)

SmolBrane (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug is spot on with 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)

Shouldn't even one source (Vice) be enough though? At least in the interest of public's health shouldn't we mention JRE's part in COVID-19 misinformation? I haven't seen all of JRE episodes, but I thought the emergency podcast was the key to it. Yegourt (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So it's OR if I say this isn't hype, but it isn't OR if you say it is? It is well known that Rogan has never marketed, promoted or advertised his podcast. Allegations of “hype” are OR. “It would be hype if Wikipedia said it” no, it would be an attributed quote. As per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:

Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.

And WP:PRIMARYCARE:

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.

“milk it dry”??? I want to include a single descriptive statement, with attribution, and with a stipulation on misinformation. Please edit constructively. Perhaps this dispute comes down to whether “first-ever” and “emergency” constitute an opinion, or a description. Rogan is well within his credibility to describe this episode as an “emergency” podcast. SmolBrane (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it is OR to write something as a fact into the article after you have decided that it is true because the person who said it was sincere. Saying it is hype, or not hype, on the Talk page cannot be OR because OR does not apply to Talk pages. The original point still stands: you seem to see this as a discussion, but actually, it is a class where we explain to you how the rules work. This talking at cross-purposes is not productive, and I will stop doing it now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion we have problems with marketing cruft getting into articles on radio shows (and podcasts, now) already. This is pure marketing cruft; the podcast isn't really more important than any other episode of the show. A few people who like it are trying to push it unnecessarily into the episode. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as no reliable secondary sources discuss this phrasing. It does not have due weight.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:15, 7 August 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)

Agreed, and now that there is a lasting COVID-19 section on this article, it would seem well within reason to include a statement on this. It will also fit chronologically between the two existing paragraphs. Perhaps I will get around to it... In the meantime, input from other editors would still be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

270 doctors wrote a letter

Just wondering how DUE this is. Rolling Stone is deprecated for societal commentary, any better sources? SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems covered in too much detail, and Wikipedia is not a news site. We don’t have to give the play-by-play call of every complaint leveled against the show and can summarize it better actually by saying less. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In any case, it should not be in two different sections, "Spotify era" and "COVID-19". --Hob Gadling (talk)

Blatantly False Section To Article

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 just read the section on COVID-19 misinformation and it doesn't seem to be a Rogan vs Fauci issue. Recommended reading are Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 vaccine that should include citations to medically reliable sources (WP:MEDRS). Also, Wikipedia does not present opinions as equal to scientific consensus (WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 01:47, 1 February 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)

"I don't think you need to worry ..." (said Rogan)

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)

This is incoherent. Whether or not he believed to be true his statements regarding COVID-19 is irrelevant to whether or not said statements are false. Misinformation relating to the COVID pandemic is not a difference of opinion, and matters of fact should not be stated as opinions.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How is it false to say "I don't think you need to worry about this". Have there been studies on whether or not one should be worried? Removing my tongue from my cheek, what precisely did Rogan say here that is false? He didn't say vaccines are unneeded in young healthy people, which is what is being synth-y rebuked here. Not sure we can say "false" in wikivoice when his statement is so couched. SmolBrane (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say that this emphasis on "being worried" is disingenuous, but I'll assume good faith and concede that perhaps the current phrasing of the article gives the impression that this is all Rogan said. The sources cited articulate that Rogan's claim was that young, healthy people have no real reason to get the vaccine, which is false. False claims about the virus, disease, and vaccine don't stop being false when phrased as medical advice. See PaleoNeonate's comment in the above section (which is about the exact same topic) - Wikipedia does not present opinions as equal to scientific consensus per WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

SmolBrane, that's not for us to decide. We follow reliable sources and the reliable sources say that the statement was false. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes Vanilla Wizard the phrasing is poor. Joe had more to say and I think we could cite him directly since he does explain either before or after this quote. He does say something like 'the young don't need vaccination' but it's not clear at all from the current quote what is false. Dlthewave I missed reviewing the snopes source before, but no other source explicitly says “false”, they quote Fauci to say “incorrect”, which would be much more appropriate here. Several sources note that vaccinations have a different risk/reward with younger people, so false is a stretch. SmolBrane (talk) 03:39, 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)

My characterization wasn't quite right, it's more about the acute need for vaccination with younger people. But from Snopes:

Rogan said that he was trying to suggest that young, healthy people had a lower risk of serious complications from COVID-19 (which is generally true but, again, young people are not immune from this disease)

From The Independent

“That’s incorrect,” Dr Fauci told NBC’s Today Show on Wednesday, explaining that Rogan’s logic only makes sense if “you’re talking about yourself in a vacuum.” Even if a young, healthy person gets a mild or asymptomatic case of the virus, he said, that person can then spread the virus to more vulnerable people.

I would favor the word "incorrect" here. Individual preferences that do not benefit the group are not "false", although they can be incorrect(if we defer to RSes, as we do). Please note that the only time Rogan's statements are called false is in the Snopes 'rating', not even the body makes this claim. SmolBrane (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with the assessment that Snopes "rating Rogan's claims as false" is meaningfully different from Snopes saying that Rogan's claims are false. They don't repeat the term in the body of the article, but they do use it in large, bold letters when giving their overall assessment of Rogan's claims. The actual phrasing of the Snopes article is much harsher, reading "any implication that young people are at no risk of serious COVID-19 complications is a fiction." I think it takes a very tortured explanation to argue that Snopes didn't term his claims as "false."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Interpret Snopes as you see fit, the majority of sources do not use the word "false", so I believe we should be more cautious with such a declaration here. SmolBrane (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the six sources cited on the sentences "On April 27, 2021, Rogan made false remarks about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular claiming that young, healthy people do not need to be vaccinated against the virus. This view was criticized by Anthony Fauci and White House communication director Kate Bedingfield, as well as by several media outlets.", The Hill referenced Fauci's quote saying Rogan's claim was "incorrect", Snopes termed it "false", I couldn't get the CNN clip to play (might be my adblockers?) but it linked to this CNN article which uses "false", the Politico article uses none of the terms, the Variety article uses "false", and The Verge uses "false." Not only do the majority of the sources use "false", nearly all of them do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The CNN article says

Both Facebook and Twitter have removed false claims about Covid-19 vaccines. Spotify, as well, has removed misleading content including a podcast in March. A Spotify spokesperson said at the time, "Spotify prohibits content on the platform which promotes dangerous false, deceptive, or misleading content about COVID-19 that may cause offline harm and/or pose a direct threat to public health."

Variety says

COVID misinformation on Rogan’s show has included false statements by Infowars founder and conspiracy-monger Alex Jones

Verge says

Spotify issued a statement saying: “Spotify prohibits content on the platform which promotes dangerous false...

then later, on Facebook policies

This includes conspiracy theories — like vaccines containing microchips — and false claims about the safety, efficacy, ingredients, or side effects of vaccines.

These are the only utilizations of “false”, and they are not directed at Rogan, with the exception of the Snopes source. Only Snopes uses "false" directed at Rogan's comments. SmolBrane (talk) 02:13, 7 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)

Not quite sure what you mean here, if you are saying that we should be quoting Fauci with inverted commas, I agree. The spotify and facebook statements on prohibiting false information do not suggest that Rogan's statements were false, since no content was removed. Those are simply references to the misinformation policies adopted by those companies. Sources are not being well-assessed here. The use of "false" here remains only applied by Snopes. SmolBrane (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the "as well as by several media outlets" in the following sentence about the critics of Rogan's statements. Either way, Wikipedia does seem to have become lazy and begun applying a double standard when it comes to COVID-19 (dis)information. Usually, to proclaim something as "false" you would be required to add a ton of references demonstrating a clear scientific consensus or at least link in the text the sections of other articles already doing that. Plus, I couldn't help but notice that the various scandals had been described in great detail, yet no one had even bothered to mention the notable people that had defended Spotify/Rogan. –Turaids (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think there's compassion fatigue on wiki regarding skepticism and critics of the corporate talking points. Reverting nonsense for years might do that to someone. But divergence in COVID has been extraordinary. And the historically credible organizations like the WHO have damaged their long term reputation with expedient advice on masks, vaccination especially. Probably warrants writing an essay on it. Anyway, that's my foruming for the day. Saying 'false' in wikivoice should have a higher standard for inclusion, I agree. SmolBrane (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead too short

Clearly the lead is missing key points regarding the subject of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)