Jump to content

Talk:Joe Rogan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Hair Transplant

Rogan is one of the few male celebrities who have openly discussed (and regret) getting a hair transplant. He even went into it in detail in his Podcast Number 213, in which he claims that he "tapped out to baldness". He also used Rogaine ("didn't make shit grow back") and Propecia (made him impotent).

Untitled

Related to Gerard Way and Mikey Way, lead singer and bass player (respectively) of the band My Chemical Romance (Gerard and Mikey are Joe's mother's cousin's sons)

The Flame War

I'm suprised there's nothing in here about the flame war that he had with "Kevin" a while back, created quite the stir on the interwebs. If anyone who cares enough about Joe Rogan to read this is willing to add it, please do.

Most famous people have their own internet forums, Joe Rogan is no exception. His forum at http://www.joerogan.net/ has everything from racial hate, sexist hate, gay and lesbian hate, illegal drug use, pornography, flaming and e bullying from his self appointed moderators to new posters who ask the comic direct questions, just to name a few things that happen on his forums. Joe, himself encourages this type of cyber bullying to his "fans". It is really no wonder the above incident happened on my space. WRONG.

Allegations of Homophobia (actual discussion)

The addition of the section titled Allegations of Homophobia is slanderous, baseless, uninformative, and a self promoting act. Let me explain.
First of all the who. Who added the section with an unnamed IP address account? 72.37.142.131[1]. This IP began editing on June 13 and ran through June 20. The person in that time edited ANT’s wiki 15 times in 3 days. From June 13-15. Then on June 15 began editing Joe Rogans wiki (only adding this article). The editing by this IP began prior to the TMZ article and ANT’s original myspace blog on the topic. ANTs blog and the TMZ article are dated June 14. The 72.37.142.131 editor began his editing on June 13 with that IP address. This shows it is not a fan reacting to the blog or TMZ news. His edits include fixing the way ant is written (he likes it in all caps), adding his myspace link, adding his official website, correcting the age and birth date listed, adding his birthplace, general maintenance, and cleaning up recent vandalism.
This IP user has intimate knowledge of a largely unknown comic. He edits ANT’s wiki [2] 15 times adding helpful, information, and personal information. None of which harmful to ANT himself (adding nothing about the plagiarism charges) Then adds a slanderous article to Joe Rogan’s wiki. Then one more addition of self promotion, adding ANT’s website to the Celebrity Fit Club television show’s wiki[3].
I believe the IP editor (72.37.142.131) is ANT himself. And this addition to Rogans wiki is an act of self promotion and not illumination.
The title is bias, and slanderous. The blog that started this recent incident written by ANT was written about a radio interview Rogan gave on the Opie and Anthony radio program in the year 2005 [4]. In which Rogan mentioned ANT’s name while discussing the issue of comedic integrity and plagiarism in the stand up comedy community. He offered no immediate evidence in the interview to ANT’s theft. Joe Rogan and ANT had a professional encounter that perhaps triggered this incident. Joe Rogan was a judge on the television show Last Comic Standing. In which ANT was a contestant. As a judge Rogan called into question a joke ANT used. Claiming that he heard it before and attributed it to another comic, Jim David. This took place years ago. Prior to the Rogan radio interview. ANT’s response blog dated June 14 claimed Joe Rogan is a homophobe for criticizing ANT’s work. And then offers an unwitnessed, unsubstantiated claim that Joe Rogan called him a ‘faggot.’ In a post-Imus world such a claim can only be done with the intent to end someone’s career.
The title is slanderous and not representation of the entire incident but only ANT’s off topic response to a person who judged his comedy on a television show to be of poor quality.
The body of the article is more self promotion linking to the first press ANT has ever received(the TMZ story.) And sending users wishing more information to ANTS own myspace to read his blog.
If this incident is going to be recorded on Rogans wiki it should not be in this form and should be immediately removed pending revisions. It is a slanderous, uninformative, act of self promotion on someone else’s wiki page by ANT (72.37.142.131).----badwordwit June 22,2007

Controversial section

Aliens v. Pyramids: Joe has stated numerous times on his podcast that he believes the Giza pyramid was built by aliens, i.e., ETs. To date, he has not retracted this statement although he is skeptical of some of the "further out" claims such as the "Face on Mars." Joe has regular guests on his show who support the ET hypothesis such as Graham Hancock.

Brian "Redban" Reichle: A 30-something manboy who produces the Joe Rogan Podcast. Considered irritating by listeners for his nonstop, inane, irrelevant interjections. Joe is aware of the problem and regularly chastises Brian for being "silly." Joe is apparently unable to bring Redban under control.

Joe Rogan and Dane Cook 'feud' over

Rogan had Dane Cook as a guest on his podcast (Number 33, 3rd August 2010), and he (Rogan) said (at the close of the podcast [2h26m]) that Cook was "...a good dude", and that he was "...glad we put all that shit past and hung out.....I think you doing some awesome shit". Cook replied; "That means the world hearing that from you Joe...you've got alot of integrity and i've always had alot of respect for you". They also revealed that they had been buddies since the 1990's. BTW - the source for the argument quoted in the article is 404.

new picture needed

that is the worst picture I have ever seen of someone on wikipedia. for god sakes find a better one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.91.85 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Confrontation with Mencia

I believe that the confrontation with Mencia should be incorporated into a sepreate section under joe rogan as it has resulted in some serious fallout.

It should be noted that Rogan was not bringing up Ari. Ari was there but was not the one who was about to perform. Check the clip.

Also - why no mention of his conflicts with Dane Cook? Also available on Youtube.

Seeing as Joe Rogan's accusations of material theft now take up more space than any other portion of his career, it's probably worthwhile. Max Overload 14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems Carlos Mencia got caught again, but this time not by Joe. Perhaps this verifies the claims?[5] Tavor 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Claims? Claiming another comedian stole your routine is itself a routine dating back to at least Vaudville. It's seems like it's making up the majority of Rogan's post-Fear Factor career. Too many comedians who deal with topical comedy fail to believe in any chance of parallel invention.Max Overload 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mencia has hacked jokes written years before by other comics whom he has certainly seen.75.111.57.38 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide this proof & it will be added, as well as added to Mencia's page. Zchris87v 03:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I've removed the following part per WP:BLP: "Not mentioned by Rogan, was repeat of Ari's jokes by multiple other comedians. Indicating that Rogan has a hidden agenda against Mencia." If someone can find a reliable third-party source stating that Rogan has a hidden agenda against Mencia, then please add the information back in with a citation. ShadowHalo 08:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pyschedelic Use

maybe something should be added about his avid psychedelic use, like smoking DMT, also he has a sensory depravatoin chamber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.240.184 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

, joe rogans psychedelic use is great. Psychedelics open up the gigantic box of ignorance that prevails against most everyday people who cannot comprehend the raw truth about certain beliefs and in-depth discussions that ultimately lead to a factor of intellectual wisdom. Joe rogan shows this when he discusses certain corresponding relationships of humanities perceptive inclination about the modern world on his pod-casts.USER:Andreas jr

Baseball

Joe dislikes all sports except mma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.164.232 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Connection with Alex Jones

Is it worth noting in this article that Rogan is a long-time friend of Radio host/'Conspiracy Theorist' Alex Jones? He's appeared on camera with Jones several times throughout the years. --Baltech22 00:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering he disputes the moon landing, quite possibly.

The connection appears to be Sacred Cow (Bill Hicks company, now run by Kevin Booth IIRC), they seem quite friendly in the videos they made together. Off topic but one of them is hilarious, where Joe offers Alex some pot, but Alex claims he doesn't smoke that stuff because it makes him paranoid!! Marty funkhouser (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://redban.com/audio/CARLOS.wmv

Daughter

Does anyone know anything about his daughter or his girlfriend?(MgTurtle (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Semi-Protection

I've put in a request for temporary semi-protection due to the numerous instances of vandalism over the past two days by multiple IPs. 92708S (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone change the link for the DMT , one of them leads to disambiguation instead of Dimethyltryptamine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.231.6.57 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling

Rogan was a Massachucetts state champion for the sport of wrestling in high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.154.129 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking monkeys in space

Joe has a new comedy special called "talking monkeys in space" some one shoould look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.68.35 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

geneaology

The article says the members of MCR are "Joe's mother's cousin's sons" Is that not the same as being his second cousins? Yes, it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.243.1 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Joe Rogan is 3/4 Italian. I can prove it by his own admission on the a radio show. Hello? Who the hell listed him as Irish, but excluded his Italian heritage when it's 3/4!?!?! Who's going to fix it? Wikipedia seems more like only the opinions of a select few get to decide what we read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.181.241 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ufc

where is everything about his commentary on ufc? this article needs serious attention....think i will have to do some research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjlaidlaw (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UFC Career

This article mentions nothing of Rogan's affliation with UFC being a color commentator. This is perhaps more well know than his time on Game Show in Your Head. Rogan started at UFC 10 doing back stage interviews with fighters such as Randy Couture after his UFC 10 win. He left after a few UFC events and was replaced by James Werme. (I would need to go back to see when he was replaced by Werme but by memory it was perhaps around UFC 15??)Rogan came back to the organization at UFC 40. This information should be listed in the main article as the UFC is a long running and current endeavor Rogan is and has been heavily involved in. --mrcove 20 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.241.171 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing Rogan on an old UFC PPV event (don't remember the exact date but is was probably around UFC 50-55) where he said that he started with them at UFC 14 back in the dark ages. That would contradict the statement in this article that he started at UFC 40. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just heard Rogan on Scott Ferrall's show (Sirius Satellite Radio), he said he started with the UFC in 1996 in Alabama. That would probably be UFC 10. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, when Rogan started he was only doing post fight interviews, I believe. Chaos0mega 10:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't sign a contract until much later on, he just done UFC early on as a favor to the big man, heard that in an interview ( http://www.sherdogvideos.com/events/ufc67/ufc67_post_rogan.wmv ). he explains it there....

I would also like to stress the importance of this... I would say Joe Rogan is known primarily for his UFC work these days and its arguably his biggest gig since Fear Factor... His article definitely needs something about his colour commentary work with the UFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.58.222 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I seen him doing a post match interview in UFC 10 earlier today. Aj10101 (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from AnythingXanytime, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a source that can be used as a reference to prove that Joe is an atheist: http://twitter.com/joerogan/status/23034373271

AnythingXanytime (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm sorry, but Twitter is not considered to be a reliable source. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is why wikipedia is a joke. lol. AnythingXanytime (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The posts shows that he's secular, not atheist; and the article already says that . . . 96.237.129.131 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe is for sure no longer an Atheist. He was at one point, but now he's more agnostic. He credits hours in the isolation tank and his experience with hallucinogenics with that. He talks about it on his message board quite a bit. Although having it come out of Joe's own mouth wouldn't be good enough for Wiki. This place is a damn joke. 65.118.16.36 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adult entertainer?

Why does it say Joe's an adult entertainer, with a link to the pornographic actor article.

I would edit it but don't know how.Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.112.106 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is definitely not true. Perhaps because his podcast is sponsored by Fleshlight? I came in here to see if anyone else had mentioned that. I think that would justify an edit.173.19.108.53 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay I saw someone changed it a few days ago, now it was back and I removed the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.112.106 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A specific editor keeps adding this to the article without supplying a citation. Claiming someone is an "adult entertainer" is generally considered controversial. Making that claim without supplying a good source runs afoul of Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living people and should be deleted immediately. If the editor comes up with a good source then we can reconsider including that information, till then it needs to go and stay gone. SQGibbon (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Religious Views

His MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/talkingmonkey) indicates his religion is "Other", and in his blog (http://blog.joerogan.net/) he talks about various things spiritual and such, and I get the impression he might be a pantheist or something. I think we should remove the atheist category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.166.56 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rogan stated on the May 1, 2009 Adam Carolla podcast that he is definitely not an atheist, or even an agnostic.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who can edited this protected page take that out? It's very missleading. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Took it out, No cited sources at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.42.166 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you put Joe Rogan in the "Religious skeptics" category at least instead of debating? 38.118.23.20 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from FomtheRB, 14 April 2011

Joe Rogan was quoted as saying after the UFC heavyweight fight for the belt, when (Dana smooth white like a cream night) TKO'd (Fodor built like a brick Door axe killer) in the quickest fight in history, ending in under 10 seconds, when Mike Goldberg said “Why did he knock him out like that" and Joe Rogan said "Not for tickling Player”.

FomtheRB (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We also need to know specifically what change you would like made to the article. — Bility (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Homophobia

An article on TMZ dated June 14, 2007 talks about comedian ANT labeling Rogan a homophobe.[[6]] A blog entry on ANT's official myspace page dated the same day, provides more details.[[7]]

thats interesting because i seen an interview where rogan stated he wouldnt mind including guys in his sex life. maybe it was part of a comedy act, i dunno. wish i could find the source though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.179.34 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because a shitty comic calls him a homophobe doesn't mean he is one. If you were at all familiar with his work and philosophies you would know such a thing is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.105.3 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alias

--Pk7tanner (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Broseph, Flappo, Ned Sr. & "The Batman of Comedy"Pk7tanner (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sbiznessrogan, 27 April 2011

Height of Twilight

During the height of the movie Twilight, Joe Rogan frequently mentioned that he was a werewolf.

Sbiznessrogan (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

joe has also been know to talk about jelqing and how its very beneficial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.225.69 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TV Work

Joe has been in several tv shows most notably news radio, he co stared in 96 episodes as Joe Garrelli from 1995 through 1999 Staring along side such notable cast members as Dave Foley, Stephen Root, Andy Dick, Maura Tierney, Vicki Lewis and Phil Hartman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesfrankw (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Killjoy9, 6 May 2011

During the "Twilight Days," Joe Rogan often said that he was a "Werewolf" as per The Joe Rogan Experience.

Killjoy9 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done please state exactly what you would like added including refs. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.18.183.146, 14 May 2011

Joe Rogan Podcast #98 with Daryl Wright, Brian Whitaker and Brian Redban. Daryl Wright says "you on some man shit" to Joe, he replies "I'm gunna put that on my Wikipedia"

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13986692 Around 54:00


75.18.183.146 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not something we want to include--Jac16888 Talk 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of NewsRadio

Joe was a regular cast member on the sitcom NewsRadio for years. It's not mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.187 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Rogan and XM 105 The Virus announce new show to begin airing Sundays on May 22, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.15 (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Callen - half-brother or not?

The Bryan Callen page says that they ARE half brothers, while this page says they are not. Both pages are uncited. IMDB says that yes they are half-brothers, which would mean that this page is inaccurate. See link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0130437/bio --Josh1billion 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I changed this article to say that they are half-brothers because of the IMDB entry (which is the only current source). I cited the IMDB page with it. I'm not sure how trustworthy IMDB's trivia section is, but it's better than nothing and it's the only lead we have to go on at the moment. If someone finds a source more reliable, feel free to cite it instead. --Josh1billion 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rogan say's not on his internet forum:

http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?t=10445&highlight=bryan+callen

"No, he's not my brother, but I always refer to him as my brother from a different mother." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.171.33 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not half brothers and this "fact" should be removed. An article on AllBusiness.com says, "Joe Rogan (right in photo) and Bryan Callen met on the set of the Fox Television sketch comedy series MAD-TV, on which Callen used to be a regular performer and Rogan was once a guest star. A friendship bloomed, based on their common admiration for the martial arts, pitbulls, women, and especially standup comedy, which both of them continue to perform." There is no mention of them being long lost half brothers. http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4368067-1.html On SuperiorPics.com, it says, "Joe has been widely reported as the half-brother of comedian Bryan Callen. He disclosed in a radio interview that he refers to Callen as his “brother from another mother” to explain how close they relationships are." http://www.superiorpics.com/joe_rogan/ IMDB now says, "Although widely reported to be true, Bryan Callen is not his half brother." http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0736579/bio It looks like someone took his comment of "brother from another mother" literally (similar to the comment, "sister from another mister). I am removing the half brother comment from both this article and Bryan Allen's article. Update - ok, I see that there is no "edit" button on the page (wiki noob). If someone can fix this ASAP, I'd appreciate it (I'm sure Joe would too). 71.225.210.77 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Bryan Callen page says that they ARE half brothers, while this page says they are not."

Oddly enough, it's now the same thing in reverse. That should probably be removed. Aoa8212 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On Humanism

I'm surprised that Joe Rogan's wikipedia article barely discusses his humanistic ideals and beliefs that is so prevalent with his video blogs. It should also be noted that Joe Rogan himself is a humanist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" -> "Comments on Carlos Mencia"

The section "Controversy" is empty save for its subsection "Carlos Mencia". I believe the subsection header should be removed and the very generic section header "Controversy" should be changed to "Comments on Carlos Mencia".

from: 

==Controversy==
===Carlos Mencia===

to: 

==Comments on Carlos Mencia==

--195.14.197.88 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Carlos Mencia sub heading but left the main heading as Controversy as it is a generic heading that more can be added to in the future as needed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The section header should most faithfully describe the current, actual content of the section, not calculate for potential future content. It's neither accurate nor neutral to be talking about a "controversy" here, since it clearly and counterfactually implies that (i) the controversy is about Joe Rogan and (ii) that Rogan may have been wrong. A controversy concerns matters of differing opinions, not clearcut facts. At the very least, it should be made clear that if anything, the controversy concerns Mencia, not Rogan.
==Carlos Mencia controversy==
would be acceptable. --87.79.224.120 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... - hold on for 10 mins, please, and I'll add more below.  Chzz  ►  22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Now  Done.

OK; I have changed it from "Controversy" to "Accusations against Carlos Mencia" just for now. I will explain why;

  • My edit is per WP:BRD - ie, if others object, they can just undo it, and we can chat about it. I did it immediately, because this is a biography of a living person, and because 'anything' (to remove 'controversy') is better than nothing.

I'll now explain my further thoughts, and why I think a bit of discussion is needed, in a new section, below.  Chzz  ►  22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so far. --213.196.211.14 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs restructuring

I definitely do not think that the section should be called "==Controversy==". Per WP:NPOV. Who says it was controversial? So I changed that, with this edit, per WP:BRD and started this discussion;

I don't know if we should include it at all, or not in such detail, due to WP:WEIGHT - in the dude's career, this is a tiny incident; it might've become a bit of an internet meme, but I don't think it has any significant lasting notability, and I think that giving it a whole section - or even a couple of sentences - is overkill; over-coverage.

Also, the section is too short; so are other sections such as "Early life", "Commentating", the two L3 (===) headings under "Personal life", and "Psychedelics". Typically, a section contains a couple of paragraphs. I could probably find something in our extensive guidelines to support this, but I'm hoping others will simply agree.

So, the article really needs some restructuring. The lede isn't a good summary, the section headers are a mess, the lede has excess wiki-links (common terms/don't add to understanding), there are unreferenced claims (e.g. in "Acting", "Martial arts", "Hosting". And some of the refs look a bit shady, from a casual look - blogs, and YouTube are not reliable sources.

So, I'm now going to appeal for help on WP:BLPN#Joe Rogan, and let's try and knock this into some kind of shape.

Thanks to all,  Chzz  ►  22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • In principle, I agree with the UNDUE concerns. However, wrt BLP it should be noted that things like the Mencia situation and Rogan's take on e.g. drugs etc became internet memes in no small part because Rogan himself actively maintains a youtube channel and frequently comments on these issues (not just in his standup performances). So, I agree with culling some or even most of it, but on grounds of UNDUE and V rather than BLP. --213.196.211.14 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure; I appreciate that; they're valid points, that I'm sure can be taken into consideration while we improve it; thanks, IP-editor, you've been nice about all of this. Can I interest you in getting an account, perhaps?  Chzz  ►  23:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
BTDT. --213.196.211.14 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
...bought the t-shirt? Heh. Yes, noted, fair enough; it just makes responding a bit tricksome 'coz I do not know that you were/are same person who asked on HD, but I respect your wossname. BTW, I'm always available here. Well, mostly.
As re this article...we'll get it sorted out, somehow.  Chzz  ►  00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In accord with policies WP:BLP WP:COPYVIO,

I had to remove the section "Early life", as it was copied directly from the reference given - [8].

It had been added 27 June 2011, with this edit.

Apart from the verbatim copied text, the only other thing in the section was a second reference, [9]; however, that does not appear to be a reliable source; it did contain some info about Rogan, but, it says e.g. "A Review from Variety".  Chzz  ►  18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sncaufield, 28 August 2011

At the end of the "Hosting" section, please include the official database for his podcast. Quote to include in article:

"In late May of 2011, the official Joe Rogan Experience Database website was launched."

(the website can be found at www.jredatabase.com)

Sncaufield (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Done ItsZippy (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hosting

why isn't there anything about him co-hosting The Man Show on Comedy Central? his podcast is now featured on SiriusXM on theViRUS 12pm on saturdays. who's in charge here????? restructure indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.250.194 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Kickboxing record

I just added a reliable source indicating his participation in kickboxing, but I can't find any news articles or books that give his record, or where these competitions took place. I have removed them until we have a reliable source for that info. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Most of the new information in this article is coming from Joe Rogan's personal website/blog. I don't think Mr. Rogan is maintaining a NPOV about the situation he's created and I believe it's bleeding over into the article. Also, a lot of the rest of the information in this article seems to come from unconfirmed claims made by Joe Rogan. One statement even includes in the same sentece that there is citation available to disprove the claim. Max Overload 14:49, 17 February 2007

I believe Joe Rogan has also accused comedian Dennis Leary of stealing material from Bill Hicks can this be verified confirmed?

He admits to as much on a blog entry. Unfortunately, I can't find said entry.

There exists a streaming audio interview which discusses this claim rather extensively, specifically the (Hicks/Leary) material about smoking. I believe the claim is made that the only reason that Leary is famous is because there is "no cure for cancer" (the title of Leary's album; Hicks died of cancer before it's release). I don't know where to find this now, it was years ago that I listened to it.

He makes the claim in an interview in Maxim or FHM, I can't remember which.

Also, he had in his blog a post stating that Carlos Mencia was half-german, which many of Rogan's fans have used as a reason to change Mencia's page upon reading without any background info. No source (aside from obvious enemy Rogan's claims) mention anything about this. Should this be added? Zchris87v 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, if we're going to call this an enyclopedia at least have some reputable secondary sources. My God, Joe Rogan's website as a key to stating factual information? To make matters worse, a few links to his website cited are not working. Secondly, Carlos Mencia is born to a Mexican mother and a Honduran father. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1809058891/bio http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0578788/bio

Thridly, Ari Shaffir, DL Hughley, George Lopez, and Carlos Mencia all tell a similar joke about who is going to build a wall to ensure border security if illegal immigrants are deported from America..... So who's joke is it? It is imperative that the objective facts be included on this page and not hearsay. This link should definately be cited in the article: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kPuu_VE7KOA

There is also no available references, not even in his website bio that he was ever a Junior Olympic World Champion. The bio states that he won the US Open event. However, that had to have been around 1985-1986 and the US Open doesn't have online records going back further than 1993. That I could find.Lesssthan (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC) aparently dosent know when to shut up and enjoy the fight. singing him is the worst running mistake in any part of the ufc "my educated opinion 2011" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.37.111 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

allegations of misogyny

Rogan is a confirmed misogynist and consistency states that he has no desire to hear any woman's point of view, as he believes they are of lower intelligence and have no place telling a man what to do. Rogan doesn't think there is anything wrong with his negative view of woman because "that's how men talk to each other."

The above text has been axed by me from the section entitled "Hosting." It does not belong in a section about Rogan's history of program hosting. It has not been sourced, and an attempt to Google the quote included here, along with Rogan's name, turned up nothing but this wikipedia article.114.249.134.148 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Latrice96 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Joe Rogan is not married to Jessica Schimmel. He's married to Jessica Ditzel-Rogan.

I've decided to remove the name of his wife entirely since I am unable to find her name from a reliable source. I have also removed the information about his step daughter since I could not find any sources for that info either. --Marchije•speak/peek 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rogan is not married to Robert Schimmel's daughter

If you google Jessica Schimmel Katz you can find her facebook. She is not married to Joe Rogan but to a guy named Katz. Therefore Redban would love him.

LOL. The information has been removed. Please see the section below for more info. --Marchije•speak/peek 13:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

myspace page

myspace.com/talkingmonkey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.229.114 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

BRIAN REDBAND IS A CELEBRITY YOU DIRTY WIKI BIZNATCHES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.16.28 (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deathsquad

The producer of his podcast is named Brian Reichle, "Redban" is his nickname.

To be noted, tis' insane you guys don't have an wikipedia page of him already, the joe rogan podcast is BY FAR the biggest podcast network in the world, people claim adam carolla has the biggest, but if you look at the traffic of both websites, the difference is huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.201.60 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Snapple Facts 101

During the Twilight days Joe Rogan often said he was a werewolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaramelCorndog (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo in personal info

Last line in personal life contains a typo; should be 'endorsed', not 'endosed'. Whotookmytofu (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

oe Rogan Questions Everything

Note, I've added Joe Rogan Questions Everything to the lead since it was green-lit. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Joe Rogan's homes?

For a very long time this article has stated that Rogan owns a home in Boulder Colorado. Ive been listening to his podcast for a couple years and while he mentions that he USED to live in Boulder, he doesn't talk about it as if he still owns a home there. Also the citation for this "fact" is a link to milehighgayguy.com, a link I'm going to assume is not work safe. Please research into the topic and edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.140.104 (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Martial Arts Background

Joe is a black belt in no-gi BJJ under Eddie Bravo see linked to video of him being awarded the belt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTIb16BiGc4)and a black belt in gi BJJ under Jean Jacques Machado (http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/9/17/3349196/today-ufc-commentator-joe-rogan-received-his-black-belt-in-brazilian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil C (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How bout some background on Joe's martial arts background, at the moment it only mentions that he is a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, i found this quote about his Tae Kwon Do "Joe began practicing martial arts at the age of 13. Within two years, the Boston native earned a black belt and soon became the Massachusetts full contact Tae Kwon Do champion four consecutive years. By the age of 19, Rogan won the US Open Tae Kwon Do Championship, and in true Joe Rogan fashion, began calling himself "Tae Kwon Do Joe." The lightweight champion went on to beat both the middle and heavyweight title-holders to obtain the Grand Championship. Joe credits Tae Kwon Do for his discipline and focus, two characteristics which have enabled him to accomplish many things."

I am removing the part which states Rogan won the U.S. open Tae Kwon Do championship because the link is to a new story about Rogan becoming a comedian. I have been through the official U.S Open Tae Kwon Do website and can find no mention of Joe Rogan. The only person who claims Rogan was a Tae Kwon Do champion is Joe Rogan. Joe never says who trained him in Tae Kwon Do or which school he went to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.155.129 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC) For the record, Rogan HAS mentioned the trainer who instructed him in Taekwondo on his podcast, I'm almost positive. And if anyone has seen any videos of Rogan practicing kicking with Eddie Bravo or Georges St-Pierre, you'd know the guy is at a high level, & didn't train himself.


66.235.39.100 I just watched a re-run of UFC 63 in which Rogan mentions he was a US Open Tae Kwon Do champion. The he went to say that TKD is useless! -Cazador 10/06/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.100 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Machado's website, Joe Rogan is actually a purple belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.218.125 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, he's the inventor of Joe-Jitsu! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.241 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this section because many of the sources either do not support the claims made, or they don't meet wikipedia standards for a reliable source.

" Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: 

           the piece of work itself (the article, book);
           the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
           and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.243.109 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not very useful to copy and paste the source policies and then not mention at all how you feel these specific sources fail the criteria. At the very least the ESPN article (which states that Joe "was a tae kwon do black belt and jiu-jitsu brown belt") is a perfectly good source, the Colubus Dispatch one is likely valid as well, and the Eddie Bravo twitter source is also a possibility. At any rate, seeing that a few of the sources are bad and deciding to just blank the entire section and infobox is completely the wrong way to do this. The section will probably need quite a bit of rewording and some of the sources removed, as should have been done to begin with. Also, please try to follow WP:BRD, which says that after a bold edit is made and then reverted, the discussion takes place with the stable version left on the page. It's not BRRD or BRRRD. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the whole section because of this wikipedia policy "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Some of the sources did not verify the claims on the talk page, and other sources did not meet wikipedia standards for sources. Some of the sources were simply supposed copies of tweets, but it was not from twitter. The Columbus Dipspatch is a small paper with not a great record of fact checking. I have emailed the guy who wrote the article and I asked him if he fact checked the claims made in the article. If he says yes, either you, or I, can re-write the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.243.109 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Grossberg from the Columbus Dispatch emailed me back and said he can't recall if he fact checked the article, he suggested that we try and verify the information elsewhere (I let him know that currently his article was used as a source for wikipedia). I have emailed the CEO of US Tae Kwon Do, hopefully he can provide verification, so we can re-write the section accurately and with proper citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.148.201 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does somebody keep taking out the Martial Arts Background from this page? Source # 3, in Blackbelt Magazine isn't a reliable source?? Martial Arts is a HUGE part of what Joe Rogan is, why does somebody keep taking this out?????? To me, somebody has some kind of grudge against him

The sources for Joe's Taekwondo career are TMZ and Joe's personal website. These are not acceptable sources. The section should be removed until someone posts legitimate sources. Stargirlprincess (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically I would like to see a real source for the following claim "By the age of 19, Rogan won the US Open Tae Kwon Do Championship and as lightweight champion went on to beat both the middle and heavyweight title-holders to obtain the Grand Championship." - Right now the source is Joe's website. Stargirlprincess (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

God or god?

So yesterday as I was clearing out Special:PendingChanges I reverted this edit which changed a sentence from "Regarding his religious beliefs, Rogan has stated that he is not completely opposed to the concept of a "higher power" such as a god." to "Regarding his religious beliefs, Rogan has stated that he is not completely opposed to the concept of a "higher power" such as a God." My rationale was that the sentence is referring to a god, not to God. God is only capitalized when being used as a name for a specific deity, not as a general term for a type of being. It's like the word "mom". In the sentence, "Yesterday, Mom and I went to the store." Mom is capitalized because it is being used as her name, but in the sentence "My mom is in the hospital." Mom is not capitalized because it's not being used as a name, but rather to identify the relationship between the hospitalized woman and the speaker. With this edit @12.34.246.78: changed it back, correctly pointing out in his/her edit summary that, "God is capitalized when used as a name." However, neglecting to realize that god isn't being used as a name in the sentence in question. It has since been reverted again. I'd like to head this off before it becomes an edit war. 12.34.246.78, why do you think god/God is being used as a name in that sentence? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

corrections needed

early life section:

  • "raised in Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts until age seven": false, he graduated high school in newton and in the martial arts section it says he was massachusetts (bay state games) champion 4 years, which was obviously not after moving to san francisco at 7. he actually was not matriculated at umass/boston, but at mass art, which allowed its students to attend some classes at umass/boston.

martial arts section:

  • who deleted the mention of him being grand champion of the US open?

he also says awarded a brown belt by machado, not black, and only has the black from bravo.

71.98.201.101 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joe Rogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe Rogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe Rogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe Rogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Hi all, it seems like there has been a lot of unconstructive edits from IP users in the past few weeks. Should we consider semi-protection to avoid reverting updates every day? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead improvement

The lead is in dire need of improvement. It has the standard problems with bad leads. 1. The opening sentence attempts to list everything the subject has ever done. It should just list the things that they are most notable for. Other projects should be later. 2. After the first sentence, there is a bizarre story about his martial arts history which seems like it should be in the main article. Or at least just summarized here. 3. It seems to invoke a lot of peacockry as if in an effort to make him seem cool, rather than just explain his bio. 4. It contains a lot of early life details which should be left for the main article. Basically, the lead should give a brief context and explain why he is notable. Ashmoo (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ashmoo: I agree. This article should be worked from the bottom-top first (starting with the main paragraphs in the sections). I would say that we should take off " television host, actor" at least, since his stand-up comedian gig, podcast host, and color commentator stuff with the UFC is notable right now. As far as "retired martial artist", I'm kind of indifferent. We can still mention his TKD and BJJ accolades while removing this, but we need to make sure it follows correctly since the second sentence talks about his martial art interests. Martial arts is a HUGE part of Joe's life and I think it should be in the lead somewhere. Please feel free to do any changes. If someone disagrees with them, we can come here and discuss. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 12:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Great. I agree with pretty much everything, however the part 'martial arts are a HUGE part of his life' gives me pause. Even if it is, we shouldn't focus on it unless it is a huge part of what makes him notable. I don't know enough about him to make the call though. Ashmoo (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ashmoo: I mean, he's a UFC commentator and a important figure in the MMA community, with two BJJ blackbelts under legit world-class instructors (getting a blackbelt under world-class instructors is a very difficult task – they are not handed off as easily as they are on other martial arts). If we're removing the blackbelts from the lead, then we should remove his TKD accomplishments since they are somewhat obscure. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm

"became a paid regular by owner Mitzi Shore. He performed at the club for the next 13 years for free" Lewis Goudy (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Color commentator

This is factually wrong. He is not a color commentator. Here is the definition from the Wikipedia itself - "A color commentator is a North American term for a sports commentator who assists the main commentator, often by filling in any time when play is not in progress." Joe Rogan does not and has never done this. In the UFC he is the play-by-play commentator, it's somebody else who reads statistics and other trivia while nothing is happening. Joe Rogan just calls out the action.

Unfortunately somebody started labelling him a color commentator and everyone else (people who don't watch UFC) just went along with the title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisallwrong (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is Joe himself describing what he has to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asCBB_Ps1cs

Calling him a color commentator is straight up inaccurate.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Add that he hosted 8 episodes of a CBS game show titled "Game show in My Head"that aired in Jan. of 2009 and was never renewed. ˜˜˜˜

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</nowiki> --Colin Weinell (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

Change the caption for the main photo to remove "Louder with Crowder" and replace with "Joe Rogan Experience". The set in the background is clearly the JRE set. 75.166.246.78 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe appeared on Louder with Crowder via video chat from his own studio. You can see video of the episode here. Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 19:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: per User:Marchije. NiciVampireHeart 21:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

Some of the best Joe Rogan podcasts - https://www.1st-man.com/best-joe-rogan-podcasts/ KrisSturmey (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2019 (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. NiciVampireHeart 21:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

AI voice recreation by third party

Mr. Rogan seems to be one of the very first prominent people beeing voice immitated by an artificial intelligence system. parts of the system was the usage of the numerous podcasts from Mr. Rogan. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/05/fake-voice-joe-rogan-ai-clone-deepfake-dessa.html --Alexander.stohr (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

But is he a mixed martial artist?

The lead identifies Rogan as a "mixed martial artist," and we have him categorized in Category:American male kickboxers, Category:American male mixed martial artists, Category:American male judoka, Category:American Muay Thai practitioners, Category:American male taekwondo practitioners, and Category:American male kickboxers.

However, the text of the article only supports that he practiced taekwondo and kickboxing in his teens and early twenties, and makes no mention of his ever practicing Judo, Muay Thai, or MMA. He is certainly an ongoing practitioner of Brazilian jiu jitsu, so I support his staying in Category:American practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, but I think the rest can go. At the very least, he is not primarily known for these endeavors.

I'll go ahead and make these edits now, feel free to revert or discuss if I'm missing something, but wanted to identify my rationale here. Kane5187 (talk)

The following statement is accurate in the article. I am a relative of Joseph’s and this is accurate.

At nineteen, he won the US Open Championship taekwondo tournament as a lightweight.[9][2][disputed – discuss] He went on to defeat the middle and heavyweight title holders to earn the Grand Championship. Mccartney529 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The following statement is accurate in the article. I am a relative of Joseph’s and this is accurate.

At nineteen, he won the US Open Championship taekwondo tournament as a lightweight.[9][2][disputed – discuss] He went on to defeat the middle and heavyweight title holders to earn the Grand Championship. Mccartney529 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The following statement is accurate in the article. I am a relative of Joseph’s and this is accurate.

At nineteen, he won the US Open Championship taekwondo tournament as a lightweight.[9][2][disputed – discuss] He went on to defeat the middle and heavyweight title holders to earn the Grand Championship. Mccartney529 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

Add Gerard Way from My Chemical Romance as a cousin

Joe Rogan confirmed on his podcast that he and Gerard Way are ‘cousins’ with Rogan’s grandmother Josie being Way’s aunt.

https://www.altpress.com/news/gerard-way-joe-rogan-related/

https://loudwire.com/my-chemical-romance-gerard-way-joe-rogan-cousins/

http://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/my_chemical_romances_gerard_way_and_joe_rogan_are_cousins


2601:6C0:C100:B09:844E:C5E7:17FA:4D71 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for the same reason as discussed at Talk:Gerard Way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

change relatives list to include Mikey Way, younger brother of Gerard Way, who is also Joe Rogan's 2nd cousin. Invaderhubris (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Gerard Way Relationship

Joe Rogan and Gerard Way are Second Cousins. I believe this is notable.

It's stated in the infobox that Gerard is his "2nd cousin" and that his brother Mikey is his "second cousin". This seems like an annoying stylistic inconsistency and ought to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margretarson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Shaan Jain (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a better picture for Joe as his headline image. Image doesn't represent him well, and there are better photos to identify him more clearly.

 Not done: Vaguely requesting a picture without pointing at one in the File namespace is not helpful. If you wish to upload one, and there's no copyright issue, I suggest WP:FFU. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

Over half the citations are either primary sources or non reliable. No mention of criticism, no mention of his conspiracy theories, and no mention his role as part of the alternate influencer network and the alt right radicalization pipeline. In fact, this entire article reads like a humongous one sided fluff piece. Who's responsible for this and how is this allowed on wikipedia? This entire article needs a thorough rewrite. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view certainly is important, in fact it is one of Wikipedia's policies, as is striving for citations from reliable third-party sources. If you could be more specific about what points you find to be inaccurate or that you feel require criticism, along with some links from reliable sources for said information, you can list them here and a registered editor could assist you.
I've noted that you've engaged in discussions of several articles on their talk pages. Why don't you create an account so that you can create and edit articles such as this one yourself? That's the great thing about Wikipedia; anyone can become an editor. If you'd like help in understanding how to create and format references, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page, or ask your question on your own talk page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 23:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Joe Rogan is in a prominent position on the map of the Alternate Influencer Network, and that was published in a relaible source. Also, neutrality =/= equal false balance. That goes against wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia shouldn't be "neutral" on Joe Rogan any more than it's "neutral" on creationism, the flat earth conspiracy theory, anti-vaxing, climate denial, fascism, or anything related to Donald Trump. Also, the reason why I'm not creating an account is because technical issues outside my control make it incredibly hard for me to add to existing articles, especially adding citations and formatting, so even if i were to register a permanent account, offering my criticism on talk pages would still be most of my activity. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
But since you asked, almost all citations on biographical information and his views (section under "advocacy") reference youtube videos he himself made. For starters, THOSE need to go, and need to be replaced with third party characterization of what his ACTUAL views are. For that we could cite sources reporting on Data Society's study of the Alternative Influencer Network and the Joe Rogan's central position in that network. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Great. A good start would be to provide some links to reliable sources, along with quotes from said sources that tell us about Rogan's views. Please also provide guidance as to which parts of the Wikipedia article are contradicted by these sources. The same would apply to the study you spoke of. We can go from there.Marchije•speak/peek 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
We can start by removing this part: "He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second Amendment." I don't need reliable sources tlo contradict this claim, because it's a claim Joe Rogan makes about himself, and the only evidence backing it up is his own word. This entire sentence needs to be axed. This is the study done by the Data Society: https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf - it has been reported on by reliable sources in the past and also has been cited as a reliable source in several wikipedia articles. When mentioning Joe Rogan hosting members of the IDW, this study one should not be ignored. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentence specifies that this is how Rogan describes himself; there is no truth claim, so I don't see why it needs complete removal. We should be respectful of how people identify themselves, regardless how others portray them. Don't you agree? But we could potentially include Becca Lewis's report as a counterpoint if it provides evidence that contradicts Rogan's stated view of himself, as you seem to be indicating.
I did a little googling because I am unfamiliar with this study. The best I could find was this article from The Guardian, this one from Variety and this one from Wired.
  • The Guardian article doesn't refer to Rogan at all.
  • The Variety article says: "That’s why [Becca Lewis] also included YouTubers like conservative commentator Candace Owens, comedian Joe Rogan and libertarian talk show host Dave Rubin in her analysis." Note how the author simply refers to "comedian" Joe Rogan, yet provided actual political labels to the other two, in addition to their occupations.
  • The Wired article refers to Rogan as liberal: "Liberals included channels by Joe Rogan and Steven Bonnell II."
  • The only article I could find that made any reference to Joe being anything other than liberal was this article from the Daily Beast that refers to Rogan as "a comedian and self-described libertarian", but the author doesn't mention where or when he described himself as such.
Political views and political allegiances are sticky. I do find it fascinating how humans have this propensity to want to fit others into these political labels and boxes and stamp them with some sort of indelible label, established journalists included. Each human being is unique and contains a unique set of variables, which means that they are capable of holding views held by a variety of official political/ideological groups. Human beings are also capable of changing political views over their lifetime. The best we can do is demonstrate what Rogan has said and/or actually done, either via directly quoting Rogan or providing a third-party's reported evidence about his political views and actions, not just statements that give him a label without any evidence to back-up said label, including the articles I cited that call him "liberal".
From what I've gleaned, the Becca Lewis's report only makes the case that Rogan proliferates alt-right views because he has a large audience and interviews people associated with the far-right. I don't see anything suggesting that this report establishes that Rogan is not "pretty liberal" or that he doesn't in fact support gay rights, women's rights, etc., but if this is covered in her report or elsewhere by reliable sources then the offer still stands: If you can find reporting from reliable sources that directly contradicts his view of himself, these things could be added to the article. Marchije•speak/peek 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Carl Benjamin describes himself as a "classical liberal", that's still not relevant to wikipedia, as wikipedia cares about reliable sources only. Especially when covering people's political views. Regardless of what Joe Rogan is called, the Data Society study places him in a very prominent spot on the map of the Alternative Influencer Network. His role in proliferating alt right views should not be dismissed. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I've tried offering help, three times, and for some reason you've refused to provide direct quotes from reliable sources that applied to the sentence from the Rogan article that you deemed to be inaccurate. Now you are moving on to making similar claims about yet another person. It's at this point where I respectfully bow out. Perhaps another editor can help you. Be well. Marchije•speak/peek 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Well there is nothing wrong what this person write, to be honest his contractionary views should be addressed and I think his profilation of some political influencers should be noted even though he may not hold that views or agree with.I also agree this page is one sided fluff piece and I think is should be more neutral rather than some promotional pamphlet
Thanks for the input. You will note that there were no claims made regarding the veracity of the previous editor's assertions. I simply offered to help them, three times, but each time they failed to provide any examples from the document they wanted to cite that supported their assertions. Much like I had offered to that other editor, if you have some examples of Rogan's "contradictory views" from reliable sources then we could add them to this article. Perhaps you could also point out specific sentences that lead you to think that this reads like a pamphlet with some suggested re-wording. Perhaps you might want to read through policy guidelines such as WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO and WP:IMPARTIAL to help you make your case because we should be striving for a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, to simply state "I think this article should include X" without any supporting source for said information is not very helpful. In addition, for future reference, please do not make changes to other editors' comments on talk pages, even spelling mistakes. As per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines about editing other editors' posts: It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

typo in the sentence about his book 50.58.131.73 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Small addition to biography

The article should mention that Joe Rogan's first time working as a commentator was for UFC 37.5 on June 22nd 2002 at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas Nevada.Monramennoodles (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

I noticed a couple inconsistencies in the article. In the first sentence, a user added: 

    "and the only man to beat big Liamo in a fight, though it was only on points decision"

Not very fitting. Please remove this and change the ending of the sentence back to "and color commentator."

The user also added an unnecessary change to the middle name: 

    Joseph "it has it's applications" Rogan

Please change this back to 

    Joseph James Rogan

LukeHasselbring (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy 00:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the point of contention with vaccines

I made an edit because there are key fundamental points being left of out discussion. there needs to be context to this discussion, other than "bro said this, and this person said he's wrong". Vaccines have been around since the 1700s. Now, suddenly, the argument is "vaccines aren't enough to return to normal lifestyle without major violations of human rights or civil liberties. It is fair to say that that conversation should be had and noted in public forum. Trailmixers (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of vaccine comments

@UpdateNerd: removed the vaccine comments, as Rogan backtracked or apologised. There was a significant controversy around the event. It was mentioned by Fauci and the White House; it was featured broadly in media including international news, e.g. was covered by the Hill, Politico, CNN, Snopes, BBC, Variety, the Verge, Axios, the Independent.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] An apology doesn't kill a controversy; they usually follow a controversy, which would mean we'd never include them. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It was listed as a subsection of Political views, which is inappropriate for a comment taken out of context from a 3-hour comedy podcast. I condensed the info to a summary in the Impact section of the podcast article, where it's relevant. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM UpdateNerd (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It was listed under Views rather than Political views. A lot of the news stories around podcasts are transient. Covid-19 controversies that involve WH comments are unlikely that; they are going to be significant for some time. It also demonstrates the cultural significance of Rogan's platform. Its inclusion in the JRE article makes sense, but ultimately the news story was about Joe Rogan and his views. And we cannot remove any controversy simply because it's backtracked; or because it's said in a transitory way (or Alex Jones wouldn't have a controversy section). Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, but even if the section's about general views it's hardly relevant. He retracted the comment without hesitation; it's a comedy podcast, he doesn't have a political or health role (except as it regards being a training spokesperson). The comments were irresponsible, and Fauci was right to make a correction about misinformation being stated on the world's most popular podcast during a global pandemic. But the issue has played out; Rogan, to my knowledge, has never repeated his assertion about vaccines. Perhaps a more general section about his views on prioritizing personal health over social distancing would meet encyclopedic criteria, but the entirety of the discussion would need to be covered by RS, not just a controversy that a large swath of for-profit news media decided to focus on for a day. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It was not simply the press, though. It did get comments from Fauci and the WH. I think this goes to a wider point, that you made: the podcast is transitory in nature. It would be oscene if we included every little criticism from each episode of JRE, as they occur on a daily or weekly basis (there's one right now making the rounds, and note I am not bothering to add it). I think we need to be clearer about the threshold that must be met to overcome WP:RECENTISM: e.g. sustained media attention over (over several weeks), international outlook, academic commentary analysing the event, public official comment. There's quasi-academic commentary from two assoc profs from WaPo posted shortly after; NYT op-ed discussing it a few weeks after. I suggest WH and Fauci mentioning, in the midst of a pandemic, make it more than a transitory story and meet WP:10YT. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Several weeks have yet to pass. This is a WP:BLP so we can't add things that are this borderline, we would also need clear consensus which would require the input of other editors. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a COVID-19 Section?

In part due to the conversation in the section above, but also since Rogan recently held his first “emergency” podcast—might be DUE on that basis, from VICE:

”More recently, Rogan hosted both Weinstein and Kory on the first-ever "emergency" episode of his podcast“
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5z5y/why-is-the-intellectual-dark-web-suddenly-hyping-an-unproven-covid-treatment

I know VICE isn't the best source as per the perennial sources list, but it should be adequate for this content. Should we mention such an "emergency" podcast? SmolBrane (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. He releases 3+-hour-long podcasts every few days about topical issues, often hyping up unproven ideas. It's a comedy podcast! Not notable to a biography article. I'd be cautious about citing any article promoting the "Intellectual Dark Web" narrative, as it seems to be based on opinion, not fact. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you're right that it's not notable for the biography article. This will be better addressed on the JRE article. SmolBrane (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on first-ever “emergency” episode of The Joe Rogan Experience

A discussion is going on at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience to include or exclude a statement on the “first-ever” “emergency” podcast. Input would be appreciated, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: has Joe Rogan been vaccinated against Covid-19? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Joe Rogan is principally known for his disseminating conspiracy theories, through his podcasts, his TV-series, etc. Looking through fairly neutral secondary sources about him, his involvement with conspiracy theories is by far the most frequently mentioned. It should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lede that he is a conspiracy theorist. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I second this, but consensus needs to be established first. We first need reliable sources describing hims as a conspiracy theorist. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Not true. TFD (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It is, if that's what reliable sources say. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to a recent article about him on NBC. No mention of this at all. If he was best known for disseminating conspiracy theories, then you wouldn't have any trouble finding a source, it would appear in virtually every story that mentioned him. Tom Cruise is best known as an actor, Joe Biden is best known as president of the U.S., Margaret Atwood is best known as a writer - these description are used in virtually every article about them. TFD (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not an accurate label. Although it's true of certain guests he's hosted, and some mainstream sources have even used this to blanket-cast him as part of the same ideology. Which is false. He's a comedian who just happens to have a much more open mind than most, and not an outright conspiracy theorist. You would need to attribute any related claims to the source saying so. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"It's not an accurate label. Although it's true of certain guests he's hosted, and some mainstream sources have even used this to blanket-cast him as part of the same ideology. Which is false."
Uhm... we don't second guess sources based on our personal biases. If reliable mainstream sources do indeed "blanket-cast him" as a conspiracy theorist, then wikipedia must do the same. To do otherwise would be whitewashing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please provide such a source then. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Didn't you just imply that these sources exist, but insisted that they're wrong? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I just meant sources that throw his name together with that of Alex Jones or members of the intellectual dark web. Yep, he's had those guests on his show. Doesn't make him this or that. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Do those sources explicitly call him a "conspiracy theorist"? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not that I remember. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The original poster said that Rogan "is principally known for his disseminating conspiracy theories." That statement is false and unsupported by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the objective here? If the objective is to, in wiki-voice, label Rogan a conspiracy theorist we have a ways to go. I'm sure some RSs will say Rogan's show has spread conspiratorial information. If more than a few are saying it then there is likely weight to put that in the article. However, to call Rogan himself a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice is a higher standard. To do that we need it to be something that is commonly and consistently used to describe him. Given the article currently doesn't use the word "conspiracy" (other than in a citation title) we are a ways from the wiki-voice standard. Springee (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

In "Personal Life" the author included the following paragraph:

On September 1, 2021, Rogan, who has been a subject of some controversy for spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines, tested positive for COVID-19. Shortly after being diagnosed, he reportedly began taking ivermectin, a drug usually taken to treat parasite infestations. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has urged people not to use the treatment after reports of hospitalizations due to people self-medicating with it.[81] On September 3, Rogan tested negative for COVID-19.[82]

This should be changed to:

On September 1, 2021, Rogan, who has been a subject of some controversy for spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines, tested positive for COVID-19. Shortly after being diagnosed, he reportedly began taking ivermectin, a drug usually taken to treat parasite infestations. On September 3, Rogan tested negative for COVID-19.[82] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has urged people not to use the treatment after reports of hospitalizations due to people self-medicating with it.[new reference directly to FDA website]

1) The reference to the FDA has nothing to do with Rogan.

2) Neither does it reference the FDA, rather an NBC newscast. It should reference the FDA itself. Here is a reference:

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals

3) Better that FDA sentence be stricken as it is just a plug and has nothing to do with the facts surrounding Rogan's usage of Ivermectin nor the outcome from it.

Skinnerd (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Covid section needs to be rewritten completely. The way it is written implies that ivermectin is only used as a horse dewormer, when in reality it has a lot of uses treating human diseases such as malaria, scabbies, river blindness, etc etc. Even wikipedia's own article on ivermectin discuss this. This is a politically charged issue, and it should not be included in the section about Rogan. Deltasword1517 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the details could be moved to the "Other views and advocacy" subsection under 'Views', since he promoted the drug. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Absence of source

«On September 1, 2021, Rogan, who has been a subject of some controversy for spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines, tested positive for COVID-19.»

What misinformation? No source given. Not even a biased one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add far right and antisemitic conspiracy theorist to the first part of the page

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/qj8yaw/joe-rogan-posts-video-comparing-vaccine-mandates-to-the-holocaust

https://www.tiktok.com/@thetrueadventures/video/7013042927278591234?_d=secCgYIASAHKAESPgo8wFo0Et%2FyvJxAwyEdqimpM%2BA50tO4ZVpGHM57pz0OkmmN062qvMW6KNgcbGcSrviDDIRocSpGheqb%2BUsQGgA%3D&checksum=fd7599e78a15e0a75fc863e7ad164a7ecf0efad1b677e83dff733af2dffe19d6&language=en&preview_pb=0&sec_user_id=MS4wLjABAAAAf13YlersRFIykrhhy3N7ci5b2q3bkrpm8-U3ll-VQ0OaRKuUJ7pPROIwmY-LFafU&share_app_id=1233&share_item_id=7013042927278591234&share_link_id=3A631255-95DD-4F73-A903-41787CAD9E66&source=h5_m&timestamp=1633014511&tt_from=copy&u_code=ddlhfc4ldd95md&user_id=6858104052234388485&utm_campaign=client_share&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=copy&_r=1

--2600:1012:B0E0:530C:EC3A:27DB:EC32:46D3 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: TikTok is not a reliable source. Vice is so-so, but the article you linked does not call him far-right, antisemitic, or a conspiracy theorist. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A New Picture?

Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight should be a better picture of Joe to use for the page. This current one makes him look like he's doing a VHS Vignette from the 90's.102.250.3.169 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's the best option at c:Category:Joe Rogan. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement not supported by the sources

"Many of Rogan's critics, including several CNN reporters, misreported the form of ivermectin he had taken, with some failing to mention that it had been prescribed by a licensed physician."

The claims made in this statement are not supported by the sources it is referring to. While the WP article (https://web.archive.org/web/20211103173742/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/21/joe-rogan-cnn-ivermectin-statement-gupta/) is critical of CNN, it does not say that CNN "misreported" the form of ivermectin or fails to mention something.

I suggest removing this sentence. 79.213.150.240 (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have improved the phrasing here. SmolBrane (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emiliecarriere.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colin Weinell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Grammar Issue in Career (1994–1999: Hardball and NewsRadio)

The very last line of this section

“During the series, he worked on a pilot for a show entitled Overseas.”

“Entitled” should read “titled”. 2600:1004:B102:B6D0:F463:860:65CF:132D (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, and welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you stick around :)
I think this is personal preference - Webster, Cambridge and Oxford all say have "to give a name to" as a valid usage. I guess "called" or "named" could be simpler, but it's marginal IMO... Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

not a presenter

The first sentence says he is a "presenter." We don't have those in the US. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

I added the American conspiracy theorists category but was reverted over lack of sources. He's been on the record thinking the JFK assassination was done by the government and there was a coverup. And dismisses the Single-bullet theory. It's been done on his latest podcast with Oliver Stone.

  • A clip of his podcast with Michael Shermer also confirms his belief that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone and the single-bullet theory. And he also states that he doesn't know for sure regarding the bullet.

Examples also include COVID-19 related topics:

The list continues on here. TheJoebro64, any thoughts? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm don't agree that we should be labeling Rogan a "conspiracy theorist" unless we have strong sourcing to back it up. While it's certainly true that he's peddled conspiracy theories on his podcast, he doesn't fit the definition of a "conspiracy theorist". None of the sources you provide him actually call him a conspiracy theorist—the Vice one doesn't even use the term a single time, and the McGill one says he's not a conspiracy theorist, he just gives conspiracy theories a spotlight. ("Rogan does not necessarily endorse what his guests say—he’s just asking questions—but he bullhorns their pseudoscientific and conspiracy-laden views to millions of audience members.") It's my belief that using these to justify labeling him a conspiracy theory is WP:SYNTH as best and a big fat WP:BLP violation at worst. (Not to mention, 61% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, so using that as justification to call him a conspiracy theorist—especially without sources explicitly labeling him one—feels a bit much.) JOEBRO64 01:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. But don't you think his JFK beliefs should be added to the article under the views section with a subsection of its own? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it's reliably sourced. JOEBRO64 01:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree broadly here, content first; category second. Please note the discussion in the archive. Also keep in mind Rogan gets a lot of dramatic coverage sent his way, a lot of which is undue. Calling him a conspiracy theorist will require robust sourcing. SmolBrane (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the concept of undue weight. Coverage itself done by reliable sources can't be undue, regardless of whether or not you personally think it's trivial. XeCyranium (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes it will require robust sourcing, as I said. SmolBrane (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Subjects should not be categorized a or called conspiracy theorists unless that is where their notability derives. When readers use the conspiracy theorist category, they are looking for major proponents and would be overwhelmed by tens of thousands of articles about people who have shown support for them. There should be something about his show in the article, specifically that he is misinformed about many topics and has a lot of cranks on his show whom he never challenges. TFD (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The Coronavirus needs to be expanded with his nonsensical claims about Ivermectin, which is still not confirmed to prevent or cure the illness, and yet he continues to tout its effectiveness as in the case of Japan after it had a stark decline in Coronvirus deaths and cases. He claims that it was because of Ivermectin, but Forbes Magazine proves it to be wrong. He doesn't even say that there are researchers looking into the effectiveness of Ivermectin to combat the disease, just that it was allowed to be used which is why the cases went down. This was during his Tim Dillon #1752 podcast in December. Dillion is classified as a conspiracy theorist on his article.
He's also on the record regarding 9/11 saying it was controlled demolition and the plane that hit the Pentagon headquarters was probably not a plane. And his interview from 2012 with Rosie O'Donnell about Tower Seven. And on the moon landing, he goes back and forth admitting that he thinks that some of the footage from the Apollo mission looks "doctored". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend that you start with sourcing, as TFD suggested above. Please review WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP for primary sourcing issues and the perennial reliable sources list. The forbes article you cite never mentions Rogan. Vice and Rolling Stone are fairly deprecated. Washington Post is better. SmolBrane (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The Forbes article is meant to refute the claims of Rogan. It doesn't have to mention him. Using his podcasts and clips from his YoutTube channels as a source I don't think one could be opposed to since there is proof of him saying so. But there are a lot of articles from credible sources on the topics I provided above. I'll add them in the coming day(s). --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that wiki is not an MOS:EDITORIAL, it's not our job to tell people how to think; our job is to use reliable sources and their significant views to summarize things. WP:NPOV is helpful here too. SmolBrane (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Joe Rogan had the number one podcast in 2021 on Spotify[1] Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

change "who promoted Covid-19 misinformation" to "who was accused of promoting Covid-19 misinformation" 96.76.140.245 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The general consensus in sources is that he promoted COVID-19 misinformation and he even apologised for it. He admitted to it, so I think this is more than an accusation. --Ferien (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Malone

There is no evidence Dr. Malone was spreading disinformation about COVID 19. 2600:1004:B09B:D1F:4E7:A4C8:8A6C:3175 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is: https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-malone-joe-rogans-guest-was-vaccine-sci/ ––FormalDude talk 02:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Politifact is not qualified to step into this, but Dr. Malone definitely is. Reasoned suspicion based on the scant evidence we have != Disinformation. Science without questions is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1502:7171:ED02:7F62:15D7:332 (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Well it's not just Politifact (which is a reliable source, by the way). A group of 270 scientists, professors, doctors and healthcare workers also called it misinformation: https://deadline.com/2022/01/spotify-joe-rogan-doctors-open-letter-1234909702/ ––FormalDude talk 23:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone

Does Robert Malone belong in the introductory paragraph on a wikipedia page? Why not mention he also had on Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the chief medical correspondent for CNN and Dr. Michael Osterholm, who is a member of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 advisory board, and Dr. Peter Hotez from Baylor College of Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:9500:C0FA:CA1:B660:AB83 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is undue to mention him and also most readers wouldn't know who he was. We add the title Dr. in cases where saying so makes it clear the person is a physician or surgeon. For example, "he was treated for covid by Dr. John Smith." In this case, we might say "Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and biochemist.' TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem UNDUE to name-drop these two in the lead. I removed it. Some1 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan and the Newark Race riots

He was born the year of the Newark Race Riots of 1967, about a month after the riots. He father was a police officer who presumably was involved. Is there any information about Sr.'s involvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.104 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I could not find any information about this. The Rolling Stone article says that Rogan' father is a former Newark police officer, but does not say whether he was serving in 1967. In any case we would need a source that said something like "Rogan's father served as a police officer during the Newark riots," before we could consider including it. It certainly does not belong in the 1967 Newark riots article. TFD (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of 70 episodes

Re [18]—this is information that's outside of this article's scope. This article is about Rogan himself, not the podcast. We don't know if the episode removal is related to the ongoing controversies at the moment, and JRE episodes have been missing since the podcast first came to Spotify. It's trivial information for this article. JOEBRO64 00:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/joe-rogan-had-no-1-222520903.html
Hi Spotify pay JR 100m for JRD podcast and JRD is part of his career just like any other subject (sport person, military person, persident) and all the current racial slur, covid info is in the content, that this removal of 70+ episodes of JRD from Spotify should be in the body text for they are not only well-sourced but also important of JRD podcast in relation to JR himself. Cassiopeia talk 00:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Spell out the JRE acronym?

According to Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Formation_and_usage "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". As far as I can tell it is ones only once in the text (and once more in the citations). Might be better to just spell it out. Annette Maon (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Alleged" misinformation in lead, and other sync issues

Is this "alleged" or is it just misinformation? The JRE wiki article says Rogan "made false remarks". Here we say "stated his belief...was criticized... of making misleading comments". I note some divergence in the tone in these two articles. SmolBrane (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the "alleged" too. If all/the majority of RSs just call it misinformation then we can too. Popcornfud (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the "allegedly" and restored it to how it was before. JOEBRO64 23:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone's mention in the introductory paragraph.

Robert W. Malone is a medical doctor and that title should be included in the introductory paragraph. And he is the developer of the mRNA technology that led to the COVID shots. That he believes they should not be administered to everyone on the planet does not make him a promoter of misinformation. To claim otherwise exposes this site as an actual promoter of disinformation. Just...damn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2890:8D80:CDCC:DDD7:7F6C:19E8 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an appeal to authority. There are scientists who deny the link between HIV and AIDS, but that does not mean they are right simply because they are a scientist. X-Editor (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@X-Editor: with all due respect that is a terrible counterpoint. While yes scientists who deny the connection between HIV and AIDS exist, they are collectively uninformed and unqualified to make such assertions and exist on the fringe regardless. Moreover, none contributed to HIV/AIDS research/medicine (at all) in the way Mallone has to the covid vaccine. Malone's credentials do not make his specific position here correct, my lay understanding is that scientific consensus overwhelming goes the other way however his opinion is very much a qualified one and Rogan's believe that it should at least be heard is not analogous with that of HIV/AIDS deniers. OgamD218 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
While he does have more experience with regards to vaccines, that doesn't mean he is right about COVID-19 vaccines. That is the point I was trying to make. X-Editor (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rogan drew controversy for hosting physicians on his podcast who provided misinformation regarding COVID-19." needs to be deleted, as it has been recently added and is not provided with a citation. Disinformation Corrector (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead does not require citations. This content is backed up by citations in the article body. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: WP:LEADCITE Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a university alumnus

People shouldn't include category like he graduated from a university where he has BA/BS degree at minimum. He has like a high school education if any. That tag should be removed from this article. Alumni tag essentially means graduating from a university with an actual degree. 202.9.46.35 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not what the Alumni tag means either "essentially" or at all. Alumni refers to anyone who at any time was a student of an academic institution regardless of whether or not they graduated or earned a degree. You're confusing the word alumni with graduate. The article clarifies Rogan attended, before dropping out of, UMASS Boston-making him an alumni of the school; no where is it stated or implied that he graduated however. OgamD218 (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Alumni essentially means graduation or studying a sufficient quantity of time in an institution. If I attended a university and dropped out after 2 days, will that be an alumni?. This person has at maximum a high school degree at most, not a university-educated person. Attending 2-3 years is almost close to graduation, which can be somewhat university-educated to a certain degree. Attending 2 weeks at a University and dropping out is not an "alumni" level. Alumni means a certain level of accreditation. There is a difference between a 1-month study (less than a semester) and 2-3.5 years of study and dropping out. There is a difference. His level of education is a high school level at most, the way he talks and how he interprets things. His reasoning, thinking and logic are not that deep unlike someone attending a significant amount of time at a university and actually graduating. His education and mental depth is not that deep. He is hitting his mental maximum on some of these things. He is having a hard time, meaning a lack of education and depth. 202.9.46.35 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I looked up the word alumnus. Merriam-Webster says "a person who has attended or has graduated", Lexico (Oxford) says "A graduate or former student", Collins says (re the plural alumni) "who used to be students". True, Cambridge adds "after finishing their studies" which might mean graduating. but Wikipedia appears to be following a common meaning of the word. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The school recognizes anyone who attended as an alumnus.[19] While I appreciate that some people may consider only graduates to be alumni, the article does not say he is, it just includes him in that category. Technically, he is an alumnus and the category may be helpful if readers want to know who else went there, even if only for two days. TFD (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

N-word

Is it 100% necessary to write out the full n-word on the page? Request to change the text to "a racial slur" and maybe a link to the relevant page if applicable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.122 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. JOEBRO64 16:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Furter, it's informative to people - particularly non-English speakers - who may not know much about American racial slurs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
If we never use the word, in a few years no-one will know which word not to use. Britmax (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This article goes into detail about the people involved with the attempted deplatforming of joe https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/joe-rogan-says-hes-the-victim-of-a-political-hit-job-in-the-on-going-spotify-drama/55MYB5AHEFUZWWUACUS7U3DWAQ/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:643F:42DC:E01F:AF9B (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Update to the N word controversy

This article goes into detail about the people involved with the attempted deplatforming of joe https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/joe-rogan-says-hes-the-victim-of-a-political-hit-job-in-the-on-going-spotify-drama/55MYB5AHEFUZWWUACUS7U3DWAQ/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:643F:42DC:E01F:AF9B (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Does Rogan have any MMA training/fighting experience?

Has Rogan had any MMA training/fighting experiences after quitting kickboxing at age 21? If so, should it be somewhere in the article?

I don't think he has that experience, plus a college education. 202.21.96.212 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Contradicting facts

>In February 2022, a compilation of Rogan saying the racial slur nigger on The Joe Rogan Experience WAS FIRST published on Instagram by singer-songwriter India Arie.[129] Rogan apologized, calling his past language "regretful and shameful" while also saying that the clips were "taken out of context" and he only quoted the slur to discuss its use by others.[130][131][132] >The footage in question, which was deceptively edited to remove proper context, WAS FIRST published by the political action committee PatriotTakes, an affiliate of the liberal PAC MeidasTouch.

India Arie only re-posted the compilation once it became controversial, PatriotTakes was the the original uploader 41.114.195.232 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect and this section should be revised. The compilation was posted in 2018 for the first time 2-3 years prior to the existence of PatriotTakes. PatriotTakes also runs independently of MeidasTouch. Additional videos also came from Alex Jones from a time when he was in a feud with Rogan and feature the InfoWars logo clearly displayed. These false facts about PatriotTakes and MeidasTouch should be removed. User Persesus has been corrected on other Wikipedia pages and has been warned due to his editing warning and constant insulting of Wikipedia editors, yet continues to post this factually incorrect information on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.146.181 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding one more note for clarity. Here is the actual source of the compilation video in question from the account Post Capitalism Malone proving that the information in this section is inaccurate: https://twitter.com/remibookchin/status/1155821191048749056?s=21 76.89.146.181 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Onnit

Started a section on Rogan's business Onnit. It's difficult to find reliable sources with details about it. Hopefully others can improve the discussion of Rogan's supplements and fitness business. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Conversely, if there are scant or no reliable sources discussing it, it may be disproportionate and undue to mention it all, let alone give it a devoted subsection. Verifiability does not mandate inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Poor content curation of the controversy section

@FormalDude:: Again, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia and not your personal soapbox where you can antagonize your fellow editors by throwing around vaguely worded accusations ("sneaking in edits that remove RS content"). No one can read your mind if you're incapable of explaining which part of their edit you have a problem with or do a partial revert. It would have already ended there if you just had enough interpersonal intelligence. You post a warning on my user page that talks about trying to reach a consensus when so far you've shown absolutely no inclination of even starting a dialogue. Did you even read it yourself? You were the one to provoke the edit war with your almost non-existent communication, so you deserve the warning just as much as I do, if not more.

I ask you one more time and hope that this time you'll be able to get something more constructive out of yourself than "this is fine" and "you are bad". What does Mitchel's and Young's shared medical history or friendship have to with anything? Is she siding with Young because they both had polio or because she agrees with him? And why does that have to be in an article about Rogan? What novel information does quoting Mitchel add when she's basically repeating Young's arguments? What's the encyclopedic utility of writing how FDA finds the significant increase of outpatient prescribing of ivermectin "disturbing" when it's already been made clear that it hasn't endorsed ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19? And increase fact itself... is Rogan being implied as the culprit or why is it here? And what does Malone's suspension from Twitter have to do with Rogan? I'm not even disputing anything about COVID-19 or it's treatment right now, but rather the poor content curation and how the section about Rogan's remarks has been stuffed with information that has very little to do with his remarks. –Turaids (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond after you remove your personal attacks against me. ––FormalDude talk 19:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude:: all you've done so far is avoiding responding, perceived personal attacks or not. Which part(s) of my text do you see as personal attacks? –Turaids (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude:: and no need to keep spamming my talk page with discretionary sanction notices. I'm not sure you still get it that I'm not advocating for the removal of the controversies, but rather covering them in an encyclopedic and concise manner like it has been done on the page about the podcast, which where I took the content that I tried to insert in this article. –Turaids (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
People first of all remember that you are editing and looking at an article on someone who has a high school education if any. Let his talk, interpretation stay as it is. He is not that sophisticated. His mind is not that deep to look at things. Interpret everything he says and asks like a typical mid to lower earning high school educated person would say. Someone with college education or higher trying to interpret his talks, questions and interpretation would almost be ludicrous and illogical. He is at least 3-4 levels down from a typical college educated person. 43.228.131.114 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Articles are written using information from reliable sources. We do not "interpret" what anybody may be thinking. Britmax (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Massive Support

Could we have concrete numbers? Is it really, say, 18 millions downloads per month, as I have heard on the net, or whatever it is. Also, how many people watch similar tv shows and at the same time,...--Ralfdetlef (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Change children from 2 to 3 Episode #1807 Rogan acknowledged he has 3 children 76.219.233.2 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
All I see on the web is that he himself has two daughters, and has adopted a third (girl, woman,...). And isn't it kind of OR to judge the reliability of sources/websites? I'm not talking about obvious morons on line.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Children

Joe has stated that he has three children. He has two biological children and his wife's daughter from a previous marriage he has adopted, so the bar on the right should say he has three children, not two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.118.141 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

3 children(?)

As far as I can figure out, he has two biological kids, and one adopted. Shouldn't he then have three kids? In my mind, adopted is as much a child as any... Daland (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

"paltform" should become "platform" 2001:14BA:A03F:F500:7D4A:7683:89D1:2B0 (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Recoil (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Rogan/Archive_1&oldid=1171408716"