Jump to content

Talk:Joe Rogan

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

Pseudoscientific transgender views

[edit]

The article currently says:

"Rogan has offered a pseudoscientific critique of transgender martial arts artist Fallon Fox, saying "If you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a fucking man"."

Isn't it a bit strong to say that the view is pseudoscientific if only a single article published in a communications journal states so?

Also considering that the Wikipedia article “Transgender People in Sports” provides numerous examples of articles advocating the physical advantage of trans women. I find this a contradiction between two Wikipedia articles. Kratokin (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. Unless you have some counter RS saying Rogan's words were properly science-based. Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source unambiguously describes it as pseudoscientific; it would be misusing it to not make that clear. If you have another source, go ahead and present it, but there's no reason to think it's controversial and we do have to be clear when discussing scientific things. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cause we include all his other views as well so no reason to remove political views --FMSky (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's not even views. it's who he voted for ltbdl (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO we should at least remove the stuff cited only to WP:PRIMARY sources. In particular Rogan has said that he holds a wide variety of political views and does not easily fall on any particular side of the political spectrum seems to me to be unduly self-serving in context and therefore not something we should include if the only source is his podcast. OTOH things that have high-quality secondary sourcing (like several of his endorsements) could probably be kept. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality photo?

[edit]

Why is the primary headshot photo currently being used over any of the innumerable others? It seems to have been chosen with the intention to provide a negative first impression of the subject. Unless there is a substantive reason to the contrary, I believe it should be changed. Null b0nsai (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "innumerable others" that could be uploaded and published under a viable Wikimedia/Wikipedia license? I'm pretty sure that most of the existing pics out there are copyrighted. NSX-Racer (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Citation (Children)

[edit]

The source citing that Joe Rogan had 3 children (1 adopted) linking to the cafemom article should be removed and replaced with a more nuetral and reputable source. The current link unnecessarily gives the reader the immediate impression that this article is biased against Rogan as opposed to a neutral presentation of information. This link could be used as a citation in the controversies section, but as of now detracts from the article. 204.107.13.57 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]