Talk:Andrew Huberman

Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women

This article contains points worth including around misleading women, serial cheating and lying.

It also states that Hubermann has no real lab.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html AncientWalrus (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw this huge article and thought it could be a useful source, but after reading it - it's a huge quivering mass of gossip-sociopathy-sperm-drenched-ick-revenge. I don't think it really gives us anything of encyclopedic merit, especially considering WP:BLP. Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your judgement, you are clearly more experienced in those matters.

What about the fact he doesn't have a functioning lab, no grad students, equipment, etc? This is important context given the push to state his academic credentials. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What would you propose? Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From the very article you linked:

'a spokesperson for Stanford said, “Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational and is in the process of moving from the Department of Neurobiology to the Department of Ophthalmology' 82.35.118.60 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Stanford's page shows an active Huberman lab, there's even a meaningful publication as recent as last year: https://hubermanlab.stanford.edu/publications/retinal-ganglion-cells/postsynaptic-neuronal-activity-promotes-regeneration-retinal Pastillawheel (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

None of that appears more that WP:Gossip or WP:NOTSCANDAL, except the lab stuff. Regarding the lab, it seems credible that it meets the standard for functional, so unless something more significant comes up, I would be against including it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian sees the story as relevant enough to publish, with an authored piece,[1]. The Guardian is about as reliable a source as we're going to get, and doesn't do gossip lightly. Many of the accusations go back to investigative journalism by Scott Carney, whose reputation is good.

As for the lab, a spokesman for Stanford said "“Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational". Well, they would, wouldn't they?. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lab allegations are fine to discuss, but I would trust a reputable university unless clearly shown otherwise.

Including something being reported by RS can still be non-encyclopaedic under some circumstances. FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoaa, too many negatives. But I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING / WP:NOTGOSSIP needs to heeded. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sleep deprived, will fix, one second FortunateSons (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece. The Verge has also covered NYMs reporting [2] but I agree that the 6 girlfriend deception stuff is WP:BLPGOSSIP and should be omitted given the lack of other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this isn't just a gossip situation. It could have been, but the Guardian has taken a much calmer, and more detached view of the significance of the furore. Here we have an article in a fact-checked, generally neutral, non-gossipy source, with good editorial oversight, making the point that one of the world's most influential science influencers and bloggers stands accused of lying. The article comments: "He’s one of the most famous scientists in the world and he’s highly trusted at a time when trust in scientists is declining", which means that the gossip aspect of this, the girlfriends, goes to the heart of the rest of his career. As the article says, "Huberman’s personal integrity is newsworthy because he has made it a large part of his personal brand". The Guardian has actually (if you read it in full) stayed firmly away from gossip, it hasn't relayed gory details, it hasn't even said he definitely did anything. It has concentrated on public trust rather than who slept with whom. I really don't think we can avoid mentioning this. It's obviously not going to disappear in a puff of PR-releases, just as the Tim Hunt scandal never disappeared. Like it or not, and however it pans out, this is now a feature of his career-story. Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure there isn’t a significant difference in the intensity and scale of your examples? One that, perhaps, impacts its encyclopaedic value? FortunateSons (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The author of The Guardian article you are citing is an opinion columnist, as her bio on the website indicates. There is consensus that opinion writers at the publication have reduced editorial oversight, see "The Guardian blogs" entry on WP:RSP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You say the NYMag article "hasn't even said he definitely did anything." Okay, so what are the verifiable facts to put in his biography? I do not see any. Roger (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I said that the Guardian article hasn't said he definitely did anything, not the NYMag (which very much did). The fact I would like to include is that the allegations exist, that the scandal has arisen. It's not our job to take sides in a notable fight, but it is our job to include a notable fight in the biographies of those party to it, if the fight can be sourced and is significant. In this case I personally would suggest adding:

"In March 2024 Kerry Howley writing in the New York Magazine raised questions about Huberman's integrity that were picked up upon by Scott Carney.[3] Other podcasters and journalists, including Lex Fridman, have spoken out in his defence.[4]"

I think this a reasonable and balanced place-holder for a controversy that's likely to develop. I would be happy to have a better source used as the positive side, if available. Elemimele (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've inserted this text. I've put it in the podcast section since it's a podcast drama. My argument is that he's primarily notable as a social influencer and podcaster, and this particular controversy having spilled over from podcast-world (where he's a big player, with an audience of 6 million) into the "real" world, means the current podcast drama is notable and needs mention. Unfortunately podcasters do their stuff in videos, and don't really care about written newspapers etc., they live with a video audience; this makes sourcing difficult. But if anyone can find a better source for his defence than a "trending" section in the Hindustan Times, please, please do so. Elemimele (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We should be looking for the WP:BESTSOURCE. Honestly, who cares what the "Liver King" thinks? Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I agree completely, I just couldn't find anything better. I wanted to keep it balanced, and not to give the impression that Huberman has no supporters. But as is typical of podcast world, his supporters are using the media they know and trust (social media, X, YouTube) rather than the media we know and trust. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

So what makes their view due? It's just fluff. Bon courage (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no personal to anyone removing the comment that Huberman is being supported by a series of people whose word I wouldn't trust half an inch! But what separates these opinions from fluff is that they are being expressed by people who we, in Wikipedia, consider notable influencers (in Huberman's case, 6 million people listen). Unfortunately, more people listen to the Liver King than ever will to me, so my opinion, which is Right, is nevertheless fluff, his opinion, which is Wrong, is notable. Sad! Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Popularity does not accord a source any status whatsoever. Some very popular sources, in fact, are deprecated (e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL). Conversely some of the very best sources are niche academic ones behind paywalls with comparatively tiny readerships. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It does second-hand! Respectable news sources only write about him because he's got 6 million readers, and we only write about him because respectable news sources write about him. Reflecting this, our article sums up his entire academic career in two sentences, while spending a whole paragraph on his podcasting. None of it is well sourced; the whole essence of podcasting is throwing personal opinions into social media. We have the Stanford magazine (not independent), Apple (just statistics), Nature Neurosciences (an interview) and a selection of opinion pieces. If we're going to cover his activities as a podcaster, the best we can do in the circumstances is limit opinion-pieces to those published in trusted places (e.g. major newspapers and magazines with established reputation), and/or written by people whose opinions have already conferred Wikipedia-notability (Carney etc), and of course to ascribe the opinions scrupulously to those who express them. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, decent secondary coverage is redemptive. Are there decent sources "defending" Huberman, or commenting on that? Analytical pieces in news media are welcome; primary reportage less so. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele – I'm not seeing why you reinserted the paragraph. Both Bon courage and Hemiauchenia have agreed that this is WP:GOSSIP. I don't see why you put it _where you did_ given it has nothing to do with his podcasting. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Zenomonoz, I'm equally unsure why you felt it was okay to revert a text that had been discussed on the talk-page first. Bon courage and Hemiauchenia are both regular and capable editors able to express their own opinion and revert what they don't like, and you'll note that Bon courage took part in the discussion here after I made the change, without actually reverting.

No, it's not gossip. I deliberately used a source that is impeccably unbiased, and which didn't go into the gory gossip details, instead sticking to the valid, genuine question: should we put our trust in a lifestyle guru whose own lifestyle suggests he may not be trustworthy? If you choose to be an artist, you have to accept that people will write about your work (and if the writers do so in newspapers and books, their opinions will end up in Wikipedia, even though, in the end, they're just opinions). If you choose to be a podcaster and present yourself as an honest lifestyle guru, you have to accept that people will write about your honesty and lifestyle. We simply cannot write about Huberman as a podcaster and sanitise his story, keeping everything that he says about himself in interview pieces or that appears in non-independent sources (Stanford magazine), while removing everything that anyone else said about him, on the grounds it's gossip. That's completely one-sided and non-neutral. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the removal was wise. Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse of me 'sanitizing' the article you should probably go through the talk page archive.

The article focuses on his ideas, rather than personal life, because the story is WP:GOSSIP. These are allegations of personal deficit (not a crime committed) and we are not in the business of repeating anonymous complaints about a cheater, even if they are based in fact. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to understand WP:GOSSIP may I recommend you take a look at the Profumo affair, and think about how we would deal with it, were it unfolding now rather than in the early 1960's? Unfortunately sometimes details of a person's relationships end up having consequences that spread beyond their private sphere, because of their public activities, and/or because they chose a career path where integrity is expected.

That's exactly why I focussed on the guardian article not on the Time original, because it focusses on an idea: that of the trustworthiness of someone who claims to be trustworthy. The only difference between what I added, and what was already there, is that while Love (Slate) and others have said his science is sometimes wrong and therefore it's dangerous that so many people trust him, the latest furore is a few people saying he's basically not trustworthy and therefore it's dangerous that so many people trust him. This is a valid argument. It is what brought down the government following Profumo; but it would have been hard to tell the story in 1964 while concealing the basis: that a 46-year-old politician had a brief fling with a 19-year-old model, as reported by the model.

WP:GOSSIP isn't a license to expect your life-story to be sanitised if you choose to live in the public sphere; it's just an admonishment that we must be cautious not to create attack pages, use Wikipedia to tell a biased story, not to report rumours as though they were fact, to ensure we give our sources, and not to include gratuitous gossip that is of no legitimate public interest. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Erm, the Profumo affair was a high-impact scandal that had profound ramifications for UK/world politics, and for which we have huge numbers of superb secondary sources. It's a wee bit different from a bro-science podcaster who a magazine article says has difficulty keeping his trouser snake under control. Huberman is hardly front page[5] news, & I don't think there's a risk Huberman is leaking nuclear secrets is there? Bon courage (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(1) You're misreading/misrepresenting the sources. Howley in Time, and Mahdawi in the Guardian aren't complaining about how many women he slept with. They're complaining that (according to Howley) he misled the women. And if he misled girlfriends into believing he cared about them and their welfare, does he care about his followers' welfare, or are they also being misled? This is exactly the same situation as with Profumo: he lost his seat in parliament (and the public lost its faith in the government) because he gave parliament a misleading statement, and lost trust.

(2) About influence, this is hardly ours to judge, but the Profumo affair exerted its greatest effects on the UK, which back then had about 54 million inhabitants. Huberman has about 6 million followers, so on crude "audience", we're in the same ball-park. And as to front-page news, isn't that rather the point? I inserted that sentence based on precisely the fact that two large articles had appeared in two very prominent news-sources.

(3) But despite the above, my main point in dredging up Profumo isn't to claim they're in the same league, it's to take an article that clearly should have existed, despite WP:GOSSIP, even as early 1963 before all the high-quality biographies became available, and point out that an overly narrow interpretation of GOSSIP would have prevented it (the sources in June 1963 being no better than what we have for Huberman now). Elemimele (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Look, WP:BLPPUBLIC would suggest this can be included as an allegation, so long as there are multiple sources. WP:GOSSIP would imply such sources need to be of a particularly high standard. I'm concerned that because the anonymous allegations are just about cheating... this might not constitute being "noteworthy" (per BLPPULIC). You should ask on WP:BLPN to get independent input. Thanks Zenomonoz (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I posted on BLPN. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

How someone conducts their personal relationships where no major responsibility exists and no serious harm is done, this has little to do with whether the facts they present in their profession are trustworthy or not and to suggest otherwise is logically fallacious. Archive8 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is a commercial enterprise which has definitely misrepresented things (to the degree that further investigation ought to be conducted before accepting their claims at face value) and the university should be the source given that they are the authority on who has a lab there or not. Archive8 (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is there nothing mentioned of this in his wikipage? To simply dismiss it as gossip seems like a bias response by fans of Huberman. 222.109.164.70 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have asked on BLPN for more eyes. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: What was the response on BLPN? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It was ignored and then archived. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, then I suppose inclusion of some of this info would have to come down to an RfC at some point in the future. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think an RfC is needed. I'm not great at wording them. Any suggestions on how best to word it? I think I go too broad, but I'd be inclined to ask "Should there be any mention of the article which depicts him lying, misleading women, and serial infidelity?" DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy section

There's a lot of information under podcasts that is focused on criticisms of the pseudoscientific nature of his podcast and such. I came to the page specifically looking for info on these after hearing about hm promoting supplements but didn't expect the relevant information to be under the podcast section. Indeed most of the podcast section is criticisms. Floating these to the top level of the page under a controversy, criticism or similar header would make it easier for people to find this information. 2603:7081:233A:6A05:48B1:7931:4E00:4B59 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2024

Source # 22 (the Coda article) should be removed, along with the points which cite it, due to lacking credibility and weak citations for its claims. Source 22 refers to a Twitter post, which shares an edited clip, with the poster mentioning they can't find the source anywhere. Huberman has clarified his stance on sunscreen on his website (https://ai.hubermanlab.com/s/mqaEnxdY), and via a linked podcast episode where he was a guest, and the podcast available there is full length as originally posted. Huberman specifically mentions compounds such as Oxybenzone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxybenzone), the likes of which are under scrutiny by the scientific community (which Huberman is a member of) and have been banned in multiple countries. This information would make for a more informative inclusion if it is useful at all to mention Huberman's off-hand statements about sunscreen. Archive8 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried in vain to have this section updated or deleted altogether back in February. I don't have the energy to recreate the posts, but if you're interested you can navigate back to the February Talk page. The posts were lengthy. In a nutshell, I also pointed out the problems with Source 22, including that it cited to a short (and edited) podcast clip posted on Twitter in which Huberman made a comment about sunscreen. I noted that Huberman has repeatedly clarified his nuanced view on sunscreen. Since my original posts, he has even uploaded a full-length podcast episode discussing (at length) the benefits of wearing sunscreen. There is no legitimate reason for Huberman's Wikipedia page to make the average reader believe Huberman has broad anti-sunscreen views. The only person who would tell you otherwise is the author of the Coda Article. In that regard, it is telling that when I originally edited out the sunscreen section in February, the author of the Coda Article, changed the page back. Incredibly, the author of the Coda Article has even bragged on Threads about how his article is cited to/referenced in Huberman's Wikipedia page. 65.207.135.114 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually not that hard to find the old section and reposting the discussion here:

The fact that one of three paragraphs in the Reception section focuses on sunscreen quotations is highly misleading for several reasons. First, it distorts the topic's significance. Including the quotation "he's 'as scared of sunscreen as I am of melanoma"' in a short section entitled "Reception" suggests that sunscreen is a major focus of Dr. Huberman's discussions. The topic of sunscreens barely ever comes up in the thousands of hours of Dr. Huberman's podcasts.

Relatedly, it is problematic that the Wikipeda article neither cites nor links to the podcast episode where Dr. Huberman made that statement. Dr. Huberman makes the Melanoma statement at the 1:37:00 mark of a podcast on Micronutrients. [Dr. Rhonda Patrick: Micronutrients for Health & Longevity - Huberman Lab Huberman Lab Podcast #70 (youtube.com)]. The topic of sunscreens is a brief aside--taking up less than three minutes of discussion during a nearly three-hour podcast. The episode is almost entirely focused on other topics, micronutrients. But anyone reading Huberman's Wikipedia page would conclude that sunscreen was a significant focus of the episode. In short, the Wikipedia page plucks a quote from relative obscurity and features the quote prominently--thereby distorting its significance.

The quote also lacks necessary context. If you watch the three minutes where sunscreen is discussed, it becomes clear that Dr. Huberman does not hold broad anti-sunscreen views as the Wikipedia page currently suggests. Rather, the quote was an offhand comment that was the byproduct of a long conversation as opposed to a core belief. Dr. Huberman states during the three-minute segment that he has concerns about some compounds, like titanium dioxide, found in some sunscreens because there was some evidence that the compounds crossed the blood brain barrier, but he conceded the evidence was not established and that his concerns were a hypothesis. He also literally says during that podcast that some sunscreens are safe. Melanoma is a deadly cancer. He clearly does not advocate -- as the Wikipedia article suggests -- that sunscreen is more dangerous than cancer.

Originally, I supplemented that portion of the Reception Section of the Wikipedia Page to provide a more complete explanation of what Huberman said about sunscreen during that Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode. I also provided the primary source citation, so that readers could watch the full episode themselves and reach their own conclusions.

The author of the Coda article cited in the Wikipedia article thereafter sent me an email complaining I was citing to the wrong source. I was citing to the Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode and the Coda article author contended I should have cited to an 18 second podcast clip (discussed below). The supplementation I added to the Wikipedia page has since been deleted.

Overall, it is probably not beneficial to include the quote "he's 'as scared of sunscreen as I am of melanoma"' in Huberman's page since it distorts its prominence. It certainly is counterproductive to include the quotation in isolation and to delete the link to the actual podcast where he made the quote. That is not truth-seeking behavior.

Next, the inclusion of a sentence stating that Dr. Huberman claimed "that molecules in some types of sunscreen [SIC] can be found in neurons 10 years after application; without providing any evidence" is also problematic. Initially, the citation for that statement is to the Coda article, which is not a scientific journal. The Coda article, in turn, supports that statement by citing to an 18 second clip of a podcast from a Twitter post by Dr. Michelle Wong. The views expressed by Dr. Wong (whoever she is) in a Twitter post is certainly not an ideal citation. Moreover, given that the Twitter post only includes 18 seconds of the podcast, it appears very possible that the cited segment takes something Dr. Huberman said out of its complete context in order to support an incomplete narrative. If this is the case, then it has the effect of incorrectly portraying Huberman as broadly untrustworthy. In the one other podcast readily available on the internet where Huberman mentions sunscreen, he states some sunscreens are safe and some may not be safe. [Neuroscientist: Andrew Huberman explains ALL SUNSCREEN IS NOT SAFE! (youtube.com)].

I welcome additional discussion on this topic, but consideration should be given whether the sunscreen portion of Huberman's Wikipedia page is a net positive or a net negative. It seems pretty clear its inclusion is a net negative. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I not quite sure what the objection is. If AH said something in a podcast and a source reported on it, then what's the issue? Are you saying the clip was falsified? Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the goal is not to be a political attack advertisement. I assume the goal is to have an accurate page. If so, then read my entire post--including the title--on the problems with Huberman's Wikipedia page being so focused on sunscreen quotes. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't convinced me either. Looks like you're attempting to white wash the controversial claims he has made. The page isn't "so focused on sunscreen quotes", it is a small paragraph at the bottom. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. My post—including the title of my post—-and my principal criticism concerns one section in the Huberman article: The Reception section. In that one section (as opposed to the entire page), there is disproportionate coverage about Huberman’s views on sunscreens. He hardly discusses sunscreens on his podcast or in his research, but a neutral reader of that section would think it’s a significant focus of his. I provided a detailed explanation as to why that one section is a problem in my original post. Instead of grappling with that detailed explanation, you’ve latched onto what I put in a quick reply to a comment. Agree my reply should have referred to that one section, and not to the whole page, as having disproportionate sunscreen coverage, but it is obvious from my original post that I was only criticizing one section.

Indeed, if I were to criticize the page generally, then my focus would be on why there is almost no discussion of his publications or research. He’s a tenured professor at Stanford School of Medicine. A neutral reader of this page wouldn’t be aware of that because the page has (using your phrase) almost completely whitewashed his research accomplishments. 2600:1700:8C80:5B50:A984:F510:35DB:FE6 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's an associate professor sure. He's much more notable as a podcaster/guru/pundit (which is why there's a Wikipedia article for him). It's normal for scientists to produce papers: has any of his work garnered attention other than what we mention? Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's politics got to do with it? Is sunscreen political in the USA now? (I lose track). Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage Sunscreen as a subject matter is not political. The actions of taking a quote out of context or drawing outsized attention to a gaffe is very akin to a political attack ad. A famous historical example would be the political damage done to George Romney's presidential campaign against LBJ when he used the term "brainwash" to describe how he had been wrongly convinced to support the Vietnam war after being presented with a one-sided view of the war by the military. The poor word choice overshadowed George Romney's actual message regarding why he had changed his support of the war and, more importantly, unfairly made him seem crazy.

Though the sunscreen quotes are a less extreme example, it's the same action at play. Huberman clearly doesn't view sunscreen as dangerous as cancer. He has not stood by that one off statement, nor has he repeated it. In fact, he has gone out of his way to explicitly state that some sunscreens are safe. In other words, the statement was a gaffe. And it's not surprising that a guy who speaks as much as he does was guilty of making a gaffe. But by including that quotation in the Reception section, it suggests to an uninformed reader that Huberman holds that whacky view or that sunscreen is a big part of his beliefs.

So my point in using the word "political" is that Wikipedia should strive to be the antithesis of a political attack ad. But the inclusion of the sunscreen quotes (particularly the melanoma quote) deviates from Wikipedia's truth-seeking purpose.

If you are going to respond to this message, I would ask that you tackle it substantively. By that I mean, could you please focus on the purpose served by including that Melanoma quote. If it is not noteworthy, then why include it? And if you do think that gaffe is noteworthy, then could you talk about why, at the very least, it would not be helpful to the average Wikipedia reader to include the context within which he made that quote. More specifically, why would it not be helpful to discuss the context within which he made that quote during the course of the Dr. Rhonda Patrick episode? Please reread my original post to better appreciate the context within which he made that gaffe. Thanks. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose suppressing a "whacky view" would be just as bad. If secondary source(s) mention this it's suitable for here; I suppose that's the measure. Your 'gaffe' idea seems unsourced. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is different than what you are saying. My point is that including the Melanoma quote is analogous to political operatives seizing on George Romney’s “brainwashed” quote. Just as Romney’s poor word choice did not reflect an actual belief he had been brain washed, Huberman’s Melanoma statement is not a reflection that he actually believes sunscreen is as dangerous as cancer. The podcast episode where he made that statement is the best evidence of what he believes on the subject——not a one off opinion piece. If you or I wrote a one off opinion piece in a magazine it would not make that opinion true, would it? Nor would the one off publication of that opinion make the opinion noteworthy. Bobbysteinhere (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You point seems to hinge on your having access to AH's 'true' thoughts. All Wikipedia can do is follow appropriate sources, if they're interested in this sunscreen thing, Wikipedia follows. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last reply. First, please watch the podcast and decide for yourself if I'm engaging in mindreading or if I'm simply reporting to you that the Melanoma quote lacks context and distorts his overall viewpoint. On the second point, if Breitbart published a piece that took a quote from Paul Krugman out of context, would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to then include that quote in Paul Krugman's bio. Or would it be more appropriate (to the extent that quote was included at all) to provide the context in which Krugman made that statement? Bobbysteinhere (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 65.207.135.114 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As this request involves reasonably detailed arguments about sourcing and due/undue coverage, it's not an uncontroversial change to be made via the Edit Request Template. PianoDan (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Magazine coverage of deceptive personal behavior

Should there be any mention, per the New York Magazine article, of Huberman misleading romantic partners and engaging in serial infidelity? Proposed text: "In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." Here is the original article: New York Magazine Here are examples of subsequent coverage in other sources Guardian 1 Guardian 2 The Byte The Verge The Independent Daily Mail DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina. I removed the RfC tag and re-titled this section. RfCs are meant to be tier-2 dispute resolution, used only if local discussion can't reach consensus. This looks like a fresh proposal. Let's give local discussion some time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for whatever gets us to consensus sooner, but I've seen mostly stonewalling and confusing WP:GOSSIP for anything that is salacious as opposed to something that is poorly sourced. This is well sourced, so the real debate should be about WP:DUE, not whether or not it is gossip. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And about his lab? BanishedRuler (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The current text about his lab at the bottom of the "Academic Career" section covers that. I would put my proposed text at the bottom of the "Podcast" section. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Including a well writen sentence or two should not infringe BLP policy, as the allegations are reported by multiple reputable sourcess and are now part of his publick image. BanishedRuler (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that every one of those sources simply refer to the original accusations from the New York Magazine article without really adding anything of substance. Even in that article it's a he said she said situation which is why I think others (and myself) believe WP:GOSSIP applies. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing but I see this was brought up and shut down on BLPN so I am not sure I understand why it's being brought up here again? FlamesJanko (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a big Meh from me. A sentence or two on this is harmless enough, but seems to add little knowledge to the topic. The folks at WP:BLPN might have something to say? Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I'm a bit confused about. When looking at this talk page about the same discussion above (nymag/treatment of women), it was mentioned that this was already brought to WP:BLPN and closed. Why is it being discussed here again and possibly being thrown into BLPN once more for the same reason? FlamesJanko (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oooh, I forgot that. Got a link? Bon courage (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I only know because it was mentioned by the person who posted it in this talk page (looks like they were also the person who submitted it to WP:BLPN), I went looking and found it in the archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew_Huberman FlamesJanko (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, no substantive discussion there then (so nothing to close). Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Since no one is saying this as a problem per BLP, and since this is officially no longer an RfC, I'm thinking about putting the text onto the page and letting people change it there.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that's the opposite of what's being said with it not having any worthy discussion on BLPN. Everything around this is focused on the NYM piece that was rejected months ago and described as "a huge quivering mass of gossip-sociopathy-sperm-drenched-ick-revenge." right here on this talk page. Pastillawheel (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

None of that is a policy concern. Nobody on BLPN was concerned about it. It's covered in RS. So there needs to be a reason to exclude it besides "I don't like it." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that BLPN didn't take it up because the issue was already settled here on the Talk page when it was brought up the first time. Pastillawheel (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Nobody commented on BLPN. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pastillawheel, it's odd to me that there is this opinion that something happened over on BLPN that didn't. If you are getting your information from some outside wikipedia source, like, say reddit, please read: WP:CANVASSING. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to the the BLPN archive of it right above in this same conversation, I can actually see the link while I type here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew Huberman

If you're referring to where I got my information about it being discussed, please read what I wrote again more carefully. It was discussed on THIS talk page, here is an anchor link to it: Talk:Andrew Huberman#Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women Pastillawheel (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I opened it on BLPN and nobody commented. It's now being spun on off wikipedia locations that this is somehow determinative, but it isn't. There is no policy reason to exclude the text. If you have a policy based objection this is the place to raise it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is enough opposition here, so I'd recommend that you take the WP:RFC route if you still want to include this. New York Magazine didn't explicitly name the women who made these allegations, so there is no way for other sources to investigate it further (respect WP:BLPPRIVACY). The articles you shared are just regurgitated pieces based on NYM's article with no independent content. WP:BLPPUBLIC is pretty clear: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Weilins (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the policy reason! I disagree with your interpretation of "sources documenting the allegation." That doesn't mean multiple independent investigations. That would be a bar that practically no scandal could clear. Usually there is one paper that breaks the story, as in this case, and then other papers that agree that it was reporting of a quality that is worth risking repeating, which is what we have in this case. We have multiple editorial boards that feel the story is worth risking liability exposure. I admit that not all of my additional sources are great RS, but IMO enough of them are, plus the sheer number of them, to meet the requirement of "multiple sources." Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind including it if, at some point, the women who made this allegation reveal their identities. At this stage, it is just too private and personal. WP:COMMONSENSE applies here: If the women had revealed their identities, other media publications might have approached them and would have covered the story independently, rather than just quoting verbatim what NY Magazine wrote. I think we should give this story some additional time to develop and respect the privacy of living people involved. If this is a fact, it will come out eventually. Wikipedia is meant to be factual and this isn't a fact yet. Weilins (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't mean we get to make up our own rules. We follow BLP which isn't about respect or factuality. Wikipedia is full of properly attributed exaggerations, falsehoods, myths, legends, and even slander, as is any encyclopedia. This isn't a courtroom. We definitely don't set up personal standards about what is or isn't a fact. That would be WP:OR. We include notable claims supported by reliable sources in accordance with policy and guidelines. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone has tried this before and it was reverted and Arbcom sanctions were applied to this article ([6]). You should revisit this discussion and re-read this one. Enough editors have disagreed User:Bon courage, User:FortunateSons, User:Hemiauchenia ([7]), including myself. Unless women involved reveal their identity, there will be no consensus on including this. You have tried on WP:BLPN and here—both failed to develop any consensus. I'd suggest you drop the stick and possibly revisit it when there is better sourcing. I'm done here. Good luck! Weilins (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting Bon courage's position. So it's you and two other editors establishing an arbitrary standard of "unless the women come forward." Seems like time for an RfC. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)