Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 1

Broken edit sat in lead for a long time
Someone should review this:


 * This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brianbounds (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 11 February 2019.

I'm going to take out the period, assuming this was all meant to belong to a single list, but it's really not clear this is good or accurate information to begin with. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC) .

Who is "Brianbounds"?
Most of the contributions to this Andrew D. Huberma n article is by someone who seems to have contributed to nothing else on Wikipedia and who has no page of his/her/their own. Curious. /Myron (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This page reads like a commercial
Although its speculative, one contributor-editor and the tone of the page hints that the content is the result of paid promotion by the subject. That and the web search results prominence of this wikipedia page suggest a promotional campaign that potentially conflicts with the objective notability of the individual's bio. I'm not familiar with a wikipedia standard for article length vs. individual notability, but this page looks to me like it goes to far in the direction of personal / commercial promotion with resulting excessive length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8280:C8B0:9002:2F5B:BB9F:19C2 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree probably for similar reasons. Lead needs trimming, minor awards needn't be mentioned (twice), and we should have selected works rather than exhaustive bibliography. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. The number of items on the list of pubs is currently standing at over sixty-five, and a note at the top suggests there’s more coming. That’s really quite ridiculous. For a quick comparison, I had a look at Stephen Hawking’s page. His academic pubs list is “selected” items only, and stands at a mere nine.12.219.111.130 (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Someone is representing his funding sources as "awards". Almost all funding in science is in the form of "awards". Also someone is representing his research as "his". In fact, hes not the primary author on a lot of those papers. Other scientists on wikipedia don't list their papers b/c they are very academic and not meant for a general audience. I think this page is hyping him up way more than he deserves. He's a scientist trying to be a influencer. Wikipedia should not be a platform to promote this type of behavior IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF01:59FF:0:0:0:385 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Advert/SPA editing going on
The page does read like an advert as echoed in the comments above. Many of the sources are primary sources (e.g. stanford profile). There is an attempt to re-add lists like list of podcast guests that may not be appropriate in the article lead. There are also heavy edits and additions by several SPAs. While the author seems notable and likely should have a biography page in Main, the article needs to become much more neutral. I will not recommend the article for deletion, but I think the article needs a lot of cleanup. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the 5th source in the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ This is about sleep, it has no apparent link to do with this unique non-sleep term introduced by the article subject. It doesn't mention this author. Or his alleged research. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In 3rd and 4th quoted sources we have https://www.inc.com/jeff-steen/i-tried-sundar-pichais-non-meditation-technique-to-curb-my-stress-its-10x-better-than-a-morning-routine.html and https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-non-sleep-deep-rest-nsdr-relax-2022-3
 * How are these posted along with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ ?
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337233/ is unclear how it relates to Huberman.
 * If I am to do my own analysis I don't need this encyclopedia. This has to be clear and to the point. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Dr." Academic Title at beginning of Article
It is not customary for Wikipedia convention to list the person's name with their academic credential - ie Dr. Andrew Huberman should be Andrew Huberman (also "Dr. Andrew Huberman") if that's commonly how he is known.

Historiaantiqua (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific claims need better citations
This article suffers from subjectivity and bias; the links to the articles supporting the claims do not support the claims made. The page needs more neutrality and fewer commercial inducements linked to this person's corporate activities. Historiaantiqua (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is a controversial figure. It would be helpful if you know of any citations/articles critiquing the claims? Or perhaps make the edits yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Time article helps a bit, but we should be careful about not going beyond what the sources say. Not black and white. Robincantin (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Contributions as part of a team
I'm concerned the text currently appears to credit some discoveries to Huberman alone that he made as part of a research team, in one case Huberman being the 5h author on the paper cited. The claims are not always backed by the citation, which are all research papers (one of them about a hamster study that's supposed to back up a rather grandiose claim). I'm going to rework the text and probably shorten the research section significantly, but it would be useful if someone with experience in lab work would check my work.Robincantin (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. The text wasn't just putting his achievements (which are real) under the best possible light, it routinely misrepresented his contributions to projects in which he appears to have played a minor role. I'll leave the tag in place until others have had a chance to take a look.Robincantin (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Commenting note that I agree with the initial application of the tag and its removal, following cleanup. This article has read like a puff piece for a while, great to see that fixed. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have developed a bit of a "less is more" approach when it comes to biographies. Did a similar thing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Attia&diff=1164922692&oldid=1164434094 AncientWalrus (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert of content added by SPA Iopentron
I've reverted the potentially advertorial paragraph listing research areas and number of publications that has been added back by Iopentron despite being reverted before. First addition, reverted , added back. I have asked Iopentron whether they have a COI, they have not replied yet. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

can we do something about this article?
Ugh... this is obviously a promotion and the guy pushes not so scientific claims in his podcasts, and Wikipedia is giving him an air of credibility. I suggested removing the article and the proposal was dismissed. Wikipedia is perpetuating a bro-science podcast and helping it gain credibility and make money spreading bad information. Worth noting the guy does seem very scientific when describing how the body works. But when it comes for his tips then he makes unsubstantiated pseudoscientific or yet not fully established advice.-- 109.253.183.222 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Your wording is kind of hilarious, namely "air of credibility". He is a neuroscientist and tenured professor at Stanford. Maybe he sounds "pseudoscientific" on podcasts because he's not giving a formal academic talk? 128.12.122.142 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Competely unfounded.
 * "Wikipedia is perpetuating a bro-science podcast..." False.
 * It is a podcast very different from the modern "bro-science" per social standards. He doesn't advocate any of the typical "bro-science" things, such as all meat diets, only heavy lifting, delayed gratification (yall know what i mean) ... so on. If that doesn't explain it then perhaps the simple FACT that he does back up ALL of his assertions with scientific studies (good ones) or is very clear that it is a theory and cautions people about it.
 * "does seem very scientific"- He is a scientist and correctly describing how the body works....
 * "unsubstantiated pseudoscientific or yet not fully established" - If he says anything that isn't backed by a good study he tells you. If he makes his conclusion based on an animal study- he tells you. If it's jst his best guess- HE TELLS YOU.
 * No offense but getting on here and only contributing hearsay would make me worry about anything you contribute to the site. Galaxyalexandreh (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you support your claim the he pushes non-scientific claims? 71.115.218.235 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering the same and that’s why I came to Wikipedia. But if it’s pseudoscience surely there is evidence of that, and that should be added to the article? A Friendly Nerd (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a BLP, so everything of note needs to go through reliable sources. If you have sources that talk about other aspects of this person or their research, please add them to the article (or add them here, and help another editor out) --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I lack the competency in statistics (as well as the domain knowledge) to competently critique Andrew Huberman, but if he really does sell supplements via his podcast, that is a big of a red flag. It pattern matches with fringe science. Unfortunately, the standard of Wikipedia isn't "looks suspicious." Would it be reasonable to include a phrase along the lines of "some writers have critiqued views promoted by Huberman due to small sample size and p-hacking," and citing Stuart J Ritchie's criticism?
 * https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1632360272710062080 NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He does not sell supplements. He has different sponsors for the page but doesn't do more than a short advert like any other Youtube channel. Galaxyalexandreh (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to this good source, Bon courage (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So he sells other people's supplements and gets a commission. Standard influencer affiliate marketing scheme. Disappointing for someone who does actual science education. Good addition to the text. Robincantin (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Misleading information.
Huberman is controversial to a minority of politically motivated people. RFK, taken as a whole, is more than an ‘anti vax activist’. Perhaps he should simply be named. The bias in this article is bad for Wikipedia and objectivity in general. 99.196.131.247 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite your section title, you have not presented any information that is misleading. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The misleading information can be found in sections that talk about a made up controversy about Hubermans parented supplement company and appearances on credible podcasts that are seen as misleading podcasts only by the corrupt mainstream media. If Huberman or the associated podcasts were misleading, they would not be ranked amongst the highest in the world. 2607:FB91:BD80:848A:CC9E:2DA3:FB8:48FC (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023
Remove “misinformation” claims. Because someone speaks to another person, that does not make the original person a purveyor of misinformation. Bernie Sanders page doesn’t state he peddles misinformation despite appearing in many of the same podcasts referenced on this page. 98.195.243.139 (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Postdoctoral Training
Postdoctoral "training" isn't a thing to be "completed" - you're a postdoctoral researcher or a postdoctoral scientist etc.

The text should not be in Education subheading, but under Career. And text should be changed to list his actual position at Stanford in the 2004-2010 period, and should not read like some sort of degree was awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie Mallett (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Guilt by association?
I originally removed the following:

> Huberman has expressed interest in the presidential candidate and anti-vaccination activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

I understand this article had a problem in the past re COI edits and reading like an advertisement. But these types of sentences really don't belong in a biography and are not neutral. So are we going to mention every single person that the subject has expressed interest in? Is this really appropriate language for a BLP?

@Honeybrowneyes care to weigh in, since you reverted my edit without any explanation for why you're adding it back?

This is what the source material on this subject reads:

In a June Instagram comment, Huberman also wrote that he was “eager to listen to” an episode of Rogan’s podcast featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a 2024 presidential candidate and prolific spreader of anti-vaccine sentiment. (Huberman says he was praising a candidate’s willingness to appear on a long-form podcast and wants others to do the same.)

This seems like some serious motivated reasoning for addition of content here.

--Molochmeditates (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I could maybe agree on the RFK part, however removing the controversy from the opening is unwarranted. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and it is covered significantly in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not conflate issues here. This section is specifically for the RFK part. If you want to take up how the "controversy" was covered, it is a violation of WP:NPOV which is what biographies need to adhere to. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I cross-referenced the source. I now agree with you i.e. — “Huberman says he was praising a candidate’s willingness to appear on a long-form podcast and wants others to do the same.” Apologies! Honeybrowneyes (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing criticism
User @Molochmeditates has been attempting to remove criticism (here and here) of Huberman's podcast and claims, suspiciously after a tweet from Lex Fridman claiming that Wikipedia is "attacking" him. The sources are Time, which is reliable per WP:RSP and McGill University Office for Science and Society. There is zero reason to remove this type of criticism per WP:NPOV. I would advise you to add more content from reliable secondary sources about the rest of his career instead. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am going to change the criticism so that it clearly attributes it to each author. This resolves neutrality disputes. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed critique from the intro to resolve the edit warring, however it is certainly fine to keep in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zenomonoz I am glad to see your interest in this page, which I have been helping cleanup for a while now, e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_D._Huberman#Advert/SPA_editing_going_on. It seems you don't believe in WP:AFG but I'll extend that courtesy to you and not assume that you seem to be on an agenda here, given your statements like the above and some of the change log in the article.
 * In case it wasn't already clear, we don't edit Wikipedia based on what you assume is information about some social media platform and its content. This is a WP:BLP which means we are here to build encyclopedic content for a biography. I would strongly advise you to read those sections and truly understand what they entail. There are plenty of non-biographical articles that might have "lower standards" when it comes to editing and contributing.
 * Biographies need to be neutral in their language and avoid excessive editorialization from source material. It is pretty obvious that you have summarized your source material based on some preconceived notions of what you want the article to say, and not going by what your source material claims about the subject. This is a strict no-no.
 * Before you try to question the integrity of my editing in this article, I would suggest you go through the article history and see my contributions. I have helped clean up a lot of advertisement like content much before "tweet from Lex Fridman". You really need to stop acting like every edit to this article is driven by some tweet that you think influenced an edit, and stick to the basics of editing BLPs.
 * Also, it is not up to you to decide whether some criticism you have selectively taken from reliable sources belong in the lead or body. It is not up to me either. That's what makes Wikipedia and BLPs work. You don't "own" this article. Neither do I. I will keep adding content to the article - research and criticisms and everything in between, but not at your command.
 * I really hope you understand the spirit of encyclopedic biographies before adding spurious content based on your personal thoughts on the subjects. --Molochmeditates (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have struck out the part about Lex's tweet, I agree. However, you removed all criticism of his claims under the claim of neutrality. You were incorrect to do this. WP:BLPBALANCE states:, which it is.
 * You incorrectly accused me, stating, and then bizarrely state this is a "strict no-no". Except I didn't do that. Check my edit history, I never included the part about RFK or misrepresented a source.
 * I would ask that you strike out that these aspersions when I was the one who tidied things up to match the source! Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work cleaning up the criticisms section based on the feedback and not cherry-picking a couple of lines from the Time magazine source to specifically look for criticisms. If the spirit of the source is maintained, it is totally fine to summarize in the BLP. --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Totality
This particular entry (A Huberman) has been recently improved upon, but the totality of his contributions still isn't adequately reflected here. Of course, criticisms (when true) should be known but without adequate mention of contributions they distort the overall totality.

I appreciate the work of the moderators and for those at Wikipedia who are working to get it sorted but can I offer a bit more to help fix the seemingly biased slant? Perhaps the comments in Andrew Huberman's Youtube, Twitter and the like can confirm his overwhelming contribution to general public knowledge, mental health improvement and physical health as well. (If actual evidence submissions need to be supplied- I can do so)

Also, A Huberman has served as a guest on many different podcasts before and after the start of The Huberman Podcast. Just another fun fact. I can get a list if you need.

Thanks for your time and again we appreciate it. : ) Galaxyalexandreh (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, generally things are only included on Wikipedia if they are covered in secondary sources (e.g. news outlets, books, textbooks, academic reviews) and not primary sources (podcasts, Huberman's own studies, original research etc). If Huberman's contributions are well covered in secondary sources, those parts can be included. However, I have been unable to find significant mention of his research in other books or secondary sources. It seems he is primarily a podcaster and an associate professor, rather than a notable research scientist, and so Wikipedia reflects the sources. I don't think there is a 'biased slant' on this article either, the criticism of his podcast also includes praise. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I understand those standards and respect them- perhaps not a biased slant (knowing that standard and the primary focus-"research scientist") but I just don't again agree that the article adequately represents his contributions (perhaps in time). He is not just a podcaster but an Educator.
 * Given that the undeniable significance is public education (via podcast) which would only be provable through statements of impact via consumers, would secondary sources of that be allowed? There are articles by third parties with their analysis of his contributions**  Obviously, that would be opinion based- so how do you prove something like that? not allowed?
 * Thanks for your time. -reh Galaxyalexandreh (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked: These are allowed if they are from reputable publications (e.g. reliable news sites or even local news, books etc). This can certainly include opinions pieces. However, posts from obscure blogs or substacks, podcast episodes etc are generally not allowed. It may be the case that his contributions are significant, however sometimes you just have to wait until reliable sources cover something to warrant inclusion. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Galaxyalexandreh welcome to Wikipedia! This page, along with countless others, are not maintained by "moderators" but by regular editors. Like you! This is a biography of a living person though, so before you edit anything, make sure you go through WP:BLP which states what kinds of content, tone, and sources are appropriate for a biography. Some links on your welcome Talk Page should also be helpful. Please ask any questions if you need help with editing articles. It is generally suggested not to start with biographies. --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 10-4! Galaxyalexandreh (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023
His birthday is September 26, 1975 2601:602:CA00:5560:5526:6707:77B0:5453 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A source for that would be useful, as anybody could post a random birthdate from an anonymous IP. Generally, it is best if Andrew were to write his birthdate somewhere (even his own social media) as primary sources are acceptable for confirming simple facts like this. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil16 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. TeeVeeed (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source for that. You can't just put a birthdate on a Wikipedia page because an anonymous IP comment said so. Reverted . Zenomonoz (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew did write his birthdate on social media, just like you wanted him to. The edit that you reverted included his twitter profile as a citation. The dob is in the profile details. OVERKILL27 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad – Twitter was loading a cached version of the page so I could not see his birthdate. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Lex Fridman tweet
The influx of editors here is probably primarily due to this tweet: https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1693354143979589668 I can assure Lex Fridman that my edits were simply to bring it in line with relevant WP policies of neutral point of view and reliance on reliable secondary sources. I didn't add any criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_D._Huberman&diff=1165317243&oldid=1164605390. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the guy or his tweets. My interest was piqued by an article in The Guardian. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I definitely didn't mean you, more those types of new anonymous editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_D._Huberman#Why_wikipedia_is_an_activist_platform_and_not_neutral AncientWalrus (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. That sort of thing's becoming an increasing problem for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lex overstated the problems with the article. What he gets wrong is the ‘removal of most of his scientific achievements’. What was removed was a long list of every article he had ever co-authored. The issue is these were not notable as they aren’t covered in secondary sources. If there are books or news stories discussing Andrew’s studies and research contributions, they can certainly be included. I’ve included one sentence on such research in Nature. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/andrew-huberman

Administrative Appointments Associate Professor, Stanford School of Medicine (2016 - Present)

Honors & Awards Cogan Award for Contributions to Vision Science and Ophthalmology, ARVO (2017) Pew Biomedical Scholar Award, Pew Charitable Trusts (2013-2017) McKnight Neuroscience Scholar Award, McKnight Endowment Fund (2013-2016) Catalyst for a Cure Investigator, Glaucoma Research Foundation (2012- present) Helen Hay Whitney Postdoctoral Fellow, HHWF Foundation (2006-2009) Allan G. Marr Prize for Best Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis (2005) ARCS Foundation Graduate Fellowship Award, ARCS Foundation (2003) Graduation with Honors and Distinction in Major, University of California, Santa Barbara (1998) IrishZenny (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not a résumé Lightoil (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)