Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 2

Is appearance on JRE relevant?
I'm not sure that this is relevant: "Huberman appeared on programs that have been accused of promoting health misinformation and praised that presidential candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were featured as guests on long-form podcasts, such as the The Joe Rogan Experience." So was Steven Pinker and Michael Pollan. 96.230.129.94 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is, in the context of the preceding paragraph and because it has been raised in one of the main source. If similar questions have been raised by sources about Pinker and Pollan, maybe that should go on those article too. Robincantin (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't believe someone can think this way 87.255.86.89 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Utter trash. 75.27.239.150 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, sure he has appeared on the JRE. And you can say 1000s of different things about the JRE but this specific characterization was chosen with the intension of criticism
 * I also see criticism sprinkled throughout the article. Perhaps this should be extracted out to its own section to contain and state outright the intent of these statements 2607:FEA8:C3E0:E300:E4E9:5CE9:20E3:E57A (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why wikipedia is an activist platform and not neutral
Calling Robert F Kennedy an anti-vaccination activist is laughable. Criticizing someone for appearing in a podcast where your lefty idols such as Berny Sanders get a pass, is hypocrisy at its best. Wikipedia has become too toxic, and honestly it must die and another page based on technologies such as x community notes, created. 2A03:4B80:A036:2A60:6409:C0B:BE26:642E (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, DR. Andrew Huberman is a decent human being who is spreading science in to the society and changing people’s lives for the better (look at the comments under his videos). There are not that many people in this world who do the same without seeking personal gain. It is extremely sad to see that brainwashed liberals are trying to ruin his credibility, honestly with such attitude we just don’t deserve him. He is to good for this world. 2A01:4B00:B014:DE00:E929:527B:1E55:5909 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The final sentence of the second paragraph of the Podcast section is entirely biased opinion, thus has no place on Wikipedia.. Pls remove. 2600:4040:9981:1900:EC31:F126:E441:8A05 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not the opinion of WIkipedia, but the opinion of a verifiable reliable source cited in the article. Wikipedia does not write own opinion, but rather repeats what other reliable sources may publish about a subject. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrasing seems loaded and does not appear to be justified by the citation source. Wording makes it sound like Huberman supports RFK's anti-vaccination stance. The claims about the frequency of the alleged misinformation of the podcasts he has appeared on are unsubstantiated. 50.48.95.201 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this -- there are still multiple loaded claims in the article. "Controversy surrounds his promotion of supplements and multivitamins sold by podcast sponsors, and hyping of unproven preliminary animal studies as evidence for human enhancement" is not anywhere near WP:DUE for a BLP, much less based on an interest piece by one author. The anti-vaccination thing is completely just over the top considering there's no suggestion that he himself is anti-vax. 64.189.111.144 (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revised the content. Criticism of Huberman's claims is acceptable so long as the critique is attributed to the critics per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This has been done. Huberman does make questionable claims, and his fans coming here after a Lex Fridman tweet to try and edit war are wasting their time. It would be more useful if they found secondary sources on his career that are actually usable. In addition, Lex makes the false claim that people "removed" his research because of some sort of bias. No, Wikipedia does not report on original research and primary sources. His studies would need to be reported on in secondary sources (news, books, academic reviews) for them to be notable enough to include. If people can provide secondary sources of Huberman producing notable research, it can be covered. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the case for the majority of science-oriented Wikipedia pages I visit. Even for the biographies, for example, check the page for Karl Deisseroth, another biomedical researcher. References 4, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 29, 39, 45 are all Deisseroth's original research articles. Or Eric Kandel's page references 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Or Bita Moghaddam's page references 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Am I missing something here?
 * Given this was the appearance of the Wiki page for the first three major biologist that came to my mind, would it be reasonable to question the motives of those who butchered the primary sources on Huberman's page while somehow the community of editors have missed these other pages? I can sample more pages if you'd like. 2600:4040:96EC:D000:7810:10CF:1F99:8467 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant content on Deisseroth, Kandel and Moghaddam should be replaced with secondary sources. I have gone and tagged them with a notice that they are using too many primary sources. It is fine to source a primary source (e.g. study) alongside the secondary source (which establishes notability), so the primary source can be used for the audience to verify. You asked would it be reasonable to question the motives of those who butchered the primary sources on Huberman's page while somehow the community of editors have missed these other pages? – editors who create biographies of living persons might have a niche interest in those people, but lack understanding of correctly using sources, so you get inconsistencies. People edit pages of figures they are familiar with so slip through cracks on less watched ones. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The bent with which this page has been revised
This page has seen significant alteration over the past few months.

As of now, the largest section is "Podcasting and supplements", half of which is its subsection "Reception", which consists of three paragraphs each implicitly maligning Huberman's intellectual honesty or scientific competence. This is a stark contrast to the page as it looked on July 3 of this year (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_D._Huberman&diff=prev&oldid=1163211211), when the bulkiest sections were "Education" and "Laboratory", the former of which has since been significantly trimmed, and the latter of which has apparently been deleted entirely.

Judging as a reader, I say that the page's earlier version would have left the impression that Huberman is a scientist/academic who also hosts a podcast; the page's current version would leave the impression that Huberman is an academic of no distinction who hosts a podcast where he promotes pseudoscience and hucksters supplements.

Maybe Huberman is deserving of the latter reputation – a question I can't speak to, not being adequately familiar with the neuroscientific discourse of the past two decades and therefore unfamiliar with Huberman's contributions to it. If not, then the apparent malice of the editors involved and that they could indulge their malice unchecked is a discredit to Wikipedia.

The question warrants discussion.14.243.162.37 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you had bothered to read the other discussions on this page you’d know that Wikipedia is based on secondary and independent sources. We do not report on individual studies and research unless they are reported on in secondary sources (e.g. academic reviews, news, books and textbooks). Huberman hasn’t produced much research that has been covered in this manner, so until that happens it isn’t going to be covered because Wikipedia isn’t a directory or a resume. Yes, podcasting is his primary career at this point, it makes him a lot of money. Nothing about this page suggests malice. The article reports on what is written in secondary sources in a neutral and dispassionate way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your emotional and discourteous response supports the hypothesis that the orientation to the topic by the article's most active recent editors is neither neutral nor dispassionate.
 * That the article ostensibly maintains a tone suggesting objectivity does not disprove the theory that it's editors intend to portray the subject negatively. It's not hard to portray someone negatively while apparently writing in a "neutral and dispassionate way" if one mainly includes negative claims – that is, if one engages in selective reporting – as perhaps this article does. (I reiterate that I can't say for sure that it does, as I am not aware of Huberman's standing among contemporary neuroscientists. What I say is that this article has recently been heavily revised to mostly consist of claims that make him out to be unscrupulous and unscientific, which may by true, or maybe some people have an axe to grind. Again, the question warrants discussion.)
 * "Yes, podcasting is his primary career at this point, it makes him a lot of money." Pejorative. There's either malice here or I'm corresponding with Huberman's accountant, in which case I retract all claims. 14.243.162.37 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This was a low-quality article; it's been improved a little bit with the addition of reliable sources and the cutting of cruft. That's what happens on Wikipedia. All this stuff about motive is just fantasy; Wikipedia editors are here to improve articles, and if what they do it not aligned with the rules they get into trouble. Bon courage (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bon courage,
 * Thanks for your reply.
 * Would you judge it to be implausible that the editors who "improved" the article intended to discredit Huberman? You might consider that (1) the article's portrayal of Huberman turned sharply negative in the past several months, and (2) this shift was precipitated by Huberman's social media activities which generated some controversy. If you agree with these two premises, is it not possible that some people on one side of that controversy (controversy, by definition, involving polarized general opinion) decided his Wikipedia page needed improving ?
 * I would be jumping to conclusions to say with certainty one way or the other, but I think it's reasonable to see the tonal change and its timing and feel dubious.
 * Finally, I'll say that there's plenty of room within the bounds of rules to portray someone favorable or negatively as the writer wishes. A pair of historians each meeting academic standards writing biographies of Lincoln could effect very different impressions of the subject, and I'd consider it material if one or the other was descended from veterans of the Confederate army. 14.243.162.37 (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is pointless to speculate about the intent of editors, WP:FOC. Sometimes biographical articles appear which are hit pieces, sometimes puff pieces. Both get improved into a better state by good editors. Your argument seems to be: bad articles should not be changed because I, a random anonymous person on the internet, can imagine things about the thought processes of those doing the improving. Bon courage (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can mischaracterize my argument that way but if you did you would be a random anonymous person on the internet imagining things about the thought processes of another.
 * Perhaps the irony would have been detected had not the earlier random anonymous person struck a nerve.
 * I see that you're one of the editors involved in the rewrite. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_D._Huberman&diff=prev&oldid=1178056433 How very impartial. Not a hint of prejudice. Total commitment to what the secondary sources say regardless of how you personally feel. Kudos.
 * In seriousness, I hope you one day realize what damage you do to the integrity of this site by using it as a ground to besmirch the reputation of public figures you disapprove of. 14.243.162.37 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I urge anyone who is at this point of the talk page to look at the edit I linked to (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_D._Huberman&diff=prev&oldid=1178056433). Hasn't he shown his hand? Isn't it blatant?
 * The article was "Huberman was described as having a large and enthusiastic fan base while promoting interest in science," and the user who wrote the above reply User:Bon courage removes the words "while promoting interest in science". The cited source (from Time Magazine, of all places; reputable enough?) is titled "How Andrew Huberman Got America to Care About Science". It's in the title! And he has the shamelessness to talk about "reliable sources". (What reason did he give for his edit?: "Don't think so".)
 * The gun isn't just smoking, I can't even pick it up because the barrel is too hot. 14.243.162.37 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSHEADLINES. Bon courage (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An adequate defense if the title misrepresented the article's content.
 * "Arguably not since the Fauci mania of the early pandemic has a scientist become as famous, as quickly, as Huberman."
 * "In each episode, Huberman dissects a single scientific topic in great detail, sometimes with the help of an expert guest but often on his own. Whether he’s tackling dopamine or strength training or alcohol consumption, Huberman delights in explaining how and why the brain and body do what they do. He’s good at breaking down dense scientific topics, but he also speaks like a human footnote, rattling off study citations, carefully contextualizing research findings, and doubling back to correct his wording or add more detail in real time."
 * 14.243.162.37 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, nothing there to support the text which was properly removed. I think any 'heat' here is from the burn of your own self-own. Bon courage (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The quotes don't at all support the claim "... while promoting interest in science." 14.243.162.37 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point you have hurled accusations at Wikipedia editors who have worked to significantly improve the article. Instead of complaining, why don't you make a Wikipedia account, reach the requirements for editing semi-protected articles, and then make contributions yourself? Zenomonoz (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made one accusation and the evidence is conclusive in its favor (or do you say the edit I linked to shows an impartial actor?).
 * Suppose I did. Could I in my free time overwhelm the efforts of a gang with what seems to me significant emotional investment in defaming the man? 14.243.162.37 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to look like trolling. Suggest close and ignore. Bon courage (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023
huberman needs his research section reinstated 2600:1700:14E2:A800:F1D5:8603:D8B7:2C68 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean. They just told you want they want reinstated. We want Hubermans research section. It was there before and had a bunch of his published papers. Why did that research section get removed 2601:985:4401:1630:5025:D3E9:84ED:6DA0 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia covers research that has been covered in secondary sources. For example, if you can find any news articles, pages in books or textbooks, or his studies mentioned in academic reviews, we can use those to include content about his research. For example, I have included coverage of his work with David Spiegel on the page because it was covered in a Nature interview with him. Hope this helps. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Research Section
Did Wikipedia remove the Research Section from this individuals page? and if so why? 2600:6C5C:6C00:28BD:3445:438F:C75D:D69D (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because it hasn't risen to the level where it is being discussed by reliable secondary sources, which should be used. Bon courage (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replied to this about 3 times now. Copy and paste again: Wikipedia covers research that has been covered in secondary sources. For example, if you can find any news articles, pages in books or textbooks, or his studies mentioned in academic reviews, we can use those to include content about his research. For example, I have included coverage of his work with David Spiegel on the page because it was covered in a Nature interview with him. We don’t include a bunch of primary source studies because they often lack notability. See WP:PSTS, hope it helps. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should be looking at introcucing the research section back as it seems like a central piece of information. I'm not exactly sure if we can use primary sources though. H44dyss9900 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb if something has attracted some non-trivial attention from secondary sources, if could be included in a Selected bibliography. No sure if any of this guy's work does. What we definitely don't want is a search-result dump. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What was there before was non-notable research in mice puffed up to look like human clinical trials. It seems to there could be a "selected publications" section though. Robincantin (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Has any of his stuff made a stir? Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. Robincantin (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Made a stir" is a very odd approach to deciding whether or not to list some selected publications by an academic. That's not what is normally done.  I just looked through a handful (10) of articles in the category American neuroscientists, not as a scientific survey just a first look, and I found that about half have a section entitled something like "Select publications" (2 examples), "Selected works", "Selected publications", "Notable publications".  The ones that didn't have this tended to be shorter stub articles.  Looking at the specific publications that were selected, I would say that the vast majority did not "make a stir" - nor should we expect them too.  The idea that we only list any publications of a scientist in the situation where the publication itself has garnered significant third party news coverage is not consistent with our usual norms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be "significant third party news coverage", but some coverage to make a stir, in my book: an editorial mention in a reputable journal maybe. Scientists will publish papers regularly, and that is mostly routine and not worthy of coverage. Has anything of Huberman's generated any interest (genuine, not rhetorical, question)? (Add: from a quick look, the work covered in this Scientific American piece merits listing.) Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "in my book" isn't actually Wikipedia's norm for deciding such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a misreading of what I wrote, I was glossing what 'make a stir' meant in my book, which is not how you interpreted it. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the august editor above that a short listing of some research papers under a "Selected publications" heading doesn't require third-party coverage (I really hope so because I've done it many times!). If it's okay, I could put something together. Robincantin (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there would need to be some criteria/reasons for selection, and not just picked out of a hat by a Wikipedia editor. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is often done is to be pretty comprehensive, see Jonathan Abramowitz as a typical example. I'd personally be more worried that an editor with some kind of beef or axe to grind against a podcaster they don't like wants to cherry pick removing important aspects of their career on non-policy grounds like "did it make a stir" and "in my book".  I'm not saying that's happening in this case, of course, merely noting that omitting this information is not, so far as I can tell, guided by any serious look at our global best practices.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of academics' articles are poor, like that start class one you pointed at. For encyclopedic content, weight is given to material in a way which mirrors how it is treated in reliable sources. It would be a concern if an editor had been lobbied offline and was coming here as a kind of WP:MEAT. I'm not saying that's happening in this case, of course, but there does seem to be a pattern emerging on this page. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Robincantin - there's a good start in the history of the page. It was completely removed without any serious policy rationale, so a good start might be to simply restore it. If individual entries are for some reason objectionable, that's something we could discuss at further length. Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ‘Without any serious policy rationale’ is simply incorrect. Wikipedia covers what is reported on in secondary sources. We don’t report on every study somebody completes because those are primary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's odd about this is if you look at the bio of an eminent neuroscientist like Nancy Kanwisher, who holds a named chair at MIT, there is no publication list (selected or otherwise), and no steady procession of editors demanding that a list of her (200 odd) research articles are listed. Special attention for podcasters with a vociferous bro-science fanbase, it seems. If people want to see a list of all the papers with Huberman's name on, they can do a simple PUBMED search. Replicating what is essentially a search engine result on Wikipedia is just not encyclopedic, and if we're going to have "selected" publications (a good idea) then the selection needs to derive from attention in the wider world, not the whim of Wikipedia editors. Bon courage (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For a Selected publications, I normally pick the papers that get cited most often by other researchers (pubmed and others have citation counts) or those papers that relate to topics actually mentioned as notable in the wikipedia article - in this case, I guess his paper(s) on mice studies about eye regeneration (if any). Robincantin (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)