Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 3

Reception section
Hi everyone,

There is a clear bias against Andrew Huberman in the Reception section of the article that needs to be addressed. WP:CRIT is an essay that describes how/what to write in this section, but it was clearly unreferenced when developing Andrew Huberman's reception section because it currently only includes negative opinions.

Additionally, this is a BLP, so closer consideration needs to be taken when including a reception section that includes solely negative information that is not widely covered and doesn't provide any substantive information to the article. WP:BLPBALANCE clearly notes that the idea of eventualism doesn't apply to BLPs, because of the potential impact it can have on the subject's life, so it needs to be adjusted immediately. Open to other opinions. RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * CRIT is an essay, not strict policy. Take your concern to the WP:BLPN noticeboard if you want to seek more opinion here. Nothing about WP:BLPBALANCE suggests the critique should be "adjusted immediately". I keep hearing these same complaints, presumably from Huberman fans. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and the critique is clearly attributed to the source. Take it to the noticeboard. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - I appreciate your opinion. Considering that the entire section fixates on negative press against him (which also doesn't seem to have all that much coverage as it is), I dont believe it is okay to leave it as unbalanced as it currently is. Although WP:CRIT is in fact an essay (which I mentioned), it does provide reasonable guidance for matters like this. Also, the critiques that are "attributed to sources" dont actually seem to be clear either (ex: the Time article itself is a more of an unbiased and balanced reflection of Huberman's criticisms, but most of that material hasn't been clearly portrayed in this article). I think with a little bit of work, the article can be improved to introduce more of a NPOV. Hope we can work together to improve the article. :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have instructed you to ask on the noticeboard for a reason. From your talk page and edit history, you have a history of misrepresenting and misinterpreting editing policy to WP:WHITEWASH BLPs. I am not going to go back and forth on this. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - I dont appreciate your incorrect accusation about my activity, so respectfully, I disagree with your judgement. I dont believe anything I have said above is incorrect according to Wikipedia standards. Additionally, thank you for the suggestion about the noticeboard, but seeing as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that encourages its editors to collaboratively improve articles and have open discussions on content and policy, I dont believe it is warranted yet (note: I haven't actually made any edits here yet either). I am entitled to edit here, just as you are my friend, as long as it fits within the editing standards of wikipedia. If you dont agree with a specific edit I make (if/when i go ahead and make it), then I urge you to speak up and we can work through it (because I am very much open to discussion), and if necessary, take it to the BLP noticeboard. Thanks. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an accusation, it’s a summary of what other users have noted on your talk page, and what I can see in your edits. I have already spent considerable time responding to a number of attempts to remove content on this page (see the talk page archive). There is no reason to delete what is reported in reliable, secondary, independent sources because you don’t like what is said. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Bon courage Can you please explain why my edits were reverted? They were quoted and written with the same sources that have already been used in this section and I did not remove any information previously written either. As @Zenomonoz has mentioned above, "There is no reason to delete what is reported in reliable, secondary, independent sources because you don’t like what is said."
 * I am open to discussion if you believe there are issues with the information I have brought forward from these sources. Thanks! RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think saying "Huberman explains that ..." presumes that what is being given is an 'explanation', and the source is not strong enough for biomedical statements. Having 'He has maintained a stance of being supported by science' in Wikivoice is also odd (and what does it mean, that it's just a 'stance'?) Bon courage (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Bon courage - I appreciate your calm response. I have taken the words from the source, in the same way, as words from other scientists like Jonathan Jarry (a non-PhD).
 * The direct quote from the source is, "He maintains there’s solid science to back up everything he talks about on the show, and that he makes it clear when he's talking about preliminary research or single studies." If the word "stance" is what is causing ambiguity in bringing this statement forward from Time magazine, the word can be changed or removed. It may make more sense to bring the quote forward as a whole to relieve any confusion, attributing it to the source. I think if the Coda source is able to bring a quote from Huberman forward, then there should be no issue in bringing this quote forward as well.
 * It's clear that Time Magazine felt it was appropriate to bring balanced criticism out in the public. In the same manner, I am okay bringing both negative and positive reception forward (as long as they comply with Wikipedia standards).
 * Lastly, why were the rest of my edits reverted? RealPharmer3 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stance is an odd image, it could mean 'pose' (literally) which implies fakery. Anyway, it's what Huberman maintains, which Wikipedia should not take a side on in its own voice. I don't have a problem with bringing out reactions, but they should be in summary rather than assembled snippets, and some is a bit gushing to be encyclopedic ("service to the world"?) Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Bon courage I agree. Thanks for hearing me out, I can make some adjustments and make the appropriate changes. Feel free to let me know if you have any objections, and i am more than willing to talk through them. But, I also recommend reading the source just to see that basically everything I brought into the page weren't assembled snippets, I would argue that the section was more that way, prior to me filling in the missing gaps.  RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's still a big problem attributing health claims to "Time Magazine" which do not appear to the the magazine's views (that would require an editorial representing the magazine itself). Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Bon courage, I have no objection to the wording you have incorporated to the sentence. RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * RealPharmer3, my last 3 edits just restored a lot of detail and quotes you removed. Replacing criticism with positive quotes could be taken for WP:WHITEWASHING, e.g. the part about applying animal studies to humans. It's totally fine to also add in any positive reception of Huberman to add balance, but why edit out the critique? Also, there isn't a need to include trivial details like Jarry hosting a podcast. It's also better to just say "Neuroscientist David Berson" rather than add in that they also happen to work at Brown. The article is about Huberman. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - which critique did i edit out? RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can compare the edits in the part I highlighted in '3 edits'. You replaced quite a few of the less positive quotes with positive quotes. It is better to include positive comments alongside existing ones. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz, I actually never removed any of the critic. Please refer to my first set of edits that were very quickly reverted. Additionally, can you please explain which "other scientists" have criticized him for prematurely using animal studies to justify his beliefs? I only see one in the source that is cited. To assume that there are more without justification does not seem right. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, just to clarify, I reverted this quote back to it's former state. Including the quote "sunscreens have molecules that can be found in neurons 10 years after application." is a type of WP:PROFRINGE, the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, because it is not contextualised. Sunscreens are both safe and cancer preventative according to the body of scientific literature. Just because we may absorb what is on our skin does not mean they are dangerous, and I am doubtful of the claim it stays in the system for 10 years. Huberman provided no citation for that. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz,
 * I use sunscreen everyday. I reapply every few hours. I am not opposed to sunscreens. I have inserted this quote because it far more clearly defines the discrepancy in his opinion. I stated clearly he received criticism for that statement. So what is the issue? RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you are opposed to sunscreen. I am talking about the content on the article. Why did you remove the quote about "I am as afraid of sunscreen as I am of melanoma"? I don't see how the replaced quote "clearly defines the discrepancy", it legitimises a WP:FRINGE claim. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zenomonoz Based off the article, it is very clear that his fear is because of an unfound notion that he has set, believing that sunscreen are found in your neurons for 10 years after application. What use do you find the quote you are referring to is serving over the one i have added, that actually gives context to a reader about the issue in his belief? RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting in the quote alone isn't actually contextualising why his views on sunscreen are dubious. Also, the GQ source is completely fine there and it's attributed to him. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - I think inserting a quote stating, "I am as afraid of sunscreen as I am of melanoma" actually does even less good. It gives absolutely no context to a common reader, and is basically cherrypicked from an article that includes about two sentences about him and inserted here.
 * Is GQ a reliable and high quality source WP:BLP calls for high quality and reliable sources? Also previously in the wikipedia article did not reflect the source information. It was written in the wikipedia article, "Huberman said that he is not a "sunscreen truther" - whereas the source says, "Andrew Huberman, the neurologist and podcaster, who is not himself a sunscreen truther.." In my eyes, I see clear framing happening here. One is self proclaiming and the other is what the source has identified about him. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GQ isn't being used to make claims in WP:VOICE. It is being used to quote Huberman. It is not regarded as an unreliable source, so no. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added it back in with a contextualisation, i.e. that he offered no evidence for it. Also, you had written as a quote within quote marks. Coda does not report it as a quote. This kind of failure to match sources is against WP:VER. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - I have no problem removing the quotation marks. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And this is constructive editing. In future, just don't replace criticism with positive quotes, just add the balance alongside the critique and material should be presented in a disinterested tone. You won't have a problem. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz, Thats exactly what i did from the beginning, but it was poorly received. I have not tried to remove balance from the section by any means, I have effectively done the opposite here through this entire exercise. There was basically no balance in the section before i got to it. Each of my edits were consistently reverted and any ask to work together was denied or unkindly responded to. Everyone should be welcomed here, regardless of the topic, experience level, or views. We should be able to work together to bring reliable, well-sourced, and well-covered information into the article without the opposition i faced. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I've already noted several of your edits replaced critical quotes with more positive ones. Arguing that your editing was always constructive "from the beginning" is not a good look.
 * and just now you are questioning the validity of reliable sources with this edit. You are not to do your own analysis on Wikipedia. (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Why would you remove a quote from the source like that? It's very obvious WP:WHITEWASHING now.
 * And why are you removing WikiLinks to the Office for Science and Society? You've done it twice now, looks like more white washing.
 * The WP:WHITEWASHING could get you blocked eventually if any editor decides to take this to a noticeboard. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zenomonoz - I dont think you saw this response above. please see: I actually never removed any of the critic. I have not tried to remove balance from the section by any means, I have effectively done the opposite here through this entire exercise. There was basically no balance in the section before i got to it.
 * Please refer to my first set of edits that were very quickly reverted. Additionally, can you please explain which "other scientists" have criticized him for prematurely using animal studies to justify his beliefs? I only see one in the source that is cited. To assume that there are more without justification does not seem right. RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I had no issue with the wiki-link... i had an issue with the wording, which i changed. You can go ahead and add wikilink anything you would like. There was a lot of back and forth yesterday so not everything i inserted was wiki-linked right away. Nonetheless, most of the edits that i suggested have been incorporated after the discussions with you both. RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Historiaantiqua (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This demonstrates perhaps better than anything why the reception is "primarily negative."  Historiaantiqua (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Born to his father"
Strange construction, but I won't change it unless someone else finds that odd. "Born to his father, an Argentine physicist" - why does everything on this page sound like a promo?

... born in Palo Alto, Ca. His Argentinian father was a physicist and his mother, a ....

Historiaantiqua (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make the edit, it looks good! The reason this sentence is still the way it is, is that I think there were bigger issues to deal with until now. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception again
The battles between those who profit and those who don't appear to continue since it isn't clear what the hell the additions in the reception section are supposed to do other than to promote the subject or WP:WHITEWASH.

"Neuroscientist David Berson says that Huberman's research is respected among neuroscientists, and described his podcast as "a fabulous service for the world," and a way to "open the doors" to the world of science."

What is that adding to the article? Ie what is the thesis, here, what question is being answered, other than commercial and marketing promo? It doesn't refer to any specific issue of research or publication, but is rather a commentary about the subject himself, which isn't about a reception grounded in objective reality, but a subjective value judgment. Historiaantiqua (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems like puffery, and since Berson has been a guest not WP:INDY either. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the non-independence (i.e. he has been a guest) has to be added. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that could be a bit WP:SYNTH-y. Might be best just to trim it out. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's in the source that he has been a guest .. who has known him since Huberman was a postdoctoral researcher and has appeared as a guest on his podcast. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. It could be toned down given that Berson does allude to the problem with Huberman receiving sponsorships. A lot of (presumably Huberman fans) really wore me down arguing on this article so I just let them have that. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunscreen Quotations In Reception Section Lack Nuance And Distorts The Topic's Significance
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I would never cite Breitbart for anything. I remain unconvinced: if you want more views perhaps raise this at WP:FT/N? Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)