Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 4

Rearrangement
Hi @Bon courage – I'm not sure I agree with your latest reworking of the article, including removing the reception subheading and putting a lot of different perspectives into a giant paragraph. It's a bit confusing and SLATE also requires attribution and shouldn't be used in Wikivoice. Think we should restore it to the original form. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does Slate require attribution? On the contrary, WP:YESPOV applies and not abiding by it would cause WP:NPOV problem – we can't pretend it's just an 'opinon' that Huberman spouts pseudoscience; it is uncontested knowledge. I also think (effectively) hiving off 'criticism' to its own section while allowing the podcast to have it's own sanitised section causes POV issues. When dealing with WP:FRINGE matter (like this podcast's pseudoscientific claims) we need to be very clear than the fringe is fringe. We've been very good in this article not mentioning the problems in the podcast content without good sources, but now the sources are here we need to be explicit that the podcast is a conduit for health misinformation and bullshit. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Slate article really deserves elaborating on. Merely mentioning "Pseudoscience" doesn't do the article justice. There's some other stuff that's worth mentioning, like his anti-fluoridation posturing. In my own opinion, Slate is unquestionably a reliable source.Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, there is plenty to come from this source (it's just I have a cat and breakfast to attend to!) Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, do we add the "sunscreen molecules stay in the body for 10 years" source to the opening as a second citation about pseudoscience? You could add the word 'misinformation' as that article does use that term right below his claim. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand. Honestly, I am just worn down by the large number of Huberman (and related Lex Fridman) fans coming here to attack and try and remove any critique of him... the "sanitised" version was easier to maintain. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With newer sources take heart! Writing a neutral article should become much easier ... Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably we try and ask for long term page protection on the article if it gets bad. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Slate article
This article is not written by a staff writer of Slate; rather, it is a guest post by Andrea Love, much like opinion columns in The New York Times. This shouldn't be attributed to Slate and it is undue to add it to the lead. Weilins (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Expert review of the topic, so seems good. It's necessary to call out the obvious pseudoscience in play on that podcast I think, to be neutral. Note I have notified WP:FTN that this topic may need extra attention. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He is not passing fringe theories, and if some pop culture magazines start to call Stanford professors pseudoscientists and we just give them undue representation, then there is something wrong with Wikipedia and we are biased. We should care only when a scientist criticizes his research in a peer-reviewed journal. Weilins (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not his Stanford work which is doubt, it's the podcast content (and this is clear in our article). And yes, it's obviously pretty bad. WP:PSCI means we've a duty to be crystal clear when pseudoscience is in play. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Claiming that sunscreen is as dangerous as melanoma, and that sunscreen molecules stay the body for 10 years (without evidence) is absolutely pushing pseudoscience. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to think that the article hasn't gone through the same review process that other articles in Slate go through, so there's no difference in reliability from Slate's staff written articles. The Medical Examiner section of Slate's website  doesn't appear to be an opinion section, so the comparsion with the opinion section of the NYTimes is inapt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

NY Magazine statement
The statement on animal studies was made by his distractors, not NY Magazine, quoting the article below: His detractors note that Huberman extrapolates wildly from limited animal studies, posits certainty where there is ambiguity, and stumbles when he veers too far from his narrow realm of study, but even they will tend to admit that the podcast is an expansive, free (or, as he puts it, “zero-cost”) compendium of human knowledge. There are quack guests, but these are greatly outnumbered by profound, complex, patient, and often moving descriptions of biological process. Weilins (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "His detractors note that" implies that the NYM writer considers these criticisms valid, so I don't see a problem with attributing them to NYM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thesis advisors
, please dont reinsert the list of thesis advisors into the side bar. These are not reliable secondary sources. We aren't using podcast episodes as sources. Also, his 2004 thesis list Barbara as the advisor in brackets. Debello and Cheng are just part of his committee (stated on the acknowledgements page). We don't list PhD committee members in the sidebars of academics lol. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Slate as a source
slate to me seems like a gossip website should it be a trusted source?? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty solid source; check previous discussion at WP:RSN to get a feel for how it's viewed. Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at Slate Wikipedia page and looked at their editorial policy I agree with you.
 * But this article by Andrea seems to have only one goal which is crticism of Huberman. I don't have a problem with criticism but I think the criticism should either be mentioned in it's own section as Andrea's article has a list of criticism or it should be mentioned anywhere but not in the Introduction. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITS usually not a good idea. When it comes to the health podcasts, it seems sensible sources concur there's a lot to be concerned about. Bon courage (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the article is needlessly accusatory (and referential to nonacademic sources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.170.190 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)