Talk:Andrew Huberman

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)

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)