Talk:Andrew Huberman

New York Magazine coverage of deceptive personal behavior

Should there be any mention, per the New York Magazine article, of Huberman misleading romantic partners and engaging in serial infidelity? Proposed text: "In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." Here is the original article: New York Magazine Here are examples of subsequent coverage in other sources Guardian 1 Guardian 2 The Byte The Verge The Independent Daily Mail DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina. I removed the RfC tag and re-titled this section. RfCs are meant to be tier-2 dispute resolution, used only if local discussion can't reach consensus. This looks like a fresh proposal. Let's give local discussion some time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for whatever gets us to consensus sooner, but I've seen mostly stonewalling and confusing WP:GOSSIP for anything that is salacious as opposed to something that is poorly sourced. This is well sourced, so the real debate should be about WP:DUE, not whether or not it is gossip. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"In 2024 New York Magazine published an article which included claims by multiple women that Huberman was romantically deceptive and engaged in serial infidelity." DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And about his lab? BanishedRuler (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The current text about his lab at the bottom of the "Academic Career" section covers that. I would put my proposed text at the bottom of the "Podcast" section. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Now can I open an RfC? I'd love advice on the most sanguine wording. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't need someone's permission or consensus to start an RfC. However, WP:BLP sanctions do apply if it goes wrong multiple times. Given that your first RfC was rejected and that numerous warnings and issues related to WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP have already been highlighted on your talk page, I think the community would like to hear from someone more familiar with the WP:BLP policies. That's why there was not much input on WP:BLPN. Weilins (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How do you know "that's why there was not much input on WP:BLPN" It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion going on somewhere without any transparency on this topic. Was that discussion on reddit or wikipedia? DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: There was ZERO input on BLPN. That's a whole different thing than "not much input", there was absolutely zero. The post to BLPN was ignored or overlooked. Who knows why? You are just making wild guesses at this point, and it's not productive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Including a well writen sentence or two should not infringe BLP policy, as the allegations are reported by multiple reputable sourcess and are now part of his publick image. BanishedRuler (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that every one of those sources simply refer to the original accusations from the New York Magazine article without really adding anything of substance. Even in that article it's a he said she said situation which is why I think others (and myself) believe WP:GOSSIP applies. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing but I see this was brought up and shut down on BLPN so I am not sure I understand why it's being brought up here again? FlamesJanko (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't "shut down" on BLPN. It simply wasn't commented on. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a big Meh from me. A sentence or two on this is harmless enough, but seems to add little knowledge to the topic. The folks at WP:BLPN might have something to say? Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I'm a bit confused about. When looking at this talk page about the same discussion above (nymag/treatment of women), it was mentioned that this was already brought to WP:BLPN and closed. Why is it being discussed here again and possibly being thrown into BLPN once more for the same reason? FlamesJanko (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oooh, I forgot that. Got a link? Bon courage (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I only know because it was mentioned by the person who posted it in this talk page (looks like they were also the person who submitted it to WP:BLPN), I went looking and found it in the archive: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew_Huberman FlamesJanko (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, no substantive discussion there then (so nothing to close). Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Since no one is saying this as a problem per BLP, and since this is officially no longer an RfC, I'm thinking about putting the text onto the page and letting people change it there.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that's the opposite of what's being said with it not having any worthy discussion on BLPN. Everything around this is focused on the NYM piece that was rejected months ago and described as "a huge quivering mass of gossip-sociopathy-sperm-drenched-ick-revenge." right here on this talk page. Pastillawheel (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

None of that is a policy concern. Nobody on BLPN was concerned about it. It's covered in RS. So there needs to be a reason to exclude it besides "I don't like it." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that BLPN didn't take it up because the issue was already settled here on the Talk page when it was brought up the first time. Pastillawheel (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Nobody commented on BLPN. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pastillawheel, it's odd to me that there is this opinion that something happened over on BLPN that didn't. If you are getting your information from some outside wikipedia source, like, say reddit, please read: WP:CANVASSING. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to the the BLPN archive of it right above in this same conversation, I can actually see the link while I type here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Andrew Huberman

If you're referring to where I got my information about it being discussed, please read what I wrote again more carefully. It was discussed on THIS talk page, here is an anchor link to it: Talk:Andrew Huberman#Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women Pastillawheel (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I opened it on BLPN and nobody commented. It's now being spun on off wikipedia locations that this is somehow determinative, but it isn't. There is no policy reason to exclude the text. If you have a policy based objection this is the place to raise it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is enough opposition here, so I'd recommend that you take the WP:RFC route if you still want to include this. New York Magazine didn't explicitly name the women who made these allegations, so there is no way for other sources to investigate it further (respect WP:BLPPRIVACY). The articles you shared are just regurgitated pieces based on NYM's article with no independent content. WP:BLPPUBLIC is pretty clear: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Weilins (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the policy reason! I disagree with your interpretation of "sources documenting the allegation." That doesn't mean multiple independent investigations. That would be a bar that practically no scandal could clear. Usually there is one paper that breaks the story, as in this case, and then other papers that agree that it was reporting of a quality that is worth risking repeating, which is what we have in this case. We have multiple editorial boards that feel the story is worth risking liability exposure. I admit that not all of my additional sources are great RS, but IMO enough of them are, plus the sheer number of them, to meet the requirement of "multiple sources." Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind including it if, at some point, the women who made this allegation reveal their identities. At this stage, it is just too private and personal. WP:COMMONSENSE applies here: If the women had revealed their identities, other media publications might have approached them and would have covered the story independently, rather than just quoting verbatim what NY Magazine wrote. I think we should give this story some additional time to develop and respect the privacy of living people involved. If this is a fact, it will come out eventually. Wikipedia is meant to be factual and this isn't a fact yet. Weilins (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't mean we get to make up our own rules. We follow BLP which isn't about respect or factuality. Wikipedia is full of properly attributed exaggerations, falsehoods, myths, legends, and even slander, as is any encyclopedia. This isn't a courtroom. We definitely don't set up personal standards about what is or isn't a fact. That would be WP:OR. We include notable claims supported by reliable sources in accordance with policy and guidelines. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone has tried this before and it was reverted and Arbcom sanctions were applied to this article ([1]). You should revisit this discussion and re-read this one. Enough editors have disagreed User:Bon courage, User:FortunateSons, User:Hemiauchenia ([2]), including myself. Unless women involved reveal their identity, there will be no consensus on including this. You have tried on WP:BLPN and here—both failed to develop any consensus. I'd suggest you drop the stick and possibly revisit it when there is better sourcing. I'm done here. Good luck! Weilins (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting Bon courage's position. So it's you and two other editors establishing an arbitrary standard of "unless the women come forward." Seems like time for an RfC. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is a a bit of an absurd argument and kind of a stretch. Saying that the women need to be identified is not anywhere in Wikipedia policy.

Plenty of credible high-quality news outlets use unnamed interview subjects to generate stories. What matters is if the news organization itself is legitimate and reliable, and there are good reliable sources that do cover this issue well. Picking apart the articles for this reason or that reason doesn't really work, because if the sources are themselves considered generally reliable by Wikipedia standards, then they are usable and fine to cite and reference for making changes to the Andrew Huberman Wikipedia page. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering why you need to use a proxy to hide behind when you say all this? WP:LOUT is not allowed and such attempts won't help build any consensus because consensus is reached based on policy-based arguments, not by counting votes (WP:!VOTE). Weilins (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not a user with a Wikipedia account.

You're making false accusations against two innocent people, and not assuming good faith. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just pointed out a fact. Either change your network or increase your devices' security, so unknown people are not routing (potentially harmful) data through your devices. If somone (in future) does a cyber crime through your devices then you have to answer. You can't say "What are you talking about?" Better fix it now. Weilins (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just pointed out a fact. Ahem, no. What you did was accuse me of editing while logged out, and without any evidence. I don't have a Wikipedia account. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: So let's have a policy-based discussion then, and drop the casting of aspersions.

Which Wikipedia policy, exactly, says that interviewed sources/subjects who wish to maintain their privacy must out themselves to be taken seriously by Wikipedia editors?

The whole point of having generally reliable media to draw on, is that credibility is determined based on journalistic and editorial integrity of said news organization. If the editorial process allowed an article to go to print, it means they fact-checked and vetted sources, etc. That's for the media to do. Our job as editors is to draw from these reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If NY Mag interviews some women and just post it verbatim then it is not a secondary source - it is a primary reference (see WP:INTERVIEW). If you have reliable secondary references where a credible journalist have written about this topic then please share the link with quote here. Weilins (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Weilins: The New York magazine piece didn't "interview some women and just post it verbatim". Have you read the article? It is a lengthy piece, not an interview. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Add "Controversy" Section Regarding Sponsorship Ethics and Claims (Blue Light Glasses)

I propose adding a "Controversy" section to the article on Andrew Huberman, addressing criticism he has received regarding his endorsement of blue light blocking glasses.

This controversy revolves around Huberman's shift in opinion on the efficacy of blue light blocking glasses. Previously, he dismissed these glasses as largely ineffective, emphasizing that general bright light, rather than specifically blue light, impacts circadian rhythms and sleep. However, after entering a sponsorship agreement with a blue light blocking glasses brand, Huberman began promoting their purported benefits, including improved sleep quality, reduced cortisol levels, and enhanced mood.

Critics, including investigative journalist Scott Carney, have questioned whether financial motivations influenced this change, highlighting that many of these claims lack strong scientific support. Recent studies indicate that typical screen exposure to blue light is insufficient to significantly affect sleep or circadian rhythms. This situation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the broader implications for trust and integrity in science communication.

For reference, here is a video summarizing the issue: Scott Carney's YouTube clip, Andrew Huberman is Lying to You.

I believe this addition would provide a balanced perspective on Huberman's public influence and the challenges of maintaining scientific objectivity in the context of sponsorships. Feedback on this proposal is welcome. Karolgie (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There are a few issues with this:

1. Scott seems to misunderstand the issue; blue light is bad at night, but so is green and the glasses block both. Blue light in the daytime is good, blocking blue during the daytime isn't a great idea. Any super bright light at night is problematic, but red lenses will help with that too. See https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side and https://jphysiolanthropol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40101-018-0189-3 for better information on the subject.
2. A Wikipedia BLP page really is not the place to have this discussion, if it is at all avoidable the page should remain as neutral as possible and a controversy section when it's not absolutely necessary goes against that (see WP:BLPSTYLE).
3. Wikipedia does not accept YouTube videos as appropriate sources.

Pastillawheel (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support you adding a paragraph under the podcast heading. "controversy" is probably not warranted as its own section. YouTube can be used as a source for WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PARITY, so I'm pretty sure it will hold up if the people on the videos are recognized experts. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Scott Carney is a fairly well-known investigative journalist, but not a medical professional, and his YouTube video isn't going to be subject to editorial review as a column or published book would. There would need to be more than just this. Reconrabbit 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that it meets the standarad of WP:PARITY, as colored glasses are pseudomedicine and WP:FRINGE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that colored glasses qualifies as WP:FRINGE, but even if it does the point still stands that Scott Carney does not qualify as a reliable source on this subject and as such does not meet the standard of WP:PARITY; specifically: "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory."

It doesn't make sense to crowd WP:BLP pages every time people have disagreements, there needs to be more otherwise every page of any controversial figure would be absolutely massive and unreadable. Pastillawheel (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of PARITY is that bogus fringe claims usually don't have authoritative debunks, because the qualified people have better things to do with their time. Carney is a reputable and recognized journalist. That's enough for him to qualify as SECONDARY and ABOUTSELF in this case. It doesn't matter that he's on YouTube. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that research has been done on this subject and is currently still being carried out, it isn't some completely wild claim that blocking these lights may have benefits. This is just an investigative journalist who is questioning why Huberman changed his mind on the subject in a YouTube video, it really has no place on his Wikipedia page. Pastillawheel (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias in introduction - should go in separate criticism section?

Starting the introduction with, “The podcast has attracted criticism for promoting poorly supported health claims.”, is biased and unfair. It is fine to have this in a section titled Critics or Criticism but why is there mention of this when there is not also mention of the acclaim his podcast has received? 2A04:4A43:440F:D3E2:29C4:EDF3:558F:1054 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)