Talk:Andrew Huberman

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input, such as request for comments, third opinions, posting to noticeboard, or other mechanisms based on neutral criteria. If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Remember that, on Wikipedia, disputes are resolved by community consensus, not by majority vote.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latino and Hispanic heritage Low‑importance Hispanic and Latino Americans portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritage, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Hispanic and Latino Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. This article was accepted from this draft on 19 August 2016 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Biography: Science and Academia Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Brown, Garth (Winter 2025). "Can You Solve a Lifestyle Epidemic Without Lifestyle Gurus?". The New Atlantis. No. 79. pp. 79–93. ISSN 1543-1215. JSTOR 27348156. Archived from the original on 2025-07-27.

Lead Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"His promotion of dietary supplements and some health claims has drawn criticism from scientists and journalists for lacking strong scientific support."

Does not belong in the lead and was moved with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Huberman&diff=1313257559&oldid=1310315693

@Iljhgtn: You were the one who made the proper edit before, can you please chime in on this? Pastillawheel (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC) — Pastillawheel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Tagging only one person who agrees with your opinion is WP:CANVASSING and inappropriate. Pinging other discussion participants @Hob Gadling: and @Bon courage:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the canvassing. Prior discussion was here. I'm heavily skimming, but I think there was consensus for including some lead mention of this controversy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his fringe views need to be qualified in the lede for neutrality. Don't want a whitewash. There's probably more sourcing on this now ... Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's been criticized a lot for both supplements and health claims. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is WP:UNDUE for the lead, but that some mention in the body would be acceptable. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since pseudoscience/grifting is his main thing, it need to be in the lede. Otherwise it would look like whitewashing, Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does a source indicate that such activity is his "main thing"? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, point me to the policy on "whitewashing" please, I'd like to review for comparison here. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to determine based on weight of sourcing. If good sources[1] are saying this guy is a bullshit artist, Wikipedia can only follow. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn recently gave Larry Sanger a barnstar [2], It's not worth it trying to argue with a person like that, it's a waste of time. The consensus here is clearly in favour of inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a nice thing to say for just giving a barn star... I don't think it quite rises to a WP:PERSONALATTACK, but still. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, other than criticizing my handing out of a barnstar, I see one cited source, what else do we have to establish WP:DUE weight for placing this in the lead versus the body?

Meet the New Rogan. Same as the Old Rogan. | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

There needs to be more for this given the rules of a WP:BLP. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I see one cited source, what else do we have to establish WP:DUE weight for placing this in the lead versus the body?" – the lead previously cited multiple sources after this statement.. but the lead doesn't need to be referenced because it is a summary of the body. There are multiple sources in the body discussing Huberman's questionable scientific claims. E.g. you missed [3] and [4] and [5] Zenomonoz (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a better review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Time magazine source in particular is good. I think that we should quote from it. It speaks critically and also gives important context. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Huberman Lab’s content has also drawn criticism from some scientists who take issue with its approach. Science is a cautious field. Researchers are typically wary of overpromising, often softening their findings with words like “might” or “may” or “could” and calling for more research to be done before anyone gets too excited. While Huberman constantly adds context and caveats on the podcast, he also speaks with confidence about results he finds compelling. To some in the field, he translates preliminary research into lifestyle advice a little too liberally."

This was from the Time source, How Andrew Huberman Got America to Care About Science | TIME

I think that really strikes at the heart of the criticism in question. Of course we can still take this in our own words, but this could use revision from what is there, and still WP:DUE weight would suggest this should remain in the body. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed before, as shown in the talk page archives. There is nothing to suggest this should "remain in the body" when there are entire articles from WP:RS discussing Huberman promoting debatable science and supplements. It's also normal for WP:LEAD to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Zenomonoz (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the prior discussion of this particular source and the weight relative to that? Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple discussions about 'controversy' relating to Huberman in the archives. I don't find your due weight argument compelling. There a decent amount of content in this article addressing controversial claims made by Huberman, so yes, the lead will reflect that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one can you point me to that makes the case most strongly and articulately then, as supported by the WP:BESTSOURCES? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should settle for "criticism" when in reality we should be saying "word salad" "pseudoscience" and "fringe." Here's a good source quoting experts in the field who sum up how Huberman is perceived in the community of experts: “It drives the majority of us insane. I mean, you go to any neuroscience conference, when someone mentions Huberman’s name, everyone sighs and rolls their eyes.” Hill says that when he gives talks to the general public on neuroscience, he frequently has to disabuse audience members of falsehoods they got from Huberman’s podcast."[6] DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies on multiple reliable sources? We are not using unreliable sources, which is the point of WP:BESTSOURCES. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any academic study or journal article that covers his claims or falsehoods? I guess sourcing should be better. Weilins (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your recent change. While I don't know if we need the "peddling pseudoscience" quote per se in the lead, Huberman has not just faced criticism for promoting certain supplements. He has promoted claims about biohacking and health using studies that don't replicate or rely on small animal studies. This is clearly controversial. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to attempt a reword per WP:BRD, but the "peddling" language, even if quoted or attributed is absolutely WP:UNDUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think pseudoscience is due, but I agree that "peddling" is not NPOV or MOS. I'd settle for "falsehoods" as supported by the Rolling Stones article I linked above that quotes a domain expert who says "it drives the majority of us insane" which is a clear SECONDARY account of him being fringe. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those claims become further UNDUE when in the lead is part of the problem. I think there could be a home for that in the body though. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they undue? A substantial proportion of the RS and the body already discuss Huberman promoting questionable scientific claims, so that will be reflected in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, then mention that. It was how it us worded without the fire and bombast, we must use precise and encyclopedic language. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would have no objection to putting that he promotes pseudoscience in wikivoice, After all, this is just knowledge that has no serious dispute which should be WP:ASSERTed. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should check with the WP:NPOVN before doing that. I think it is a pretty WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to put that in wikivoice without any attribution or qualification, and in the lead on top of that. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. To show it's exceptional you'd need a stack of serious sources asserting the opposite. Without those, such complaints/stalling just look like POV-pushing. There's no doubt about the bullshit grift factor here, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of whitewashing. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of casting aspersions or POV-pushing slant and WP:UNDUE pejoratives in the lead of a WP:BLP as well, and per WP:ONUS fella, that is entirely on you to prove, not the inverse. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is knowledge. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and NPOV shall prevail; that means reflecting what the best sources say, and on this guy that's plain. The views of editors on the matter don't count. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Lead of Andrew Huberman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on this discussion, should we remove He has drawn criticism from scientists for promoting dietary supplements and for making poorly evidenced health claims. Thanks, Weilins (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removing the sentence from the lead. It is a very NPOV and charitable description of someone who is described in RS as "peddling pseudoscience" speaking "word salad" and using scientific jargon to make untestable and unsupported claims such that "you go to any neuroscience conference, when someone mentions Huberman’s name, everyone sighs and rolls their eyes." "poorly evidenced health claims" is a very, very charitable way to describe this.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Might need something stronger though. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I could see moving it to the second paragraph and otherwise rearranging the lead a bit, but yeah it should be in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removing the sentence from the lead. It could actually be somewhat stronger based on the linked sources, and a search for other RS, but it definitely shouldn't be less or moved to the second paragraph. -tronvillain (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal. The sentence gives undue weight to criticism that is based on opinions which are covered in the podcasts section. The sources cited are selective commentary or personal assessments and while notable, they should not be part of the lead. Coiledrichest (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC) — Coiledrichest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose and per Bon, this might need stronger phrasing. - Walter Ego 14:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removing the sentence from the lead and I would be okay making it more clear as those citations backing it up are pretty tough on him. We have to follow the consensus of the experts. When you have to add citations in the lead, I think you are on good standing. Sgerbic (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removing the sentence, and I agree with others here that even stronger phrasing would be appropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the podcast, eyeing it roughly, makes up roughly half the article, it would seem consistent with our PAG to have it as roughly half of the lead, which is about where it is right now, if slightly under even. Zero is obviously a lot less than half, and would in fact be what is inconsistent with our policies and guidelines on due weight. I would agree with some of the comments that it may be inaccurate to say only "poorly evidenced" when the sources say things including "false". Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal. - the article is giving WP:UNDUE prominence to podcast criticisms with that lead line, and multiple cites put in that lead line is looking a bit rant-y and overly enthused. In general the article is giving too enthusiastic coverage to criticisms for WP:BLP WP:BLPSTYLE of showing some restraint and WP:BLPBALANCE. This much of this kind of focus really does not belong in a biography when there is no biographical impact and no note of those criticisms shown from third parties. (I particularly dislike a mention (WP:OR?) of the vague pejorative "pseudoscience" phrased "According to Andres Love", without much context - just spitting out the vague insult.) I could see some mention of the downfall article from Independent as that is a personal life topic -- but just going on too much and too highly here about the podcast. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal – but I think the phrasing is fine. I don't see how the sentence constitutes "undue weight" when a large volume of WP:RS cover how he is promoting questionable health claims. WP:LEAD is quite clear that the lead should include coverage of prominent controversies. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC ping participants..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would have definitely participated in that last RfC... I don't know the rules about pinging past participants of frequent discussions which then go to an RfC, but it looks like I only just missed that last one that snuck up on in there... Iljhgtn (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote would not have swayed it one way or the other. Ultimately it is determined by Wiki guidelines, and as Nemov cited in the summary, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I understand, but I when starting an RfC like that, shouldn't we ping all the active participants in the discussion which seems to have been brought about by the discussions I've been pretty involved in just above!? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon WP:RFC, no. I guess the main point of an RFC is for independent editors to weigh in? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved? Well this one, as in most I've ever participated, it seems you want all sides from the start, and then any new editors that participate are welcome of course. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what watchlisting pages is for. Nobody is obligated to ping you for a RfC just because you've been involved in discussions on the the same talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I see it often. I guess that is just a decent practice, though not necessary. I watch too many pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.