Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] 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

Cyberpuke, 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)

New Vox source

• Ohlheiser AW (2024-05-02). "The misleading information in one of America's most popular podcasts". Vox. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

Should be useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Vox owns NY Magazine and is reporting on their own story? Nothing new is presented in the material. Per WP:RSPVOX the publication does not always delineate between opinion and reporting. This seems like one of those cases. Pastillawheel (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear cut there some views and some reporting. What's confusing you? Since this is WP:GREL we're good to go! Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:GOSSIP still applies. A publication reporting on its own gossip does not news make. It feels like journalist version of trying to whitewash to somehow make a WP:BLP rejected claim somehow more newsworthy. Pastillawheel (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The gossip is undue, but the misinformation and grift could do with more coverage. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading through Vox again, I don't see anything new that hasn't been covered by Slate or NY Magazine, and I find it problematic that Vox is providing a meta coverage of other opinions and trying to pass it off somehow as reporting. Any additional information that would add substance to this Huberman Wikipedia page is really just pinned on hearsay from Love. Pastillawheel (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Vox article contains assessments from scientific researchers at reputable academic institutions. One of those scientists is Love, who provides specific examples of misinformation, or the misrepresentation of scientific evidence on Huberman's podcast. For example, his inaccurate statements about a study using human subjects when it actually used rodents, or when he argued that saunas could improve immune function, citing a study with only 20 participants and which did not directly measure immune function. Both examples should be included in the article. This is not gossip by any definition. Nor is it hearsay. It is rather a professional assessment from a qualified expert. Same goes for the statements by Tim Caulfield from the University of Alberta. Note that he was not featured in prior Slate or NY Mag articles, so the Vox piece does not merely restate earlier publications. Caulfield's assessment is also quite balanced, and would be worth including in the article, specifically:

“He’s a good communicator, right? That’s why he’s a star,” Tim Caulfield, a professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta, told me in late 2023. Huberman often does a “very good job” talking about the science behind a topic he’s exploring in an episode, Caulfield added, but “in the end, the overall takeaway, I think, is less supported by the science than the impression you’re given listening to the episode.”

The fact that Vox and NY Mag share a corporate owner is irrelevant. We are in an era of media conglomerates, who often own numerous publications, and make regular new acquisitions. Unless you can specifically demonstrate why this corporate structure affects the reliability of the source, then it should not prevent editors from using the source to inform their contributions.

Toadchavay (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing new in Vox's article. It is a summary of what the sources have already said, and this kind of article was expected as one of their publications, NY Mag, published a cover story about Huberman.

Regarding Love's guest article on Slate: she is a microbiologist, and it is not right to call her a subject-matter expert in neuroscience; the same goes for Caulfield, as he is primarily a law expert. In any case, we are required to cite multiple references for such cases, so two independent experts should find inaccuracies in Huberman's statements. I think at some point we should consider splitting this into a separate page about Huberman's podcast, as most of the content is related to what is said on his podcast. Weilins (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy section

There's a lot of information under podcasts that is focused on criticisms of the pseudoscientific nature of his podcast and such. I came to the page specifically looking for info on these after hearing about hm promoting supplements but didn't expect the relevant information to be under the podcast section. Indeed most of the podcast section is criticisms. Floating these to the top level of the page under a controversy, criticism or similar header would make it easier for people to find this information. 2603:7081:233A:6A05:48B1:7931:4E00:4B59 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women

This article contains points worth including around misleading women, serial cheating and lying.

It also states that Hubermann has no real lab.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html AncientWalrus (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw this huge article and thought it could be a useful source, but after reading it - it's a huge quivering mass of gossip-sociopathy-sperm-drenched-ick-revenge. I don't think it really gives us anything of encyclopedic merit, especially considering WP:BLP. Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your judgement, you are clearly more experienced in those matters.

What about the fact he doesn't have a functioning lab, no grad students, equipment, etc? This is important context given the push to state his academic credentials. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What would you propose? Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From the very article you linked:

'a spokesperson for Stanford said, “Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational and is in the process of moving from the Department of Neurobiology to the Department of Ophthalmology' 82.35.118.60 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Stanford's page shows an active Huberman lab, there's even a meaningful publication as recent as last year: https://hubermanlab.stanford.edu/publications/retinal-ganglion-cells/postsynaptic-neuronal-activity-promotes-regeneration-retinal Pastillawheel (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

None of that appears more that WP:Gossip or WP:NOTSCANDAL, except the lab stuff. Regarding the lab, it seems credible that it meets the standard for functional, so unless something more significant comes up, I would be against including it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian sees the story as relevant enough to publish, with an authored piece,[2]. The Guardian is about as reliable a source as we're going to get, and doesn't do gossip lightly. Many of the accusations go back to investigative journalism by Scott Carney, whose reputation is good.

As for the lab, a spokesman for Stanford said "“Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational". Well, they would, wouldn't they?. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lab allegations are fine to discuss, but I would trust a reputable university unless clearly shown otherwise.

Including something being reported by RS can still be non-encyclopaedic under some circumstances. FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoaa, too many negatives. But I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING / WP:NOTGOSSIP needs to heeded. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sleep deprived, will fix, one second FortunateSons (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece. The Verge has also covered NYMs reporting [3] but I agree that the 6 girlfriend deception stuff is WP:BLPGOSSIP and should be omitted given the lack of other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this isn't just a gossip situation. It could have been, but the Guardian has taken a much calmer, and more detached view of the significance of the furore. Here we have an article in a fact-checked, generally neutral, non-gossipy source, with good editorial oversight, making the point that one of the world's most influential science influencers and bloggers stands accused of lying. The article comments: "He’s one of the most famous scientists in the world and he’s highly trusted at a time when trust in scientists is declining", which means that the gossip aspect of this, the girlfriends, goes to the heart of the rest of his career. As the article says, "Huberman’s personal integrity is newsworthy because he has made it a large part of his personal brand". The Guardian has actually (if you read it in full) stayed firmly away from gossip, it hasn't relayed gory details, it hasn't even said he definitely did anything. It has concentrated on public trust rather than who slept with whom. I really don't think we can avoid mentioning this. It's obviously not going to disappear in a puff of PR-releases, just as the Tim Hunt scandal never disappeared. Like it or not, and however it pans out, this is now a feature of his career-story. Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure there isn’t a significant difference in the intensity and scale of your examples? One that, perhaps, impacts its encyclopaedic value? FortunateSons (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The author of The Guardian article you are citing is an opinion columnist, as her bio on the website indicates. There is consensus that opinion writers at the publication have reduced editorial oversight, see "The Guardian blogs" entry on WP:RSP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You say the NYMag article "hasn't even said he definitely did anything." Okay, so what are the verifiable facts to put in his biography? I do not see any. Roger (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I said that the Guardian article hasn't said he definitely did anything, not the NYMag (which very much did). The fact I would like to include is that the allegations exist, that the scandal has arisen. It's not our job to take sides in a notable fight, but it is our job to include a notable fight in the biographies of those party to it, if the fight can be sourced and is significant. In this case I personally would suggest adding:

"In March 2024 Kerry Howley writing in the New York Magazine raised questions about Huberman's integrity that were picked up upon by Scott Carney.[4] Other podcasters and journalists, including Lex Fridman, have spoken out in his defence.[5]"

I think this a reasonable and balanced place-holder for a controversy that's likely to develop. I would be happy to have a better source used as the positive side, if available. Elemimele (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've inserted this text. I've put it in the podcast section since it's a podcast drama. My argument is that he's primarily notable as a social influencer and podcaster, and this particular controversy having spilled over from podcast-world (where he's a big player, with an audience of 6 million) into the "real" world, means the current podcast drama is notable and needs mention. Unfortunately podcasters do their stuff in videos, and don't really care about written newspapers etc., they live with a video audience; this makes sourcing difficult. But if anyone can find a better source for his defence than a "trending" section in the Hindustan Times, please, please do so. Elemimele (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We should be looking for the WP:BESTSOURCE. Honestly, who cares what the "Liver King" thinks? Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I agree completely, I just couldn't find anything better. I wanted to keep it balanced, and not to give the impression that Huberman has no supporters. But as is typical of podcast world, his supporters are using the media they know and trust (social media, X, YouTube) rather than the media we know and trust. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

So what makes their view due? It's just fluff. Bon courage (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no personal to anyone removing the comment that Huberman is being supported by a series of people whose word I wouldn't trust half an inch! But what separates these opinions from fluff is that they are being expressed by people who we, in Wikipedia, consider notable influencers (in Huberman's case, 6 million people listen). Unfortunately, more people listen to the Liver King than ever will to me, so my opinion, which is Right, is nevertheless fluff, his opinion, which is Wrong, is notable. Sad! Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Popularity does not accord a source any status whatsoever. Some very popular sources, in fact, are deprecated (e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL). Conversely some of the very best sources are niche academic ones behind paywalls with comparatively tiny readerships. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It does second-hand! Respectable news sources only write about him because he's got 6 million readers, and we only write about him because respectable news sources write about him. Reflecting this, our article sums up his entire academic career in two sentences, while spending a whole paragraph on his podcasting. None of it is well sourced; the whole essence of podcasting is throwing personal opinions into social media. We have the Stanford magazine (not independent), Apple (just statistics), Nature Neurosciences (an interview) and a selection of opinion pieces. If we're going to cover his activities as a podcaster, the best we can do in the circumstances is limit opinion-pieces to those published in trusted places (e.g. major newspapers and magazines with established reputation), and/or written by people whose opinions have already conferred Wikipedia-notability (Carney etc), and of course to ascribe the opinions scrupulously to those who express them. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, decent secondary coverage is redemptive. Are there decent sources "defending" Huberman, or commenting on that? Analytical pieces in news media are welcome; primary reportage less so. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele – I'm not seeing why you reinserted the paragraph. Both Bon courage and Hemiauchenia have agreed that this is WP:GOSSIP. I don't see why you put it _where you did_ given it has nothing to do with his podcasting. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Zenomonoz, I'm equally unsure why you felt it was okay to revert a text that had been discussed on the talk-page first. Bon courage and Hemiauchenia are both regular and capable editors able to express their own opinion and revert what they don't like, and you'll note that Bon courage took part in the discussion here after I made the change, without actually reverting.

No, it's not gossip. I deliberately used a source that is impeccably unbiased, and which didn't go into the gory gossip details, instead sticking to the valid, genuine question: should we put our trust in a lifestyle guru whose own lifestyle suggests he may not be trustworthy? If you choose to be an artist, you have to accept that people will write about your work (and if the writers do so in newspapers and books, their opinions will end up in Wikipedia, even though, in the end, they're just opinions). If you choose to be a podcaster and present yourself as an honest lifestyle guru, you have to accept that people will write about your honesty and lifestyle. We simply cannot write about Huberman as a podcaster and sanitise his story, keeping everything that he says about himself in interview pieces or that appears in non-independent sources (Stanford magazine), while removing everything that anyone else said about him, on the grounds it's gossip. That's completely one-sided and non-neutral. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the removal was wise. Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse of me 'sanitizing' the article you should probably go through the talk page archive.

The article focuses on his ideas, rather than personal life, because the story is WP:GOSSIP. These are allegations of personal deficit (not a crime committed) and we are not in the business of repeating anonymous complaints about a cheater, even if they are based in fact. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to understand WP:GOSSIP may I recommend you take a look at the Profumo affair, and think about how we would deal with it, were it unfolding now rather than in the early 1960's? Unfortunately sometimes details of a person's relationships end up having consequences that spread beyond their private sphere, because of their public activities, and/or because they chose a career path where integrity is expected.

That's exactly why I focussed on the guardian article not on the Time original, because it focusses on an idea: that of the trustworthiness of someone who claims to be trustworthy. The only difference between what I added, and what was already there, is that while Love (Slate) and others have said his science is sometimes wrong and therefore it's dangerous that so many people trust him, the latest furore is a few people saying he's basically not trustworthy and therefore it's dangerous that so many people trust him. This is a valid argument. It is what brought down the government following Profumo; but it would have been hard to tell the story in 1964 while concealing the basis: that a 46-year-old politician had a brief fling with a 19-year-old model, as reported by the model.

WP:GOSSIP isn't a license to expect your life-story to be sanitised if you choose to live in the public sphere; it's just an admonishment that we must be cautious not to create attack pages, use Wikipedia to tell a biased story, not to report rumours as though they were fact, to ensure we give our sources, and not to include gratuitous gossip that is of no legitimate public interest. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Erm, the Profumo affair was a high-impact scandal that had profound ramifications for UK/world politics, and for which we have huge numbers of superb secondary sources. It's a wee bit different from a bro-science podcaster who a magazine article says has difficulty keeping his trouser snake under control. Huberman is hardly front page[6] news, & I don't think there's a risk Huberman is leaking nuclear secrets is there? Bon courage (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(1) You're misreading/misrepresenting the sources. Howley in Time, and Mahdawi in the Guardian aren't complaining about how many women he slept with. They're complaining that (according to Howley) he misled the women. And if he misled girlfriends into believing he cared about them and their welfare, does he care about his followers' welfare, or are they also being misled? This is exactly the same situation as with Profumo: he lost his seat in parliament (and the public lost its faith in the government) because he gave parliament a misleading statement, and lost trust.

(2) About influence, this is hardly ours to judge, but the Profumo affair exerted its greatest effects on the UK, which back then had about 54 million inhabitants. Huberman has about 6 million followers, so on crude "audience", we're in the same ball-park. And as to front-page news, isn't that rather the point? I inserted that sentence based on precisely the fact that two large articles had appeared in two very prominent news-sources.

(3) But despite the above, my main point in dredging up Profumo isn't to claim they're in the same league, it's to take an article that clearly should have existed, despite WP:GOSSIP, even as early 1963 before all the high-quality biographies became available, and point out that an overly narrow interpretation of GOSSIP would have prevented it (the sources in June 1963 being no better than what we have for Huberman now). Elemimele (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Look, WP:BLPPUBLIC would suggest this can be included as an allegation, so long as there are multiple sources. WP:GOSSIP would imply such sources need to be of a particularly high standard. I'm concerned that because the anonymous allegations are just about cheating... this might not constitute being "noteworthy" (per BLPPULIC). You should ask on WP:BLPN to get independent input. Thanks Zenomonoz (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I posted on BLPN. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

How someone conducts their personal relationships where no major responsibility exists and no serious harm is done, this has little to do with whether the facts they present in their profession are trustworthy or not and to suggest otherwise is logically fallacious. Archive8 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is a commercial enterprise which has definitely misrepresented things (to the degree that further investigation ought to be conducted before accepting their claims at face value) and the university should be the source given that they are the authority on who has a lab there or not. Archive8 (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is there nothing mentioned of this in his wikipage? To simply dismiss it as gossip seems like a bias response by fans of Huberman. 222.109.164.70 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have asked on BLPN for more eyes. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: What was the response on BLPN? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It was ignored and then archived. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, then I suppose inclusion of some of this info would have to come down to an RfC at some point in the future. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think an RfC is needed. I'm not great at wording them. Any suggestions on how best to word it? I think I go too broad, but I'd be inclined to ask "Should there be any mention of the article which depicts him lying, misleading women, and serial infidelity?" DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence for it? Or more specifically, of it being so severe and impactful (beyond what is simply someone's personal life), that it requires being stated and cited? Not every single lie or disagreement about every single public figure should make it into Wikipedia. In this instance, a single magazine put out an article by interviewing selective sources who were of questionable credibility, and without presenting any balancing sources or arguments. This is otherwise known as Gossip. Archive8 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Archive8: Did you read the article? This involves multiple women. There is also the Guardian source which adds context, including from one of Huberman's friends. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)