Talk:Wim Hof

Method-related deaths section is full of misleadings

All references on method-related deaths section has been checked, they are all misleading. None of the links/references entered has proof (not even claim) that any of deaths was correlated with the method itself. One reference does not even talk about the method at all and is obituary to 17 year old guy passed away. Well, it is clear that whoever added this section to this article is not only biased but has a calculated campaign against Wim Hof. Kraxmalism (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. Moreover, random people dying due to their mistakes in their application of the WHM is irrelevant to Wim Hof as a person, and the cases of their deaths should not be attributed to Wim Hof himself. These cases being listed on his page (which, by the way, due to its brevity, stand out very significantly & disproportionately) imply that these people's deaths are to be immediately attributed to him. As a parallel, let's imagine all of the premature deaths of, e.g., Marlboro-consumers caused by their consumption of Marlboro cigarettes -- will their deaths be listed on the Wikipedia page for the founder of that brand? Likewise: should cases of death caused by ordinary (meaning, not due to faults in the technicalities of the car) car-accidents pertaining to cars of a specific car company be listed on the Wikipedia article for that car manufacturer? Will the cases of death by jumping off a given bridge be put on the Wikipedia article for the person (assuming he has one) who made the construction of the bridge come into fruition? It would be nonsensical to do that, since the deaths were either initiated by the given person's own volition or incidentally took place due to an error that they performed by themselves (in this case, doing the breathing exercise while submerged in a body of water). I say get rid of that section completely. Polynilium (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a major issue with the article. Wim Hof explicitly says *NOT* to do the breathing exercises near bodies of water. Maybe he didn't before, but he does now. Here's the official website with a whole page dedicated to it:

https://www.wimhofmethod.com/what-is-shallow-water-blackout

On the breathing page (https://www.wimhofmethod.com/breathing-exercises) of the official website, it clearly says "Never practice in or near bodies of water" in a big, red box.

So, the method, as it currently stands, is not nearly as "dangerous" as this article makes it sound, since 33/34 of the reported deaths were due to "drowning", which would not have happened if the participants followed the current guidelines of WHM (And maybe the guidelines have changed, I don't know. But even if they have changed, it feels like this article should be updated to reflect that WHM is much safer now)

The only other death was recorded as a "stroke", but I don't even see any hard evidence that it was a direct result of WHM. Skeets523 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think the Luke Kantowitz obituary and the KSLTV sources are weak. I would agree with cutting that sentence. I think the rest of the section is well sourced and notable. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I'd like to apologize for my comments in the article "history" section. It just seems every time I try to edit a Wikipedia article it gets reverted almost instantly, and I so I got flustered when it happened again, and I took that out on you.

I still do feel that this section isn't really fair to the WHM, since the WHM clearly states that breathing exercises should not be done near water (or even before going near water!).

And I know you said "we don't just quote the company's rhetoric", but can't the company decide what is and isn't the WHM, since they invented it and maintain it? So, it seems like if the company says something isn't the WHM, then I'd say it isn't the WHM. And it's not just one guy from the company saying that, it's plastered all over the company's official website (see links in my above comment).

Maybe in the past, there were no such warnings about breathing exercises around water (I honestly don't know). But Wikipedia is supposed to stay current, right?

Anyway, I won't try to force any changes, but wanted to give a little more context for why I think it should be changed.

Does the WHM have very little scientific research supporting it? Sure. Mostly anecdotal evidence. But is it as dangerous as this article makes it out to be? Absolutely not. Not the current form of the WHM, anyway. Skeets523 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Critics of Hof, like Scott Carney, point out that, despite his disclaimers, he still shows videos of himself doing the breathing while in, or about to be in, water.

This isn't explicit in policy as far as I can tell, but I would argue it could be a part of NOPROMO and WP:MEDRS that when it comes to a potentially fatal results, we should err on the side of letting people know about the alarm bells being rung by experts rather than prioritizing the flimsy disclaimers of the company that has liability and profits at stake. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Why edits rolled back?

I’ve made a number of factual edits supported by highly reputable sources few weeks ago, why are they rolled back? Giorgio (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Giorgio (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but if you look in the edit history you will see the explanations the editors gave when they did it. One of the editors who reverted you correctly states that wimhofmethod.com is not WP:RS unless you are using it for WP:ABOUTSELF. I also think you probably aren't achieving WP:NPOV. To fully understand the issue, I suggest you read WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:NOPROMO. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Source 24

Just to be clear, reddit is not a good source. TJ Lusitanias (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)