This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba 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.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
@Slatersteven "Anomalous health incidents" does not give any more information than the title, and I don't see any problem in my preferred version. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what I wrote is what it is, with the added benefit of disambiguation, a primary purpose for short descriptions. When an average reader searches and sees the short description "Anomalous health incidents", they're not going to know that it was a former name or anything about the syndrome other than the fact that it is related to health (duh). Being a former name is not a criterion for short descriptions, and I don't see why it should be. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article, not all the incidents were over seas (for a start). Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is problematic for the reason that families of officials have also claimed symptoms. Also, people in the United States, including at the White House, have claimed symptoms. Rp2006 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, wouldn't adding a "mostly" solve that? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current SD is too long. Does anyone have objections to changing the first half-sentence to "Illness"? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as they are only symptoms, we do not know its even real. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An illness is the occurrence of a set of symptoms. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if caused by a weapon would be an injury. Also symptoms having symptoms does not mean they were ill, as they may not even really had them. We can't word anything to imply we know what this was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having symptoms is experiencing illness by definition, and I don't see how this implies that we know the origin. We don't need to include every detail in the short description. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we would be saying they were ill, and they may not have been (as stated already). Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having symptoms IS being ill. Thinking that you have symptoms while you don't is still being ill. The current SD does not take a side on this point either, and I don't see why we have to include this facet in a summarizing and distinguishing short description.Pinging @Bon courage for a fresh pair of eyes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the illness is entirely psychological in character and brought about by a straightforward stress response that still constitutes illness. The question is not whether people who claim Havana Syndrome are sick - it's what they're sick with. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Bartholomew & Raloh, 2023, MPI is a collective stress reaction that is based on a belief and is commonly found in normal populations and anyone can exhibit psychogenic symptoms and they are as real as any other symptoms. Basically, every theory mentioned on this article (including crickets, RF effects, MPI) treats it as "real", except for the "feigning for insurance" theory – and the general consensus seems to be that this theory is highly unlikely. TinyClayMan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think we should change it to illness, or keep it as symptoms? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it is a "medical condition", followed by a mention of main symptoms in the next sentence, which looks fine to me. I don't think any other term from Disease#Terminology is needed, "medical condition" and "syndrome" seem to be the most fitting. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medical condition seems fine given the uncertainties surrounding this diagnosis. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary to put the unknown nature in the short description? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is idiopathic, I won't oppose D though (brevity is a virtue). Draken Bowser (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. It's necessary to put the unknown nature in the short description because it has an unknown nature? Why do you support D but oppose B? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is widely associated with radiofrequency weapons, but that is only a proposed cause of this idiopathic condition. I oppose B because it contains the word "illness". Draken Bowser (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the word "illness"? It's much more concise and means the same thing as "medical condition". If anything, the latter only makes it sound a bit more real. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources only state that non-physical injuries are injuries. In fact, one of the sources you've provided includes mental illness inflictions under non-physical injuries and calls it "Disabling mental illness".My source is any competent dictionary. Merriam-Webster for example defines "illness" as "an unhealthy condition of body or mind", which this falls under. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not going to find consensus for that particular word, so it is time to start looking at the thesaurus. I'll start: How about 'affliction'?
I'd support affliction! Just to be clear, I think this is simply about preference, and I prefer C (or D). Draken Bowser (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support either "illness" or "affliction" over all other options listed for conciseness. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer we go back to "Anomalous health incidents". Short and accurate, and it's enough to disambiguate from similarly named topics (of which there are none, AFAIK). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. SDs are supposed to also offer a concise explanation of the scope of the page, which that fails to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part "reported primarily by overseas government workers" needs to indicate the "U.S. government" (remember
Agreed. Hopefully we all agree on changing "government" to "US government". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request, hopefully
I feel like we have a rough consensus above to change the short description to Medical affliction reported primarily by overseas US government workers. FFF seems like the only editor who may disagree, but they haven't responded and is one among four. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing opposition below, I've removed the edit request while I read. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Affliction reported mostly by US officials abroad, 49 chars? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per @Draken Bowser: below, Affliction affecting US officials abroad, 40 chars. Also credit to @Dumuzid: for the idea to remove "medical" to provide a bit of an idea that it's not medically proven. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that description without some qualifier -- "purported" or (as current) "disputed" or the like. Whatever one's personal take, it seems to me there is still a lot of uncertainty in the reliable sources. Not sure if that changes the consensus calculation, but thought I would add my $.02. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to this dispute, needs a qualifier. other options would be "contentious" "possible" but I think "purported" is best. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not add a qualifier, for two reasons. Number one is that a syndrome is just a collection of symptoms, and nobody disputes the symptoms are real. Number two is
MOS:CLAIM. Loki (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
While I don't think CLAIM applies as RSes also doubt that it's more than psychological, I agree with Loki here. Besides succinctness, "affliction" doesn't mean it has to be actually physical. An affliction is a state of pain, suffering, distress or agony, and self-induced psychological suffering is still an affliction. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't doubt that you are correct in a strictly definitional sense, Wikipedia is aimed at a general readership, and I believe referring to the subject as an unqualified medical affliction is likely to be misunderstood by at least a large fraction of readers. Perhaps it is just me, but if I were to see that sentence, my instinct would be that it was a problem whose mechanics and etiology were known. As ever though, happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At 71 characters, it's way longer than the recommended 40-word limit. On the Wikipedia app search it would show up as something like "Medical affliction reported primarily by o...", and Vector 2022 desktop search would show something like "Medical affliction reported primarily by overseas US ...". The status quo has similar issues.
I would be fine with "Medical affliction", or any of the modified "Purported/Disputed/Contentious/Possible medical affliction". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best solution would be to leave out "medical"? I think that would actually remedy my concern above. So simply it is "...an affliction reported primarily by...." Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original suggestion was "Sickness experienced by officials abroad", later changed to "Sickness experienced mostly by US officials abroad", 50 characters. Slatersteven vehemently opposed this for some reason. And the current one is much longer. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not understand your reasoning or why the "unknown origin" part seemed so important to you. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Reported medical condition primarily affecting US government officials stationed overseas. FailedMusician (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Reported medical condition of unknown etiology? FailedMusician (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what "etiology" means, so most people probably don't know either, and the US officials abroad part seems much more important to mention. Plus, I prefer "affliction" or any sufficient one-worder over "reported medical condition". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Affliction sounds too Biblical. I think this will be too hard to get into the recommended 40 chars. Here is my last crack at it: Reported medical condition affecting US government officials. FailedMusician (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did not only affect Americans, or only government officials, that is (at best) misleading. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do "US officials" then. It's impossible to achieve conciseness without sacrificing preciseness. Something that "affected mostly US officials" in fact "affected US officials", that it didn't affect only US officials doesn't make the statement untrue. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't think anyone else here thinks affliction sounds "biblical". 2. We also have alternative words, such as illness, ailment, disease, sickness, etc. 3. I think we have a consensus so far to add something like "primarily" or "mostly". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you may be right. It was just my personal impression of the term. FailedMusician (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New section summarizing explanations that have been speculated?
Kudos for all editors that have worked on this article in the past ... lots of good information & sourcing. However, it appears to be lacking a key section: a summary list of the explanations for Havana Syndrome that have been hypothesized over the years. For comparison, the MH 370 article has the section Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Speculated_causes_of_disappearance.
Some speculated/hypothesized explanations for Havana Syndrome (from the article's existing sources) include:
* Stress (of working overseas, under surveillance); PTSD
* EM attack from hostile adversary (microwaves, etc)
* Crickets
* Toxins or pesticides
* Psychogenic (hysteria, psychosomatic, etc).
Providing such a section would be very useful to readers. The tricky part would be not duplicating all the detailed text already in the other sections (esp the Research/Study section). So maybe the best approach would be to keep the proposed new "speculated/hypothesized explanations" section terse and leave the details (as-is) in other sections.
I'm starting to add the new section (proposed above). The goal is to keep it terse: just a summary. All pre-existing content & cites int eh article are not changed. The "Criticism of media coverage" section was merged into the new "Speculated causes" section initially. I'm trying to decide if that is best or not. If anyone has any suggestions please post a note here. Noleander (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it in general. Made a change to one subsection I thought gave the wrong idea. Rp2006 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also... Not at all sure there SHOULD be a crickets section here, as it is an outlier... No one thought the sound CAUSED the ailments. Gonna try a slight re-org to better handle this issue. Let me know what you think. Rp2006 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the changes and making some additional improvements. I'm not sure I understand how the psychogenic section is now organized though ...it now it looks like there's five various types of psychogenic causes such as financial incentives. that's not quite right... those five subsections are just aspects of the the single psychogenic cause. Noleander (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "non-physical" is better? 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the latest mods to the section (to make header statements prior to the sub-sections)? Rp2006 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current sections are still not quite sensible... the way I see it, "Psychogenic" is a single cause. The subsections (media, etc) are simply details about _why_ the Psychogenic cause was not (and is not still?) widely publicized by the CIA & State dept.
I'll make an edit to the section headers & levels (no content or text change) to show what I'm talking about, and you can check it out. Noleander (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change to the section depth. I also added a transition sentence so the nature of the four subsections under Psychogenic section is clearer to readers, viz: Commentators have suggested several reasons why the psychogenic hypothesis was not widely embraced in the early years of Havana Syndrome, including political motivations, financial incentives, and media sensationalism.Noleander (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! Rp2006 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does financial incentives have to do with psychogenic medical effects? Motives for faking an illness are not related to psychogenic illness. This whole section on psychogenic needs to be redone. If you want a section on people faking illness for personal gain, you need a high quality source, which probably doesn't exist. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content there seems in line with their citations -- which seem fine as sources to back up the claims, especially the book on the subject. I did not write the financial part, but it seems accurate to me. And regarding your question re. what are the financial incentives: certainly lawyers who have taken on clients suing governments have an incentive to NOT admit their clients' injuries were not from attacks. Rp2006 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is a section called psychogenic causes which is not about psychogenic causes. A section on psychogenic causes has subsections "Politics and Cold War", "Financial Incentives", and "Professional Reluctance", and "Media Reports". If there should be a section on such topics and the possible reasons for why assessments may have been biased, it should be a different topic and also more balanced. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, maybe in a section on "Allegations of Bias, Wrongdoing, and Cover Ups", or something like that, it would be appropriate to include allegations that people are lying, allegations that the government suppressed a line of research, etc. The section on possible causes should be about the possible causes. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias on this page
There is clear evidence of bias on this page, towards the idea that psychogenic factors caused this Syndrome, and away from the extensive studies that have demonstrated the plausibility of electromagnetic (pulsed radiofrequency) and acoustic (ultrasound) energy as causes of some cases. The findings of the 2020 NASEM report are misportrayed, and the work of the IC Experts Panel is largely ignored (https://media.salon.com/pdf/22-cv-674%20Final%20Response%20Package.pdf). The many flaws of the 2024 NIH publications in JAMA are also ignored (https://jamanetwork-com.laneproxy.stanford.edu/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816534). Psychosocial factors cannot explain the subset of cases with acute onset audio-vestibular signs and symptoms and strong location-dependence. David657293457056 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable
WP:MEDRS sources on this are we missing. Your stanford link does not work. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no dog in this fight, and I'm coming to this article fresh (a week ago). I've read thru summaries of nearly all the sources, and I think they are all fairly represented in this article. In particular, all sources that suggest EM/Sound attacks are included in the article, in several places ("Location" section; "Causes" section; and "Chronology of Studies" section).
The impression I get from reading the sources is that the early studies (2017 to 2022) were a bit limited; but as the years have gone by, larger and more thorough (and more dispassionate) studies have shown no evidence of hostile powers attacks. In particular: the sources say there is no known EM/sonic attack that could ONLY produce H.S. symptoms. In my assessment, the article, as it stands to day, is not biased.
If you suggest that EM/Sonic should be more prominently mentioned in the article, it would be best to produce a WP:MEDRS source from after mid 2022 that endorses EM/Sonic causes (and is not from the Miami or UPenn Drs that have conflicts of interest). Noleander (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this phrase seems to be copy-pasted multiple times: "Some commentators have suggested that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed". Some cleanup is needed here. Han-Kwang (t) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of the parts discussing what commentators have said should probably go. Commentators are generally not reliable sources. Any meaningful contribution to the attempts to explain HS should be better cited, and better supported. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about it here. You are blanking a large amount of reliably sourced content claiming bias - discuss it here in the bias section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about the edit and the section is already ongoing there. I would need to just duplicate what I've already written. And it's not all about bias either. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read what you said there but it seems consensus is against your proposed changes anyway given the entire discussion above is about improving the section rather than blanking it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has responded to my dispute. The section is title Speculative Causes, but is primarily dedicated to allegations of wrongdoing by pundits. The subsection on Psychogenic causes is way longer than the subsection on the other proposed explanation, and is mostly not about a psychogenic cause, but instead about conspiracy theories that the psychogenic cause was suppressed. It's also poorly written.
It would be better to dedicate this section just to the proposed causes, and if you want a section about allegations of wrongdoing or bias, it should probably be separate and balanced. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem maybe the section was created specifically as a place to add specific content, in the various subsections under psychogenic illness. But it was done in a very inappropriate way, and is not easily fixable in its current form. I am open to the content remaining if it is to be rewritten in a more sensible way. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How was it inappropriate? These are all speculative causes as there has not been a clear physical medical cause established. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations of a government conspiracy, allegations that victims were lying, PTSD, etc., are all not psychogenic causes. Furthermore, the allegations in this section are mostly coming from random non-expert pundits. And the section is dramatically unbalanced. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copied and pasted from the talk thread on the section.
The problem is there is a section called psychogenic causes which is not about psychogenic causes. A section on psychogenic causes has subsections "Politics and Cold War", "Financial Incentives", and "Professional Reluctance", and "Media Reports". If there should be a section on such topics and the possible reasons for why assessments may have been biased, it should be a different topic and also more balanced.
For example, maybe in a section on "Allegations of Bias, Wrongdoing, and Cover Ups", or something like that, it would be appropriate to include allegations that people are lying, allegations that the government suppressed a line of research, etc. The section on possible causes should be about the possible causes. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly not very well sourced. Most of the claims in the section are based on opinion pieces by non-experts. Most of the subsections to the Psychogenic section begin with, "Some commentators have suggested that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed ...". And there is an obvious misunderstanding of what psychogenic illness is, as it seems to be conflated with all kinds of other issues like stress and PTSD. Other parts are about allegations of government conspiracies to suppress research. There are many glaring problems with this section. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sections on financial incentives (arguably too many pundits, but I am willing to compromise) and the cold war section as it is already covered in the first two paragraphs. The rest content wise is good, could use a rewrite but the substantive information is well-sourced. Hope this helps address your concerns. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement. If we want to include allegations by pundits that the causes were downplayed, it would be more balanced to include allegations of the same nature for the Attacks by Hostile Powers section. It has been widely suggested by commentators, for example, that there was a reluctance to be forced to respond to an attack by a foreign power. It probably doesn't make sense however to promulgate speculations of this nature on Wikipedia at all.
Psychogenic illness, and stress PTSD should also be listed as separate causes. The effects of stress and PTSD manifest as physical effects, rather than just psychological effects/delusions. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and all that information about EM radiation was considered by the various studies that focused on H.S. And the results of those H.S. studies are already mentioned in this article. Noleander (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the new investigative report?
I am not an editor, nor do I have any experience editing or adding articles. Nevertheless, this article seems pertinent to this case, it may even have cracked it wide open.
Unraveling Havana Syndrome: New evidence links the GRU's assassination Unit 29155 to mysterious attacks on Americans, at home and abroad (theins.press)
If anyone wants to pick it up, please be my guest. If not, in a few days, I might add this somewhere, after I read some rules and howto on editing.
Thanks
P.s: I think 60 minutes also has a documentary, recently released, about this ValmirM1986 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS-quality sources. Loki (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't really think so. Clearly not all of the material in this article is biomedical information about the supposed disease, and discussions about Russia's GRU Unit 29155 would be included in that. Endwise (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a WP:MEDRS article though? Or is it an espionage article? — Red XIV(talk) 06:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. An entire article cannot be “MEDRS”. MEDRS only relates to
WP:BMI. Other pieces of information such as the “espionage” part of the story are not covered by MEDRS and regular sourcing is sufficient. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 09:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Object to inclusion. This is just weak newsy junk. Would need some decent/respectable
WP:SECONDARY coverage to be due, especially given the fringe/science aspect to this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The passage you keep reverting includes several reliable sources (all present in
your opinion does not give you the right to revert all other editors as you please.
I’ll let you self revert @Bon courage. Then we can add the BBC source if you need more. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 09:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is CBS not a respectable perennial source? What's fringe about it? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is not the issues, NPOV is. What makes this stuff due? Show me some
WP:SECONDARY coverage, not just primary reportage. Bon courage (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes it is a MEDRS article as it talks about medical conditions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a
WP:FRINGE one too. When RS says this "syndrome" probably doesn't exist we really should not be giving rolling coverage to whatever latest credulous clickbait silliness is in the news. It's like reporting Bigfoot sightings. Wikipedia needs to be a bit better than that. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Patterson-Gimlin film not more fringe than the credible Havana information I added? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 03:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Its clear that Ray Cats aren't real in the article and in the DYK (which was an april fools DYK) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation in question is not WP:MEDRS. ChaseK (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion of this 60 minutes information. Very sensational, and not a great source. In light of the history of the syndrome (where there's lots of concrete medical studies) this sort of speculative ramblings by a for-profit media organization doesn't belong in the article. Noleander (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention of this joint investigation on the page used The Insider as the source (for some reason it was completely rewritten and removed by @Thornfield Hall), which is known for its investigations of various Russian government's operations (see Poisoning of Alexei Navalny as the prime example). If that is still not sufficient (the presence of the source in WP:RSP being taken as one and only mark of credibility for a media outlet), a link to Der Spiegel can be used – although I have no subscription to it, so I can't check what is written inside. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's the piece the opens "He was tall, certainly taller than Joy’s neighbors ...". Can we have some serious suggestions for sources please? Bon courage (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Insider has worked with Bellingcat, which has been cited as valuable by the United States Intelligence Community. You are an absolute nobody to call it 'unserious', and you had no problem with absolutely worthless sources like 'GeopoliticalEconomy'. Running dog59 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was because we both submitted our edits simultaneously causing that weird edit conflict prompt, and I went with the more detailed of the two. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed sensational. However, given that it is speculation as an attack by hostile power that appears to be gathering widespread attention and has also garnered some official political response, is that worthy of some mention in the wiki article?
The passage already in the article: "However, the most recent and detailed studies, published in 2023 and 2024, have not found any evidence of such hostile attacks, and have not discovered any electromagnetic energy that could produce symptoms consistent with symptoms of Havana syndrome." still stands to balance the claims from this latest investigation out well, I think. Edittlealittle (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be worth coverage if some high-quality source takes a overview and analyses the coverage in a
WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Let's wait; in a few months or year some decent sourcing may emerge, Bon courage (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support including this. It's significant enough of a development that both the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Government have responded. Both of these facts have been reported by WP:RELIABLE. Wikipedia need not describe these the claims as true or false, only quote the relevant claims and responses. ChaseK (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support covering this investigation in the article. Wikipedia should be based on
WP:RSP
perennial list):
[1] Russian military intelligence unit may be linked to 'Havana syndrome', Insider reports - Reuters
[2] Havana syndrome: Report links mystery illness to Russian intelligence unit - BBC
[3] ‘Havana syndrome’ linked to Russian unit, media investigation suggests - The Guardian
[4] Havana Syndrome investigation links Russia to mysterious brain injuries - The Telegraph
[5] Havana Syndrome linked to Russian military agency GRU, investigation indicates - Politico
etc. etc.
It is so significant that the Russian Government has officially responded:
[6] "Kremlin dismisses report Russia behind 'Havana Syndrome'" Reuters
This is an extremely significant development. Not including this in the article and pretending it never happened makes our coverage of the topic woefully incomplete. Obviously no conclusive statement and no biomedical claim should be made in accordance with
WP:MEDRS. We should just say that this investigation exists and what their conclusion is ("Russian involvement is likely"). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's just news churn. Where are the decent
WP:SECONDARY sources you claim exist? Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
All the sources linked above are
WP:PRIMARY sources here are CBS, The Insider (= Christo Grozev) and Der Spiegel who also are of high quality. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Their just re-reporting the news, with none of the in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis that characterize secondary sources.
WP:FT/N and put some tags in. Let's see if some heavy cutting can get this article back to some encyclopedic and due. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all I think you might be interpreting
WP:NEWSPRIMARY incorrectly. Those sources are all secondary in this context. Secondarily, those reliable outlets do not publish anything without "in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis". That is what serious reliable outlets such as the BBC, The Guardian, Reuters etc. do before publishing an article and within their coverage. And that's what Wikipedia is built on. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, and that "analysis" is "According to", 3 media outlets, dismissed by Russia and which the US intelligence community has said is unlikely. In essence "this story exists, we can't verot any of it". Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources believe the report to be credible enough to report on it. That is significant. And even the Kremlin has considered it substantial enough to immediately reply to it officially. That is highly significant. Also: neither Russia nor the US intelligence community are
WP:INDEPENDENT sources on this topic. So we should be extremely careful in blindly following their statements. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
At this point the page history looks like an edit war between @Bon courage and everyone else, because some sources are not sources enough. While I agree that all those Guardian, Politico, Reuters and the like's retellings of the investigation are on the same level of "sourceness" as the investigation itself (published originally in 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel), I disagree that they are primary sources. In the context of the article (Havana syndrome) they are all secondary, because they do not make an initial report on the event – they are an aftermath analysis and an investigation of it. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources on Wikipedia are described in
WP:SECONDARY. They are not not secondary because of editor say-so. We would really need some authoritative, quality overview of this. Not just news churn. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What you're asking for is beyond what the policy requires. We would need an "authoritative, quality overview" to assert that the claims are true or false. We do not need such a source to simply quote the claim, evidence, and responses by the Director of National Intelligence and Russian Government. ChaseK (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at this another way, If Havana Syndrome is real, and IF RS say it is real...this (to me) is the heart of this issue, for this report to be not
wp:undue Havana Syndrome has to be accept as a single, identifiable medical complaint. As (as far as I know) this is not the case, and it has not been proven to be real, thus accusing anyone of it is saying it is real by the back door, which is why I say this fails, MEDERS, as these are not medical sources making (in effect) an indirect medical diagnosis (as if it is not real, buy definition Russia did not do it). Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Surprised this is being debated. Wikipedia doesn’t decide what is important or true, we merely report on what reliable sources state. Multiple reliable sources have reported on this issue. To not include their commentary is itself biased. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, but let's not sensationalize it to read as if the 60 Minutes report is conclusive proof and now represents the mainstream POV on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly... no one was arguing for that. ChaseK (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2024, 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider published a joint investigation which alleges that the Russian GRU Unit 29155 is connected to cases of Havana syndrome.[1] Among the core findings were that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of "non-lethal acoustic weapons"; and that members of the unit have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenC (talk • contribs)
Highly conditional weak support I think it is likely due mentioning a claim was made. But I think any claims must be clearly identified as to source, treated as what they are: claims made by a media company, not medical consensus and, this is the most critical part *must not exceed due coverage* - this is already more
WP:RECENTISM than I am comfortable with for one rather unconvincing claim. Please remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that Russia created some invisible energy weapon that seems to defy how rf frequencies affect bodied is most certainly extraordinary - as such it is imperative we do not treat these claims as definitive or even especially evidentiary.Simonm223 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The hyperbole isn't necessary. There is nothing extraordinary about invisible EM radiation, and experts such as James Lin, have claimed that rf frequencies could produce the effects that the victims experienced.
"As early as 2018, some scientists, including physicist Peter Zimmerman, bioengineers Kenneth R. Foster, and Andrei G. Pakhomov, and UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh, said that the microwave hypothesis was implausible; Baloh called the National Academies conclusion "science fiction".[114][115][116]" Simonm223 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is called "professor" without a field, always google what they are professing in, because it is highly likely that the field is omitted because they are actually not qualified for the statements they are making. And indeed: Lin is an electrical engineer and not qualified for medical subjects. The physicist-bioengineer-neurologist team is preferable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read his bio before writing this? He is "Head for the Bioengineering Department" at the University of Illinois. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37278769800 His research is in "Biomedical instrumentation", "Electromagnetic Engineering for Biology and Medicine" and "Bioelectromagnetics". https://ece.uic.edu/profiles/james-lin-phd/ So he is precisely a "physicist-bioengineer-neurologist" and extremely qualified to comment on this subject. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 11:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention his publication topics are especially related to the topic.
"Publication Topics
Power Density,Acoustic Waves,Auditory System,Brain Tissue,High-power Microwave,Inner Ear,Microwave Energy,Microwave Pulses,Peak Power Density,Perception Threshold,Pulse Width,Sound Pressure,Acoustic Pulse,Acoustic Stimuli,Auditory Nerve,Auditory Response,Average Power Density,Background Radiation,Battery Charging,Bone Conduction,Brain Injury,Bursts Of Pulses,Central Auditory System,Cochlea,Computer Simulations"
Your portrayal is factually incorrect and biased. It's not your role to decide what scientific assessments are preferable and twist the narrative towards your preference. This is an encyclopedia. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lin is a highly qualified expert on the subject. Editors from the fringe noticeboard should ensure they read the sources before commenting here. This will otherwise look like
Just say you want this to be real and not US Federal Employees getting too hangover or high in cocaine. Orocairion (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even Kenneth R. Foster who you cite as having ruled out microwaves has since published commentary espousing the opinion that directed energy is plausible and introduces a new hypothesis based on IR lasers.
"We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined."
This preliminary analysis suggests that, in principle, high peak power IR lasers can induce auditory/vestibular responses in humans via thermoelastic sound generation when directed against the head. Developing a practical non-lethal weapon would require adapting the laser and associated hardware for portable use, and adjusting the beam characteristics, power output, and wavelength to produce objectionable responses while minimizing, as far as possible, the likelihood of eye damage to the subjects. Unlike the case of high peak power microwave generators used in classified weapons programs, high peak power pulsed lasers are commercially available (but potentially are very hazardous to an untrained user) and TA sound generation in the head from pulsed IR radiation would be relatively easy to study. If reasonable suspicion exists that some individuals were exposed to such radiation, they should be examined for possible retinal injury. Non-lethal weapons of this sort are hypothetical, but seem more feasible than analogous weapons using pulsed microwaves and would potentially be of interest to governments around the world which have already made considerable investments in laser weapons."
Even if we accept this, it is not a large enough part of the article to go in the lede and is not significant enough to be mentioned more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If we accept this"? There is overwhelming support. We clearly have consensus to include this in the article. If you oppose it write a full oppose comment and lets see if others agree and the consensus changes but please stop reverting the article as you did here, here and here. Multiple editors have already inserted and edited that text and it is extremely basic and factual. I will restore the mention in the body but not in the lead for the moment. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 11:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion is not equivalent to endorsement. Please keep in mind I support including mention of this report. I don't support undue mention and I don't support treating it as anything more than a claim or accusation. The evidence offered in that document included things like the presence of a member of that espionage unit in a locale seven years prior to the first reported incident. The entire report is highly circumstantial. The question of how we weigh Lin's academic opinion compared to others is a separate matter that should be governed per
You mean seven years prior to what was previously the first reported incident, as they now report a previously unreported incident. Machinarium (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed not up to us to decide what is correct or not, so let's just lay out all reported evidence and let readers decide for themselves. No need to present anything as conclusive. I personally think this article right now relies too heavily on evidence of absence, even though it is well-documented that medical conditions such as post-concussive syndrome can hardly be diagnosed with modern brain scans. The new findings suggest there is a pattern of Russian secret service presence in some of the reported incident locations, and that all of those that suffered were U.S. government workers who worked on Russian dossiers / members of their household. Russian / Soviet secret services have previously been implicated in innovative poisonings such as with nerve agents, cyanide gas, and polonium. Yet, what kind of weapon could cause 'anomalous health incidents' is undetermined. It would anyway not be something revolutionary as such weapon would be less destructive than poison or a handgun. Machinarium (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, responding to the new reports, the Pentagon has confirmed that there was another 'anomalous health incident' at the 2023 NATO summit.[2]Machinarium (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually to us to lay out all reported evidence rather it is up to us to report what is
WP:WEIGHT. Nothing seems definitive at the moment. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That does not appear to be Simonm223's stance when he's simply deleting any mention of the new findings. Machinarium (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the edit log. I have not deleted any "new findings" - the only thing I deleted was a long section of unsourced conspiracy theory regarding covert replacement of embassy staff. I also adjusted some wording to be more neutral. In general I would prefer, if at all possible, to have a light touch here. However I do think there is an evident scientific consensus, based on what is known about the interaction between the human body and RF frequency radiation, that microwave weapons are highly unlikely. Treating it otherwise would require extraordinary evidence governed by
You are focusing on one possible hypothesis on what kind of weapon it could have been even though nobody is conclusive about that. The new documents also mentions it could have been ultrasound for example. This remains a mystery even for them. Machinarium (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This remains a mystery even to them, is precisely why we should cleave to
WP:MEDRS - journalists can propose all kinds of wild suggestions and be mystified by them. We should stick to neurologists, physicists, epidemiologists and the like. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia is not just a medical encyclopedia. If there are widely reported security service operations going on that remain part mystery it can still be covered. I also suggest you read about the actual new evidence[9] because it goes way further than just 'wild suggestions'. Machinarium (talk)
I did, in fact, read it before I posted a single thing on this page. I found it highly circumstantial, derived from weak correlation, and of low evidentiary value. Wherever possible an encyclopedia should prefer academic sources over media sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstantial evidence can still be evidence. And there's also a proposed clear pattern of the victims all working on Russian dossiers. There are no academic sources on Russian secret service operations, just on attempts to find traces of brain damage which was already known to be a very difficult task when it comes to concussion-like damage. I think we should be similarly careful not to dismiss a murder when a body hasn't been found and no autopsy could be conducted, for example. Machinarium (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The science (in RS) is pretty settled. That various politicians & pundits are getting excited is not very important. It would be like saying "ooh, politicians have lots of views on climate change; we must respectfully record them!" Bon courage (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Science isn't settled here, and the new findings are not by politicians. Machinarium (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for the claim that "microwave weapons are highly unlikely" and that it is settled scientific consensus? The sources above seem to directly contradict that claim and come from authoritative sources (e.g. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9759429) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Microwave weapons are an area of active research in the field of
The question is not whether microwave weapons exist but whether they operate in a way consistent with the reported symptoms of Havana Syndrome. Like, if somebody said, "he was shot with a gun and that's why he died of cancer" I'd be suspicious of the claim that a gunshot caused cancer. That doesn't mean guns don't exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it definitely doesn't appear to be settled science that Havana Syndrome like symptoms are confirmed not to be related to microwave weapons. Or do you have a sufficiently high level source claiming that and are able to prove that it is "settled science"? The source I linked above explicitly states the contrary The results presented in Tables 1 and 2 showed that high-power microwave pulse exposure can generate substantial acoustic pressures in the brain that may not only produce sound sensations but also have implications for neuropathological consequences such as traumatic brain injury. and concludes: Assuming the reported symptoms and accounts are consistent, the microwave auditory effect provides a scientific explanation for Havana Syndrome.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9759429{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that, per many JAMA and CDC sources, there was no evidence of traumatic brain injury. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that these people suffered instead from psychogenic illness, mass hysteria, etc.; conditions that won't show up on modern brain scans either.Machinarium (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different point though. I don't believe anyone has claimed that it is impossible for microwave weapons to cause injuries and similar symptoms as those described. The fact that some studies (e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2816533) have not been able to find statistically significant symptoms is another issue. And that is not definitive proof of anything and not settled science per
WP:PRIMARY and the research is still ongoing. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 13:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
All the more reason to be careful not to give too much credence to low-quality sources such as journalistic reports built upon speculation and coincidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it's just 'coincidence' is just your opinion, others see clear patterns and a motive. Machinarium (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we need to be very careful about what we say and not say. If anything we should remove most medical claims from this page (e.g. the JAMA studies) as they are not
WP:BMI can and should be included. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, and it is troubling how these scientific studies are being misrepresented by editors seeking to use Wikipedia to promote their favorite theory.
The scientific results should be presented as is, without third party conclusions by non-experts inserted. The results should be presented including both what the findings were and what the limitations of the study were. And the research articles themselves should be cited rather than news articles that also misrepresented the results and put a spin on them. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no expectation that damage correlated with the effects of a hypothetical weapon based on pulsed RF energy would show up in the MRI scans. A study was done to see if it were. Indeed, neurological conditions are often very difficult to detect through an MRI, especially new ones that are poorly understood. For example, early Parkinson's disease is difficult to predict accurately from an MRI. Furthermore, with so few subjects, the studies were very under-powered. There is a great deal of misrepresentation of scientific studies going on in this article and throughout the media. It would be preferable for Wikipedia to do better.
Challenges in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease
"Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, and its prevalence has been projected to double over the next generation. Nonetheless, an accurate diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease remains challenging, and identifying the earliest stages of the disease is a major unmet need. Recent developments include the validation of modified clinical diagnostic criteria, the introduction and testing of research criteria for prodromal Parkinson’s disease, and the identification of genetic subtypes and a growing number of genetic variants associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. There has also been significant progress in the development of diagnostic biomarkers, of which genetic and imaging tests are already part of routine work-up protocols in clinical practice, while novel tissue and fluid markers are under investigation. Parkinson’s disease is evolving from a clinical to a biomarker-supported diagnostic entity, in which an earlier identification is possible, different subtypes with diverse prognosis are recognized and novel disease-modifying treatments are in development."
Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals
"Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed our understanding of the human brain through well-replicated mapping of abilities to specific structures (for example, lesion studies) and functions1,2,3 (for example, task functional MRI (fMRI)). Mental health research and care have yet to realize similar advances from MRI. A primary challenge has been replicating associations between inter-individual differences in brain structure or function and complex cognitive or mental health phenotypes (brain-wide association studies (BWAS)). Such BWAS have typically relied on sample sizes appropriate for classical brain mapping4 (the median neuroimaging study sample size is about 25), but potentially too small for capturing reproducible brain–behavioural phenotype associations5,6. Here we used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available—with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals—to quantify BWAS effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size. BWAS associations were smaller than previously thought, resulting in statistically underpowered studies, inflated effect sizes and replication failures at typical sample sizes. As sample sizes grew into the thousands, replication rates began to improve and effect size inflation decreased. More robust BWAS effects were detected for functional MRI (versus structural), cognitive tests (versus mental health questionnaires) and multivariate methods (versus univariate). Smaller than expected brain–phenotype associations and variability across population subsamples can explain widespread BWAS replication failures. In contrast to non-BWAS approaches with larger effects (for example, lesions, interventions and within-person), BWAS reproducibility requires samples with thousands of individuals."
wp:lede it is a summery of important parts of OUR article, one line is not important (nor is one paragraph). Also even if everyone agree that WE should say this, they have not all agreed to how we should say it (and the only suggested text is not the one that was added), nor where it was placed (after all this is only a media report, so at best we would have one line, there and nowhere else. So yes we clearly need an RFC, laying out the text that the proposer wants to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I am concerned by an increasing edit war on this page (see page edit history) A reminder, Wikipedia does not decide what is true or false. Wikipedia does not decide what is important or not important. Wikipedia merely reports on what reliable sources on a topic claim. Multiple reliable sources have brought up this report. It doesn’t matter if one disagrees with it. Such information must be added to the page else this is a clear violation and example of editorial bias. This is not a MEDRS article and this claim should not be used to remove content one personally disagrees with. Claims should always state who made the claim, especially for a topic like this one where the facts are classified or unknown. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content not users, please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Removed specific mention of users in my above post. BootsED (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'd also ask you to please review the edit summary of the page. I have not, in fact, engaged in edit warring. In fact the only piece I've put more than one revert on I did so by reverting myself in light of talk-page discussion. Please be more careful not just with specific names but with characterization of edits. My concern on the article talk page for
WP:MEDRS has been linked to very careful editing of the source and general recommendations of caution. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No offense intended. I should not have named specific names. However, after looking at the edit history of this page, the outlines of a general edit war are appearing. I do see a potential argument to be made for WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. However, I do believe that this is WP:DUE through the abundance of RS that cover this story. I do not believe WP:FRINGE applies here, and WP:MEDRS definitely does not apply here as described in much better detail in prior posts. BootsED (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are merely expressing that the original claim was made. I've never opposed a mention of the report. I've simply been concerned that it doesn't get bloated beyond, "journalists made claims." Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely agree with you there. There should simply be one or two mentions of this report in the relevant locations within this page that start with, “A March 2024 report by…” followed by “claimed that…”. BootsED (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't actually have any objection to that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have consensus on this. The article currently includes a similar sentence: "In March 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using
directed energy weapons." I would close this discussion at this point and let everyone edit the article normally. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
@Slatersteven please can you clarify the reason behind your deletion of the investigative report from the Chronological section [10]? Given the clear consensus for its inclusion in the article, I'm concerned about your decision to delete it from a segment focusing exclusively on 2024 events without any discussion. FailedMusician (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we do not need it twice, it already is in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whuich (by the way) I have already stated above, we need only 1 mention of this (at best). Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The chronological section is problematic in general. But I agree with @FailedMusician it would make sense to have it there also. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 1 user has said that a mention of this us undue, at least one other has said that giving them too much coverage is undue (and maybe a couple). So make a case as to why this needs mentioning more than onceSlatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of talking about what others think, please provide a rationale of your own, as to why it is undue in that section. I may agree that the Chronological section isn't necessary, but once we have it, with a section on 2024, I fail to see why would we omit this very widely reported investigation. FailedMusician (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, its
WP:ONUS is on you to make your case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support adding it to the chronology. As long as a chronology section exists it should be mentioned there as well or it wouldn't make any sense to have it mentioned in the causes and not in the chronology. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most discussions should not be 'closed' at all. They certainly should not be closed by someone involved in the discussion with a closure box restating their opinion, as was just done here. -
Closing old discussions (and then arguing about it) that have gone inactive and have been superseded by other discussions will also just result in wasted editor time. I also disagree that your closure summarized the discussion, or that
Agreeing we can say something, (assuming we all do), is not the same as a agreeing to a specific text. Try and RFC asking to add a specific text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCBEFORE requires that issues are discussed properly, and I've asked you to clearly state your reason for deletions. Can you identify what exactly is problematic with the text, such as portraying claims as facts? FailedMusician (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have more than once, but I shall do so again (once and once only). Read
WP:ONUS, the onus is on those waiting to add something "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". So suggest a text (one mention, not in the lede) Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The report was neither in the lead nor repeated in the body when it was reverted today. LegalSmeagolian's removal of the report from a section titled reports does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE. I see no need for an RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me about my reverts, I can't answer for anyone else's actions. You need to ask them, not me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you about your past reverts. I asked you to state your objections to the text. FailedMusician (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ive asked you to clearly state your reason for deletions", I took that to mean my deletions as I can't answer for why anyone else deleted it (obviously). Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my support only really goes as far as including it for chronology's sake due to official responses it garnered (To spare my notifications box I think I'll be exiting this conversation now. Take care, all. Keep it chill). Edittlealittle (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not edit warring, and those who are opposed have made it clear that you are failing to properly conduct a RFC about how to incorporate the new article into the page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they need to have a RfC on that? That doesn't seem constructive, it seems obstructive. It seems like a backdoor way to get what you want even though consensus is against you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the editor is trying to incorporate
WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies, and since the 60 Minutes piece completely contradicts the scientific community on the fact that the cause of this "condition" was likely mass psychosis - heck the NIH, which was cited in review study as the basis for the claim under the causes section that "oh but uh one guy cited the NIH who thought RF weapons could cause the symptoms" also said that there are no detectable brain injuries in those reporting that they are afflicted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The solution to fringe pushing isn't a RfC, never has and never will be. Fringe pushing is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree an RfC is not needed here and asking for it is obstructive given the consensus we have already established. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 09:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you don't edit the section the way you want. It's hard to form an RfC if we don't understand your objection. You say you disagree with how to "incorporate", but your actions are to delete the entire thing. If we saw your alternative text, we could easily have an RfC: choose this or that diff. But right now, your only proposal is to completely delete the 60 Minutes report. So an RfC would have to be along those binary lines: should the article have text (any text) about the 60 minutes report. I don't think anybody here believes the 60 minutes report should be entirely deleted. The problem is your lack of providing alternative text. It does look like obstruction. -- GreenC 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will reincorporate the material in a way that presents it less conclusively. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ONUS
policy. That pretty clearly wasn't done, so adding anything back now without getting it hashed out on the talk page first is just going to cause more issues.
Comments like GreenC's comments like It does look like obstruction are pretty clearly
WP:BRD. If the content keeps getting readded in this manner, it might be best to ask for page protection again. KoA (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you and won't be offended if you revert to my previous version - I think the current framing is ok but share
WP:FRINGE concerns about if it even should be in the article at all (I am fine with it in the chronology section in its current form, but have concerns that any inclusion does further spread misinformation about russian brainwave whatevers). Reverting is up to you! Cheers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought that the 60 Minutes report was previously agreed to be WP:NOTBMI and thus should be re-added to the page? Am I missing something? It feels like nothing has changed from two weeks ago. BootsED (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a crucial difference between agreeing to some mention in principle, and agreeing on specific wording.
Its a difference without distinction when the editor failed to engage in any discussion on wording. The real reason here is purely behavioural and may require further administrator action. FailedMusician (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was made after four reverts, which was cause for concern, hence my post. I should hope this doesn't require further administrator action. Please don't misrepresent this warning as a personal attack. FailedMusician (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been previous administrator action? The last time there was admin action the protected page did NOT include the 60 minutes report. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you removed it. Thanks for now engaging in discussion and attempting to adapt the text instead of removing it. FailedMusician (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I was the last person to removed it before it got page protected... in fact I have already requested additional page protection as it seems a flurry of edits have been made as soon as page protection expired, before any discussion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that your attempt to use page protection to gain an advantage in a content dispute has been rejected on those grounds. That is not a legitimate reason to seek page protection, please do not try to game the system like that again... Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was not trying to "gain an advantage during a content dispute..." if you actually bothered to looked at the edits to the, you can see that I rewrote the disputed content. Additionally,
Your request was rejected on the grounds that it was a content dispute and did not belong there... I was not me who rejected it. Using something like request for page protection to deal with a content dispute instead of actual disruption is generally frowned upon, whether such poo-pooing is paternalistic or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my motives??? That is the issue! Oh my lord. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of gained advantage is the same regardless of motives. That is gaming the system, even if only in effect not intent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaming the system means deliberately misusing Wikipedia policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community."
WP:DISRUPT - "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.""[21]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, you are welcome to take this up at ANI or the dispute resolution noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you attempt to relegislate consensus with an RFC, I most certainly will. See
FailedMusician doesn't seem to have been talking about "if someone opens a good faith RFC." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they are not assuming good faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like its you who isn't assuming good faith not FailedMusician. A clear example would be you claiming that there was disruption here when there was a content dispute, that is failing to assume good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately reinstating content that was removed prior to a full page protection as soon as the page protection is removed, without any additional discussion, is disruptive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not, thats actually what normally happens. You were told when you brought this to page protection that it was not disruption but a content dispute, so you know thats not true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am allowed to have a difference of opinion than an admin. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And having that difference of opinion means you are allowed to refuse to assume good faith why? Why do you get mad when people make assumptions about your behavior when you're making even larger assumptions about other people's behavior? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never not assumed good faith in this instance. See
WP:DISRUPT
- "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."
Editors can be editing in good faith and still be disruptive. Adding
WP:FRINGE content without any discussion of the phrasing of that content is disruptive. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this and this conversation is not productive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Above you were arguing that your conduct was not disruptive because it was good faith... Now you say that its disruption regardless of whether or not their is good faith. You have assumed bad faith of both FailedMusician and myself in this very conversation, looking across the page you assume bad faith a half dozen more times. This is a pattern of disruption, if the pattern of disruption does not stop it will likely be stopped. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok bud - I am saying my conduct was not
WP:GAMING - however it is also not disruptive. My focus is to improve the article by trying to properly (if at all) incorporate the proposed fringed content. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. Just to keep things even-handed in terms of
WP:ONUS
policy, I've removed mention of the report. Diffs exist now obviously if someone wants to refer to that in discussion.
Just a reminder for all that the page protection was time to propose content and get consensus for something. Without consensus for content on that subject and being obviously under dispute for some time, it's probably best to propose specific content on this talk page and getting consensus on that first (e.g., the D part of
WP:BRD) rather than directly editing the article first. If someone is having trouble with talk page formatting, you can use the talk quote template, etc. to propose content along with references on a talk page. KoA (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You removed the report against consensus in this discussion, and without stating your objections to the wording. FailedMusician (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already reached substantial consensus that the 60 minutes report should be included (see above) and we also have established that
directed energy weapons is one of the most likely causes. So nothing in the 60 minutes report is "fringe" at the current level of knowledge we have on this "syndrome". I see editors participating here that have not participated in the previous discussions and probably are unaware of that consensus. Please review them and stop edit warring. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 10:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
Yeah MEDRS sources from like multiple years ago... you are (I believe in good faith) pushing a fringe viewpoint. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asadi-Pooya, which is discussed in the "Quality sources", came out in December 2023. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused, what has any of this got to do with the 60 minutes report? This discussion is about how to include that, not anything else. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's confusing is why LegalSmeagolian is bringing up the need for MEDRS in relation to this Insider report, as if they somehow it fringe. Besides for one questionable review article, they do not. FailedMusician (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence Russia has such a weapon? Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is going in circles. The inclusion of claims from the report (previously presented in tl;dr form here on the talk page in #Request for comment: Scope and sourcing[22]) does not require some other source with a proof of directed-energy weapons existing in this world.
This whole post-PP section seems to advocate mentioning only that the report exists and that it lead to the officials commenting on it, without including the claims from the report at all. This decision obviously makes the coverage of the report incomplete and goes contrary to the logic of the inclusion of it on the page (it leaves several questions hanging, e.g.: "Why the report caused such a reaction from public officials and media?", "What is the report about?"). TinyClayMan (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we have consensus to include and those who disagree with inclusion need to change their acts from obstructive to constructive. If you disagree with what other people have included either propose a wording you could live with or go somewhere else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have consensus on what to say only to say something, this is why I never agree to blank cheques. Per Onus, it is down to those who want to include it to suggest a text. As so far none has been agreed upon (or even where). Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we had consensus on what to say. What would you like to say? Please propose a wording you could live with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to not say anything, as it is highly speculative (at best). Its down to those who want to include it to make the suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using the 60 minutes report to assert anything regarding claims regardless as it is not WP:MEDRS. I think the best thing to do with it would be to demonstrate via coverage *of* it how its release led to renewed debate regarding the supposed "syndrome". Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to ask for more PP? Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the section on the Insider / 60 minutes report to the parts there's actually consensus for. Unfortunately my edit summary got screwed up. Apologies for that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your version since it contains no medical claims, but rather is a commentary on the medial debate. I have no objections if anyone wants to tweak the wording to make this even more evident. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The “surviving” text is clearly fine. We can keep it as a starting point. It’s just excessively superficial coverage. I don’t see any good reason to remove the rest of the content. It contains no medical claims at all so I’m not sure what the basis for removal is. Why not cover the impacts of the report fully? (E.g. the Russian and US diplomatic response) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 21:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it felt irrelevant. Two very bland responses from two antagonistic states. Simonm223 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I join @TinyClayMan and @Gtoffoletto in objecting to @Simonm223’s removal of content from the investigative report [23], made only two minutes after my reversion (indicating that we are still in a edit war). Simonm223’s assertion above [24] that this content requires medical sourcing is incorrect and reflects a misinterpretation of the MEDRS guideline, which is the subject of an ongoing RFC below. We don’t need a review article for including claims from an investigative report, provided we don’t present them as fact or give them undue emphasis. It so happens to be that we have two review articles that acknowledge the weapons theory as a viable possibility [25][26], but that is besides the point. This looks like nothing more than a continuation of an edit war with no substantive arguments offered here for deleting the content. FailedMusician (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come off it. I made one edit and it wasn't even a straight revert. Simonm223 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the entire contents of the report within two minutes of me reinstating it, and made your longstanding argument that it requires MEDRS. That is
I did not remove the entire content. I removed the medical claims and I removed a very bland set of responses from the US and Russia that seemed like irrelevant
The claims were not medical, but political. As was the responses by the Russian and US governments, who bothered to comment on them, showing the significance of the story to the subject of this page. FailedMusician (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that part seems like recentism to me. Journalists make a story, ask governments about the story. The governments say story seems made up to them. Not incredibly encyclopedic. Unlikely to pass
WP:10YT. However I will concede this is a personal judgment call, unlike the repeated insertion of the report's more medical claims which are a MEDRS matter. Simonm223 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please focus on one argument at a time to avoid the appearance of
gish galloping. You've claimed the allegation is medical and invoked MEDRS, but it's clear that the allegation of one country using a weapon against another is political. Therefore, MEDRS does not apply as a guideline to restrict such sources. FailedMusician (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's absurd. The claim they used a weapon speaks explicitly to causes. Simonm223 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now flight logs, leaked personal mail, leaked documents about the development of said weapons, and government memos for embassies are
WP:MEDRS
does not apply at article level and different claims can have different sourcing.
If Havana Syndrome is claimed to be a result of exposure to RF energy, then that claim should be backed with WP:MEDRS. If a
WP:NOTBMI. Use common sense when interpreting the WP:BMI. TinyClayMan (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No, please go back and re-read what I said - the claim that Russia used weapons to cause Havana Syndrome is BMI. The rest is just a question of
WP:DUE and can be discussed here to build consensus. My personal opinion is that not much of it is due inclusion but would be open to some sort of demonstration beyond, "the media said this is big" for why it might be due more mention than that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If RS say that the Thai king may have shot the Swedish king with a nanobeam, then we do not treat that as BMI. This is absurd and disruptive. FailedMusician (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"may have shot" probably wouldn't get it in the article due to BLP policy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah those were kind of textbook run of the mill responses. The fact the investigation hoodwinked Senators though might be relevant and significant though. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the raygun claims are back in the 60 minutes recentism. Again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep trying to paint
directed energy weapons as some kind of imaginary fairytale. They are in active use around the world by multiple forces and for a variety of uses. It isn’t recentism. It is the heart of the matter for this article. Were they used or not? One day we will know the answer I hope and the debate over this will always be relevant one way or the other. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
In ten years time the debate over all of this won't even be a footnote in an entry on the neo-cold-war paranoia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of radio frequency weapons in the case of Havana Syndrome is an imaginary fairytale, yes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to push your own original research
WP:CRYSTALBALL. We need to stick to what reliable sources say today. In the future we can edit the article if necessary. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The reliable sources are pretty clear that weapons capable of doing this under the required conditions don't exist.
And several others sources already in the article state that a direct energy weapon is plausible and some even say it is the most likely cause. So painting this as an "imaginary fairytale" is absurd. This circular discussion is useless and we already have consensus as I wrote days ago in the comment above. I'm out. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not seeing any sort of consensus here, no. First, you seem to have been counting people who weighed in solely on the MEDRS issue without saying whether they wanted it included; but second, more importantly, consensus is not just about numbers but about weight of arguments, and many of the people you're counting made no arguments. If you want a clear-cut consensus, start a formal RFC; otherwise, please cease falsely claiming consensus for a position that does not have it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you seem to have been counting people who weighed in solely on the MEDRS issue without saying whether they wanted it included. Please provide some links and I will strike those names if you are right. Like this: Sonicsuns [27] Tristario [28] LuckyLouie [29], etc. FailedMusician (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd sentence in summar
Whenever I red a sentence like this it is always a tell - this article is biased to convince people no foreign actor is involved.
“Some studies indicated that foreign actors were not responsible for most cases.”
“Numerous studies and investigations have been unable to determine a cause” would be a much more descriptive sentence. Allaheadfull (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I removed this sentence, as the intelligence report and associated studies are covered in the third paragraph. FailedMusician (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pesticides
I read the Dalhousie study that proposed pesticides as a cause. I'm curious why that was removed per
WP:OR - I reverted but am open to discussion if there's subsequent information I'm not privy to. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry which study? We would need
WP:MEDRS for any suggestion of causal health effects of a particular type, and also so far as I can see none of these sources support the "Some scientists have suggested ..." idea, which is OR. And why add scribd.com sources to Wikipedia? Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Geez I didn't see the URL. I'll see if I can dig up the dal study again. Will self-revert in the meantime. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this URL via Archive.org - it looks like the original was pulled down subsequent to me reading it.
"In March 2024, the National Institutes of Health published two medical studies evaluating people reporting Havana syndrome symptoms, and found no evidence of brain injury, irregular blood biomarkers, or vocational impairment." this is
WP:PRIMARY
studies
"But according to David Relman, these findings do not exclude that a weapon could have injured the government workers, as "the most sophisticated brain scans can miss a subtle brain injury, especially if the brain has had time to heal"." this is
What should we do? Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reintroduced is a slightly pointed way of saying I followed
WP:BRD - I understand primary sources aren't ideal but they're a heck of a lot better than unscientific journalistic speculation and spooky stories about magic guns that don't leave any wounds. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody speaks about 'magic guns'. But I think you'll find that regular guns can already cause damage that don't leave visible wounds. For example, if you fire a weapon next to your ears you can get severe permanent tinnitus and hyperacusis, both of which are well-documented medical conditions even though they don't show up on modern brain scans. Machinarium (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but it is pretty clear these Havana Syndrome "sufferers" are not having weapons fired next to their ears. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though the prevalent theory suggest that they were still close-proximity attacks (if it was long distance I would agree that it reaches the realm of science fiction). Machinarium (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still reaches the realm of science fiction now, unless you are suggesting Russian operatives somehow put a bunch of heads into a microwave oven. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily so if a certain weapon can exist in theory, just like how not every hypothesis in
Unless you have reliable sources backing up those claims they do not merit inclusion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Especially when some users wish to interpret them in a way contrary to their findings. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask whether review articles exist - because without those we may want to consider taking this to AfD as impossible to make neutral. Without the biomedical end this becomes a repository of conspiracy theories. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reversion by Simonm223 accurately depicts what this disputed medical condition is. Applying strict medical source rules to this article will hinder encyclopedians trying to cover the full story, which isn't just medical but also about international politics and what people are saying. We should use the full range of reliable sources, including government reports and expert opinions, to give a full picture, including new any developments, medical or otherwise. The latest report from 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel show that the top US government agencies are deeply conflicted about this medical condition is and what causes it. FailedMusician (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For such
WP:RS). Nothing more than that though. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
IMHO, The major issue here is SHOULD this article fall under MEDRS rules? Making that determination assumes the symptoms are physical and caused by weapon attacks, as opposed to possibly being the reframing of (real and imaginary) illness caused by other factors, as the MPI hypothesis asserts. As the US gov't investigating agencies have found no evidence of the former, including the report issued by the gov'ts NIH report, I see no reason to make the MEDRS assumption here. Rp2006 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of medical and neurological conditions exist that are well documented even when they do not show up on modern brain scans, and these are also found to have their own Wikipedia articles. But this page does not have to limit itself to describing a medical condition; it should, in my opinion, also discuss the allegations and the controversies that are widely discussed in politics and the media. Machinarium (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a tag for too many primary sources, needs improvement. Lol. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it discusses medial complaints. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what it comes down to is that we're in a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation here. If consensus arises that this article must fully comply with
WP:NOTBMI. We can't choose to apply it on a per article basis. It is a question of what each specific claim is within every article on the encyclopaedia. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Needs updates on scientific assessments on the plausibility of directed energy attacks
Some updates are warranted to better reflect the current scientific assessments on the plausibility of directed energy. Currently, for example, in the section "2018 Jama Report", there is the following text,
"As early as 2018, some scientists, including physicist Peter Zimmerman, bioengineers Kenneth R. Foster, and Andrei G. Pakhomov, and UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh, said that the microwave hypothesis was implausible; Baloh called the National Academies conclusion "science fiction"."
It seems this is based on a comment Kenneth made in a 2018 Washington Post article. However, he has since then changed his position. He published two commentary articles, one in 2021 in response to the publication by Lin proposing the microwave auditory effect as a plausible explanation , and one in 2023 proposing IR radiation as an alternative hypothesis.
Kenneth concludes in 2021,
"We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined."
"This preliminary analysis suggests that, in principle, high peak power IR lasers can induce auditory/vestibular responses in humans via thermoelastic sound generation when directed against the head. Developing a practical non-lethal weapon would require adapting the laser and associated hardware for portable use, and adjusting the beam characteristics, power output, and wavelength to produce objectionable responses while minimizing, as far as possible, the likelihood of eye damage to the subjects. Unlike the case of high peak power microwave generators used in classified weapons programs, high peak power pulsed lasers are commercially available (but potentially are very hazardous to an untrained user) and TA sound generation in the head from pulsed IR radiation would be relatively easy to study. If reasonable suspicion exists that some individuals were exposed to such radiation, they should be examined for possible retinal injury. Non-lethal weapons of this sort are hypothetical, but seem more feasible than analogous weapons using pulsed microwaves and would potentially be of interest to governments around the world which have already made considerable investments in laser weapons."
This is quite significant, as his past and now defunct comments were quite influential to the development of the overall narrative pushed on the page in its current form.2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would need good
WP:MEDRS, not commentary pieces in dodgy or non-pertinent journals. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Certainly the comments from Kenneth Foster in the Washing Post shouldn't be included if you can't include his later comments. As is, the page misrepresents the position of this particular expert. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is stuffed full of crap, yes. Anything insufficiency sourced needs the chop. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that's probably not going to happen. Kenneth is one of the foremost experts on the topic that has weighed in. Frontiers in Public Health is not particularly dodgy. It has a pretty high impact factor. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to happen. All Frontiers journals are a
Do you have a recommendation how to address the current problem that would pass? Ideally nearly the entire article would be rewritten. But as it is, something should be done to at least minimize the impact of the misleading information currently in the article. Perhaps someone else can recommend a sensible change that others would allow to get through? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs around an 80% reduction I think. Removing badly sourced content is probably the first step, as it then is not meant to be replaced without consensus. Ironically, one of the steps needed now it to get
WP:SEMIPROTECTION to stop IP users reflex-reverting the cruft. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's way too much when considering that the subject matter isn't just a medical condition; it's also about ongoing investigations, legal issues, allegations, mass media attention, politics etc. which leaves room for plenty of non-biomedical information (just like on Gulf War syndrome). Unless we separate it into two articles. Machinarium (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not just the medical aspect, it's that this article is mostly a credulous parade of primary sources, when it is meant to be based on good secondary ones and summarising accepted knowledge about the topic. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Most of the references on this page are secondary sources. The specific secondary sources needed and how they're balanced depends on the claims and how they are made. FailedMusician (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before removing content referencing reliable sources, you should first establish consensus that this topic is strictly biomedical and requires medical sources only. FailedMusician (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight is being given to the 60 minutes report currently - it strikes of
I want to point out that 60 Minutes is one of the three participants in the investigation who released the report, along with The Insider and Der Spiegel. From what I see from the edits history and the discussion on the talk page, several editors lean towards a view that only the publications of 60 Minutes (CBS News) exist, which, in turn, leads them to think that the report consists only (or mostly) of interviews of the [alleged] victims and experts who officially worked on this case before. That is incorrect, which is evident if you read the report in The Insider, which states information important for "a long-term, historical view" of this subject (i.e, not WP:RECENTISM).
As for the WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the report contains both the primary and the secondary source parts, so even if we ignore
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD
, I don't see what's wrong with citing them.
Disclaimer: this comment is only about a report by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel. Other parts of the article indeed require the reevaluation of cited sources. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @
WP:BMI. Also in this case the statements by Foster appear obsolete and misleading and I agree it should be removed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This article needs to be held to a single standard. If we decide that
WP:MEDRS is that standard then, no, the whole article must be held to that standard.Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't seen any convincing reason provided here for making WP:MEDRS the de facto sourcing guideline for this article, especially since many cases are classified, and few studies have accessed them. Without public access to case details, I don't see how independent scientists could write review article on those studies. This entire discussion about MEDRS is just baffling and belies a misunderstanding of the scientific method. FailedMusician (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet media outlets can access it? That is an explanation as to why we can't use media sources for claims about this, they have even less expertise and information. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some media outlets have accessed certain cases through confidential sources, and the claims made by these outlets are included in our article with proper attribution. Therefore, there's no need for MEDRS in this context. FailedMusician (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely a requirement for MEDRS. If these came from "confidential sources" we have no way of assessing their reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, not just "some bloke I can't name told me so"".Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS guidelines, which favor review articles by independent researchers with data access, are not fully met in this context since only two medical reports had case data access, and their findings haven't been independently verified due to lack of shared data. Consequently, we're relying on those two primary sources and the news coverage about them, and various news reports about non-medical aspects of the subject. Until MEDRS-compliant articles are available, we should carefully attribute all claims and maintain fair representation of all viewpoints. FailedMusician (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BMI of any kind. All we can say is that "the research is ongoing" and what some of the hypotheses are. But nothing more than that at this point and nothing definitive. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
By the same logic we should exclude any propositions of the cause of the condition coming from non-medical sources. Which means no 2024 investigative report details. It's simply undue speculation to suggest there is a causal link between Russian assassins and a few American diplomats in high-stress jobs getting sick. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Its very due, as an allegation, given the number of reliable sources that reported on it. FailedMusician (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is, again, trying to cite BMI to journalists. They are not reliable for it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given no one even knows what it is, no, there are numerous claims that people were affected by it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time to Stubify?
We have a pretty significant problem with a purported medical condition for which
WP:MEDRS compliant sources appear not to exist. As a result there's been a lot of pressure to include the science-fictional speculation of journalists who want this to be a James Bond story. I am increasingly of the feeling that the best course of action would be to cut this article down to the bare minimum - note that claims exist and that at this time there is no known medical cause. Call it a day and leave out all the hand-wringing over whether the Russians secretly have weapon technologies entirely unknown to the rest of the world. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not 'entirely unknown to the rest of the world', weapons developments are often secretive in many countries (including nuclear, biological, etc.), and when it comes to direct-energy weapons the Russian leadership announced themselves in 2012 that they were trying to develop this.Machinarium (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. there has been enough timer now for more than media speculation, as to a probable course. Either it existed (and therefore MEDRS applies), and experts can say what it was. Or is it still an unspecified condition (but MEDRS still applies) as doctors are still looking? Or it did not exist, and thus random speculation is OK. But I think we need an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK so how do we structure the RFC? Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is highlighting one of the common problems we run into in medical topics where even though MEDRS is very clear, the spirit of
WP:NOTNEWS is often forgotten. If anything, these are the types of topics where more care is needed to stick to MEDRS. The short of that is we really aren't supposed to use primary medical sources or news sources that report on them. Looking through some of the edits and talk page comments, it does look like there's been misunderstandings about MEDRS and a rework of the article needed. That said, it's probably better to work on each section piece by piece for sourcing issues. It could be some secondary sources have commented on older sources. KoA (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Given disputes as to the scope and inclusion criteria of this article should we Stubify? and start from scratch?
I'm not sure that something that broad won't just leave us in exactly the same position. I think we need to clarify whether this article needs to comply strictly to
WP:MEDRS as a starting place. If it does, then stubifying will likely be necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really, as once we have reduced it to about a line or two, we can then discuss scope and inclusion criteria, what is the page about, the allegation, the diagnosis or what? We need to really first decide what the article is about. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But OK
Try
Is this article about the alleged medical condition or accusations of an alleged attack?
My preferred language would be "Should the article about the alleged condition adhere strictly to
WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements?" Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Then go for it, I can't tell you what you think or want. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a malformed RFC - I do actually want your feedback. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are generally better suited for individual content to discuss. MEDRS already applies to medical content, so a broad RfC like that wouldn't really do anything. Any assertions about causes are going to fall under MEDRS, so it's probably better to draft content on that first focusing on just MEDRS sources, see if it gets traction, launch an RfC if needed, etc. and let that lead how the other sections are handled. In short, it's probably better to focus on drafting up text for discussion that would be the center of an RfC if one was done. KoA (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Wikipedia editors, it's not our place to determine if Havana Syndrome is real or a James Bond story. The article should reflect the breadth of viewpoints found in reliable sources, providing a balanced depiction of the subject. This encompasses a range of perspectives, covering both widely accepted medical opinions and significant political narratives, like the alleged Russian involvement. Restricting our sources solely to medical journal reviews would narrow the scope unduly, omitting crucial aspects of the discourse, particularly the latest investigate reports. FailedMusician (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on feedback from
WP:FRINGE/N and here I've thrown together a rough approximation of a version of this page that does not depend on newsmedia coverage and, instead, focuses on government reports and medical publications. This is far from perfect but I think it works as a first draft. Proposed draftSimonm223 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Your draft seems to rely heavily on sources that, for this topic, are primary. We can't solely depend on US government sources because there's significant disagreement among top US agencies about the nature and causes of Havana Syndrome, as highlighted by recent investigative report from Insider, Spiegel, and 60 Minutes, and all the reliable sources that covered it. FailedMusician (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft excluded parts of the timeline that depended wholly upon newsmedia. And, per exhaustive discussion, Insider, Sipegel, 60 Minutes, NYT, Buzzfeed, Washington Post, The Hill, et. al. do not constitute secondary sources from a
. At this point the only medical aspects that can be sourced appropriately appear to be the fact that some people are reporting some symptoms. It is unclear what the source of those symptoms is at the moment.
I'm sorry but I'm beginning to get frustrated with
WP:IDHT regarding the spurious notion that we can have an article that requires one standard of proof for science and a lower standard of proof for speculative fiction produced by journalists with unclear sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The investigative journalists do not focus on the science behind possible attacks and brain damage, but on a correlation between the movement of a well-known notorious Russian secret service unit and reported Havana syndrome cases. They also found a pattern among the victims all working against the interest of Russian foreign policy. Also, if you know the track record of the investigative journalists, you'd know about where the majority of their sources come from (hint: everything in Russia is for sale).Machinarium (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly how it works. Medical claims require a different standard of proof than all other claims on Wikipedia. See
If you want to do an RFC, you may try to establish a consensus for your view that journalists are making speculative fiction, and that only non-existent MEDRS may be used to cover this subject, limiting the scope of our article. FailedMusician (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of all that's Holy, let's not do a re-run of the car-crash RfC[31] about MEDRS sourcing at lab leak. MEDRS applies to
WP:NOTBMI: that is a firm Project-wide consensus we should not be trying to run-around. A better question would be about how appropriate news reportage is absent secondary sources, and/or whether having a mega-length "chronology" section (of primary/news reports, mainly) is due. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a horrible RFC. Yikes! Was unaware. I hate the idea of maintaining different evidentiary standards for something like this in a single article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI I think it would be more productive for ALL editors here to refresh themselves on the 3RR. Cheers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Concur. The cycle should ideally be
WP:3RR is a bright-line but edit-warring does not require three reverts in 24 hours to be established. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please all slow down. I think everybody should familiarise themselves better with
WP:MEDRS and when it does and does not apply before editing further. Some comments in the discussions above by some of the editors in this thread show some pretty egregious misunderstandings that will cause them to potentially complicate editing this article even further. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure why you are thinking that both can't be true - familiarize and understand 3RR and MEDRS. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I just think the reversions wouldn't be happening if
WP:MEDRS was better understood by all. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Gtoffoletto please advise under what logic causal claims of specific weapons are not BMI????? Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 what "causal claims of specific weapons" are you referring to exactly? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-lethal acoustic weapons" - come on let's not be coy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia to say or imply that X thing causes Y biomedical effect, whether X is a drug, a prayer, or an 'acoustic weapon', MEDRS sourcing is required. This should be beyond obvious. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will say no such thing. It will be covered as a claim attributed to reliable sources. No MEDRS is required for such attributed claims, and there are no MEDRS available anyway, so this discussion is moot. FailedMusician (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 'Person X says' in front of a biomedical claim does not absolve one from following MEDRS policy. If we can't source it to the proper standard we have to leave it out. If no MEDRS are available, again, we leave it out, using lower quality sources isn't an option.
WP:WL which has got users blocked in the past. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You may post an RFC to determine what you consider to be lower quality sources. In the absence of review articles in medical journals, I support the inclusion of controversial claims attributed to regular reliable news sources. FailedMusician (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to abide by
WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. If there are no decent sources to contextualize fringe claims, they need to be omitted. Bon courage (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This is
WP:NOTBMI
. It is an hypothesis just like the hypothesis that this could be caused by massive psychogenic effects.
We cover both because they are prominent within
WP:RS
.
No biomedical claim should be made as no appropriate sources are available yet per
Unprofessional CBS/60 Minutes report has re-ignited controversy
For most of the history of this article, a majority of editors made it to read like Havana Syndrome was definitely due to Cuban or Russian ray guns. They believed the MPI hypothesis was nuts, and the skeptical POV as reported in only a minority of media should be kept to a minimum. There were even comments about skeptical Wiki editors sticking to UFO, flat-earth, and bigfoot articles, and staying off "this MEDRS article". The release of the reports by the US government intelligence agencies pretty much ended the controversy that had this article mired in edit battles for years, and the tone of the page reversed itself back to allowing appropriate space for the MPI hypothesis. Then came the newest 60 Minutes report. It seems to have caused a reversal again, including removal of info on the just released NIH reports countering the earlier medical reports (see separate section below on that).
We're not going to give any preference for the MPI hypothesis unless the reliable sources do so, which they do not. All claims should be attributed and neutrality maintained. FailedMusician (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that there is not a clear consensus to give such preference of place to the CBS story as has been forced in. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the just released NIH reports countering the earlier medical reports (see separate section below on that)."
My concern is, no matter which rules the community decides should apply, the core important qualitative property of the article is that it should be accurate. We have in its current state, people editing the article either intentionally misleading readers to advance their view, or who are either ignorant of the scientific literature or scientifically illiterate. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You recently made a change from "Some scientists" to "Most scientists", claiming it better portrays the scientific consensus. But it seems all of the supporting sources for that claim trace back to one small team of scientists. It isn't at all clear this is a consensus, and rather looks more like a minority scientific opinion to me. Even if it were a consensus, "Most scientists have suggested" is poor language as of course most scientists have not studied or weighed in on the matter. The article should not mislead or seek to spin information towards a single POV. A psychogenic cause for most cases, is just one hypothesis, while the true causes are yet to be scientifically verified. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rebuttal you linked, is hyperbolic, childish, fallacious, and overall highly manipulative and misleading, in the context of this current discussion, for example, it states:
"Based on the assessments by the intelligence community and the results of the National Institutes of Health studies, Havana Syndrome is dead.",
I mean it is not false but it is hyperbolic. There is no evidence that Havana Syndrome is the result of any kind of weapon. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is objectively false. The NIH studies were never expected to be highly likely to find biomarkers of Havana syndrome, even if there was damage, and they did not conclude there was no damage. They were also under powered as they mention in their limitations sections. Finding biomarkers was a long shot, that failed, and only a first start. Biomarkers for neurodengeration or neurological damage can take years of research and higher powered studies to find. And the IC assessment was that it is "unlikely", with overall low confidence.
I would say the 60 minutes piece is equally fringe and misleading. We should not be republishing their claims which don't have any detailed medical research backing them up. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 60 minutes piece however reveals a lot of new information. What that information implies, and how strongly, is up for debate. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And since as an encyclopedia Wikipedia deals in knowledge and not "information" the source is of little use. We need good
WP:SECONDARY sourcing analysing the novel proposals it makes, Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Both the “Russian” and the “psychogenic” hypotheses are nothing more than that at this point.
Neither is confirmed. Both are pure speculation as far as we are concerned as no
WP:MEDRS
source has conclusively determined if this “syndrome” even really exists.
We should include both hypotheses as they are prominent among
WP:NOTBMI
).
We shouldn’t prefer one or the other hypothesis at this stage. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is going to have to be a small section linking to another Wiki page for alternative explanations, it appears this page is bias towards one theory. Whether or not this report is "James Bond," there are other explanations and some in the medical perfession have reversed their opinion (as stated on this page). Also, the 60 Minutes report collaborates other news stories about targeting of specific groups of agents mainly assigned to Russian counterintelligence and the lead investigator for the Pentahon, Greg Edgreen seems to collaborate other news stories. Lastly, as to whether this 60 minutes (I'm not talking about medical explanations) is bad source, name me one news organization who hasn't corrected or retracted many stories? I think a link on this page to a new wiki page for intelligence and alternative explanations is needed because there will be a constant WP:WAR on this wiki.
Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia generally does not do articles on 'alternative explanations', see
If this one is about a medical condition it should not be about the origins/story surrounding the medical condition: see Origin of COVID-19 versus COVID-19. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 is a huge topic, multiple articles are needed due to length concerns. I don't think that is needed here. At any rate the time to think about a split would be after all the redundant primary sourced stuff gets cleaned up. And if consensus turns out to be for stubifying the article, we obviously will not need a split.
It does amuse me that the response to all the media-notable conspiracism surrounding COVID-19 was just to gate it off from the actual medical science in a separate article. That shoudn't necessarily become a standard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point about spinning off an alternatives page for medical is fair, but the gatekeeping and warring here has taken new heights. I would support a page for origins focused on intelligence, history, specific intelligence agent groups affected and their experiences, location, links to Russia, etc. after this page gets cleaned up. Intelligence is not an exact science (you’ll be surprised what ends up on the President’s desk when it comes to intelligence) would be difficult to add here because this page has largely taken the focus of medical explanations and feels largely like a medical journal (which is fine).Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to summarize the actual scientific consensus
As far as my reading of the papers we have as sources go the actual scientific consensus, such as it is, is that there is no positive evidence to support a known weapon-type but most researchers feel hampered because of governmental secrecy surrounding novel weapon systems. The intelligence community seems to be, publicly, discounting that there is a novel weapon as the source of this condition but nobody actually trusts the US intelligence community to be truthful so this is not a significant data-point for scientists working on this. All of this means that there is a great deal of uncertainty. All that seems known for sure is that there is no evidence of neurological injuries among the affected population at levels that differ significantly from control populations. An absence of evidence is not, of course, evidence in and of itself. The material in the recent investigative report is of no validity, scientifically. As I've said many times before, it provides nothing that rises to the level of evidence. But again an absence of evidence is not evidence. The argument favoring weapons is largely that the population in question are people who would be likely targets for weapons. The argument favoring the psychogenic hypothesis is effectively
Occam's Razor
- we don't need to invoke the Russians to explain this situation. While I pretty openly cleave in a specific direction, as you would expect from a materialist who frequents the Fringe theory noticeboard, I'm also quite aware that neither of these are appropriate bases for discussing the causes of a medical condition.
I keep circling back to "we don't know enough to create a neutral article and should probably stubify this" but I know that's a deeply unpopular position. So two questions:
excluding what journalists think will sell, and based on the best quality research we have, am I misinterpreting anything here?
assuming my interpretation is reasonable above do we have any better solution than either stubification or just throwing in a bunch of speculation as to causes? Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add that there could also be a combination of different causes. The hypothesis that psychogenic illness is responsible for some or most cases is not incompatible with the hypothesis that some were victims of an attack and other possible causes. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:891E:B166:EF3C:53A4 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that reflected in the literature or is that speculation? Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the scientific community has studied the issue well enough for there to be any real consensus other than that there isn't a consensus to speak of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should stub this. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first I disagreed with this but it is clear that @
Please do not cast aspirations against other editors on this article talk page. FailedMusician (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that casting aspirations? You and Gtoffoletto are insistent that content that makes a medical claim that lacks medical backing be added to the article, that can be seen by the very edits you have been making. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your critique of journalists' motivations is inappropriate here and undermines your argument. To answer your first question, your assertion of no neurological injury evidence and dismissal of the weapon theory through Occam's Razor indicates a misinterpretation of sources. As some scientists have explained, there is possibility that some incidents may have been caused by a weapon, while others could stem from the hysteria that the Soviet and later Russian spies intended to induce with such a weapon. If you don't have any respect for the journalists of the sources Wikipedia usually considers reliable, such as those who published the investigative report about those experiments, then there is really no point in these discussions. As for your second question, the idea of drastically trimming the article of content and sources doesn't seem to solve any substantive issue; other than to cater to a skewed interpretation that the evidence unequivocally favours one hypothesis, which contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. FailedMusician (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the soviet" - what????? And yes the vast majority of evidence supports that there were no hostile adverse actions using scifi space lasers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking that, it's clear you haven't read the latest investigative report [32], and nor are you familiar with Relman's analysis of recent NIH studies purportedly showing no evidence of neurological injuries [33]. Your reference to "space lasers" suggests you've also missed the MEDRS-compliant review article that discusses different types of weapons [34]. FailedMusician (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the latest investigative report. I found it deeply unconvincing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the Relman comments, "neither those reports, nor the two new studies, rule out the possibility that some individuals have been attacked and injured" is entirely dissimilar from "we have evidence some individuals have been attacked and injured." As I've said repeatedly, absence of evidence is not evidence. Relman has drawn attention to an absence of evidence. This is why we should be stubbing this article rather than filling it with speculation. The scientific consensus is "we don't know." The science fictional consensus preferred by sensationalist media is inappropriate for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a specific example of an edit where it has been definitively stated, either in the talk page discussions or within the article itself, that the cause of all or even specific cases was a weapon? I haven't seen anything like that. Conversely, I've seen many instances where you've confidently asserted the non-involvement of weapons [35], despite sources saying it is a possibility. Wikipedia's guidelines strictly prohibit the introduction of personal viewpoints into editing, as outlined in
You say sci-fi space lasers, but the it was the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine that concluded that pulsed microwave energy a likely explanation for some of the cases.
"Second, after considering the information available to it and a set of possible mechanisms, the committee felt that many of the distinctive and acute signs, symptoms, and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy. Studies published in the open literature more than a half century ago and over the subsequent decades by Western and Soviet sources provide circumstantial support for this possible mechanism. Other mechanisms may play reinforcing or additive effects, producing some of the nonspecific, chronic signs and symptoms, such as persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, a functional vestibular disorder, and psychological conditions."
The effect that was hypothesized to have been a cause has been known about by scientists since the 60's. And multiple independent scientists who are experts in the relevant fields (e.g., Lin, and Foster) have weighed in saying a weapon based on this effect that could produce the symptoms of victims is plausible. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report you cited is from 2020 and further research has debunked this. Plus isn't the whole claim now from the non-mass psychosis camp GRU acoustic weapons? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further research has not debunked this although one would easily get the false impression that were the case from reading various news articles that misrepresented the studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting there is a source which considers how Occam's razor applies to Havana Syndrome:
Danek, Adrian; Rainer, Thomas; Della Sala, Sergio (June 30, 2022). "Ockham's razor, not a barber's weapon but a writer's tool". Brain. 145 (6): 1870–1873.
OK this I want to read... Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that was a fun piece. I'm not sure we can really effectively use it in the context of this article but thank you for sharing a delightful article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain what the debate here is? The NY Times reported on two major studies ... why was that removed from the article? The list of major studies alrady exists in this article, and that chronological list is very encyclopedic. I read the above comments here in Talk page, and I cannot understand the objection to including those two reports (as referenced by NY Times and MANY other major media outlets. Noleander (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this Talk page where the relevant
WP:BMI. The article is in a hellish mess yes - let's not worsen it. Bon courage (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
So let me get this straight... The original JAMA studies and discussions of those in the media are MEDRS, but the subsequent NIH studies -- also reported on in the same media because they countered the original studies -- are not MEDRS? What am I misunderstanding? Rp2006 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"because they countered the original studies"
This isn't true. You seem to have gotten the false impression from those news articles, which is indicative of the problem in basing encyclopedic knowledge on early phase medical science on ordinary news reports. Anyone who delves deeper into almost any scientific topic knows that news articles routinely misrepresent scientific results. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here are the comments from the NIH about the MRI study.
“While we did not identify significant differences in participants with AHIs, it’s important to acknowledge that these symptoms are very real, cause significant disruption in the lives of those affected and can be quite prolonged, disabling and difficult to treat.”
“A lack of evidence for an MRI-detectable difference between individuals with AHIs and controls does not exclude that an adverse event impacting the brain occurred at the time of the AHI,” said Carlo Pierpaoli, M.D., Ph.D., senior investigator and chief of the Laboratory on Quantitative Medical Imaging at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, part of NIH, and lead author on the neuroimaging paper. “It is possible that individuals with an AHI may be experiencing the results of an event that led to their symptoms, but the injury did not produce the long-term neuroimaging changes that are typically observed after severe trauma or stroke. We hope these results will alleviate concerns about AHI being associated with severe neurodegenerative changes in the brain.”
The short summary of the takeaway of the MRI study, quoting from the paper itself, is this:
"...These findings suggest that the origin of the symptoms of participants with AHIs may not be linked to an MRI-identifiable injury to the brain...This study has several limitations. First, the sample size of the control population was small, and not all control participants were matched vocationally to the participants with AHIs..."
There is no any scientific consensus on this subject. There is nothing to summarize. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we should stubify the article as it deals with a medical condition, and create a seperate article regarding the media narrative. Or at least stubify the causes section to only include medrs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the "syndrome" here does not mean any actual (scientifically proven) medical condition, but rather a common name of the subject. This is the reason WP:MEDRS is not applicable to this page as a whole. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... In fact, as I recall, the original name of this article was "Sonic attacks in Cuba" because Trump and the US gov't claimed publicly that they "knew" the Cubans had done just that before any medical studies were even performed. Then when it became apparent that "sonic weapons" could not do the (claimed) organic damage, the gov't backed off that claim, and other types of weapons were proposed. So the article became "Health attacks in Cuba." THEN when scientists pushed back on THAT as well, the article became just "Anomalous health incidents." See a pattern folks? But the press dubbed it "Havana Syndrome," and thus we have the current name for the article. To me this indicates that the term Havana Syndrome is actually meaningless medically. It is a catch-all description for AHI - anomalous symptoms and illnesses that can be due to a wide variety of unrelated things - including normal sickness and reframing of such ailments due to the belief one is under attack. (Ask any "Targeted individual" about this! Many times these delusional people have vandalized this article with their personal claims of being attacked by such weaponry for decades, and their belief that Havana Syndrome proves their case. It is actually very sad.) Thus IMHO (as well as in the opinion of some scientists mentioned in the article), HS is not a specific medical "disease" needing MEDRS rules. (BTW, the name chain is from memory as I know of no way to discover old article titles! I'd love to know if there is a way.) Rp2006 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NIH reports deleted?
Why was all the info about the March 2024 NIH reports funded by the US gov't (and published in JAMA) deleted from this article? This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats. Rp2006 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information was removed due to a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines as they relate to this topic. I support restoring the content, citing any of the credible sources mentioned below, with clear attribution of all claims to these sources.
This is historically important info ← have you got a source saying that? Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor expressed their view on the historical significance of the NIH study, a perspective I share. This viewpoint doesn't require a source for our discussion since it wasn't suggested to be directly included in the article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I apply
Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bon courage Please note that talk page guidelines prohibit the behaviour you're displaying here. The editor didn't propose adding their personal opinion to the article in relation to the historically importance of the NIH study, and your comments here lack a policy-based rationale for including or excluding the content in question, much like in discussions above. Continued actions of this nature, and any further veiled threats [36], will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is
not a forum so personal views have no place here, unless to inform article content. In which case they need to be evidenced. Evidence that something was "historically significant" would be coverage from a history RS, or a statement in RS to that effect. Bon courage (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It is clear that @Rp2006 expressed an opinion on the NIH study's historical significance to support its inclusion in the article. Yet, you have not offered your opinion on the matter or the sources I've provided above. FailedMusician (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the
WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as
Just so that I understand your argument, for the wording of an RFC, are you saying that news sources, even when there are ten of them, can't be used for attributed claims? FailedMusician (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not about biomedical information, no. This is pretty basic sourcing stuff. I would suggest you seek clarification about this at
Given the lack of consensus among editors on distinguishing between biomedical information and the inclusion of news sources for the subject's political aspects, an RFC could determine the article's content scope and sourcing standards. Indeed we can post the RFC to WP:RSN to draw in more editors. FailedMusician (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS
sources. Always.
Since we are talking about
WP:PRIMARY
medical studies it is unlikely that they could be used to support any kind of statement on Wikipedia.
As far as the encyclopedia is concerned they are useless as they are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you include political comments made by non-experts in news reports that are associated with the potential causes, you could just as well include comments made that the IC's recent conclusion that a foreign adversary attack is unlikely may have been influenced by ulterior motivates.
I think neither speculation that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed, nor speculation that the attack hypothesis was downplayed are worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. Other speculations coming from news commentators, such as financial incentives, etc, aren't worthy of including either. Political drama playing out in the news media is polarized, highly speculative, and generally very unreliable. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this information isn't notable, then neither is 40% of what is on the page right now. The exact same type of RS is being used. So let's put it in or start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who opposes inclusion of the 2024 NIH reports (as reported by major RS such as NY Times, BBC, etc) explain the opposition? I read the comments above and I don't grasp the opposition. Are the opposers suggesting that the entire "Chronology of investigations, studies... " section should be deleted? That section seems exceedingly encyclopedic, because H.S. is an evolving situation, and new data is coming out every few months. A chronology of the history seems very encyclopedic. Or is the opposition based on the fact that ALL data from the article related to politics and espionage should be deleted (leaving only medical info)? Even if that were the appproach: the NIH studies were 100% medical. Or is the opposition related to the fact that NIH studies are primary sources? But they were noted by many major media sources. Noleander (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these are unreliable sources. Primary research reported on by new organisations is notoriously poor. We have really good sources on this, so why is the barrel being scraped? Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the NIH reports from JAMA are unreliable? Or are you saying the NY Times is unreliable? What about other studies in years 2018 to 2023 (listed in the Studies section) ... do you have the same opinion of those prior studies? Do you propose removing the entire "Studies" section? When you say "we have really good sources" which specific sources are you considering? I ask all these questions because your point seems a bit irrational, no offense. Noleander (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's primary research, so unverified. Primary research is often wrong; read
WP:WHYMEDRS if you want some background. The NYT is an unreliable sourcer for health content (like all newspapers). This is well established consensus on Wikipedia, for very good reasons. To be clear all the primary research should go: the article needs a major haircut. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The US gov't sponsored the early JAMA reports finding supposed evidence of energy weapon attacks, and it and the media used this result to claim attacks had occurred. And of course this was widely (and sensationally) covered in the media. How is this NOT acceptable to report on here? And then the US gov't sponsored another set of studies - also published in JAMA - which largely contradicted the early JAMA reports. And the media also reported this. And this information also should not be in this article? Rp2006 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because as you can see the primary studies are often contradictory/unreliable. Which one is right? We wait for the matter to be settled through the process of science. That's what Reviews are made for @
So then, you are advocating removing refs to the JAMA reports in the section "Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis"? Rp2006 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quality sources
This is a
WP:MEDRS
:
Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023). "Havana syndrome: a scoping review of the existing literature". Rev Environ Health (Review). 38 (4): 655–661.
It gives a round-up of the literature base and runs through the various hypotheses.
Here is another (same quality) review – which we already cite – but very recent:
WP:MEDRS sources can be removed from the article, and these can do all the heavy lifting for those aspects. We would follow the usual approach of saying "Review X said this, review Y said that", Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The Asadi-Pooya review looks pretty solid. The Bartholomew article is a "Brief Report", which is apparently supposed to provide a "brief account of innovative work in the field" [37], and it reads somewhat more like a commentary piece rather than a review article, so I'd be less inclined to give that a lot of weight. Don't currently have a view on to what extent other sources should be removed from the article. Tristario (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's categorized by the publisher/Pubmed as a "review" and the journal is solid. Using unreliable sources is bad. Using them when reliable sources are available is double bad. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they group Brief Reports together with editorials, it seems to me it may not quite be on the same level as a typical review article, and it doesn't look like a typical one. It's probably usable, I just wouldn't give it a lot of weight. I think you're right that in parts the sourcing on this article isn't great, although there are questions about what does and doesn't count as Biomedical Information, and some of these reports by eg. NASEM and the CIA seem like they should be included. Tristario (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not a lot of weight. This is the kind of discussion we should be having, weighing high quality sources. When the article is re-based on those it may be an idea to consider the weaker ones. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the second source doesn’t look at the “same level as a typical review article” like the first one. I also wouldn't give it a lot of weight and wouldn’t make any final conclusions based off of it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before removing any sources from the article, editors need to establish a consensus on which claims are biomedical and require a higher standard of medical sourcing, and which can be considered as non-biomedical information (WP:NOTBMI), thus allowing the use of standard news sources. Discussions both here [38] and on the fringe noticeboard [39] indicate a consensus that as long as they are correctly attributed, MEDRS may not apply as a restriction of the article's scope. Asadi-Pooya concludes only that Havana syndrome as a neurological disorder with unknown causes, acknowledging the study's own limitations, and calling for further investigation. FailedMusician (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the current state of knowledge, based on a comprehensive literature review in a peer-reviewed review article in a reputable journal. We can't swap in editors' takes on the matter. This is Wikipedia 101. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the current state of knowledge in medicine, but the article subject isn't limited to medical aspects, so I would oppose deleting other content and their supporting sources. FailedMusician (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. For content that doesn't have a biomedical aspect different sourcing standard apply. But the basis should still be secondary. Is there any actual
WP:BESTSOURCES need to be the article foundation. Bon courage (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
When the top MEDRS, like the one you provided above acknowledges its own limitations, then MEDRS isn't better than regular RS. FailedMusician (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether to an extent a solution to this is to have a section which sticks to more
WP:MEDRS
compliant sources, which we present as focusing on the more "medical" side of things, and then have a number of these other non-MEDRS sources, those that aren't outright excluded, in another section(s) which we present as more focused on the social, political and event focused side of things. So then we can include this other pertinent information, but not present it as being medical content.
That would be tricky to do. But to give something more concrete, I wouldn't mind if we deleted most of the "Possible causes of Havana syndrome" section, moved some parts of it to chronology, and then just used that section for MEDRS compliant content. Tristario (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge lies in differentiating the parts of this subject that are clearly biomedical, such as symptoms and treatments, from those that are not, such as the cause. If the alleged cause of some cases was a weapon, as reported by some sources like the recent investigative report by The Insider, then that isn't strictly biomedical. The review article above acknowledging its own limitations in respect to agencies not sharing data, so there may never be MEDRS with definitive conclusions on this topic. FailedMusician (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you state or imply something "caused" a biomedical effect, that's
WP:MEDRS giving a comprehensive survey of the various hypotheses. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Right, if they say it happened they are saying the syndrome is real, that is a medical diagnosis. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death is considered a biomedical condition. Should your view of WP:BMI then apply to all "Death" sections on the WP? A death can be caused by a bullet. Does that mean an article such as the
WP:WL
way of interpreting the guidelines.
Those parts of the article that trully discuss the biomedical information (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc) are WP:BMI and should use WP:MEDRS, no one on this talk page seems to disagree with that. But the logic that "if part of the article discusses WP:BMI, then all of the article is WP:BMI" is faulty. This article clearly describes a complex subject, which has biomedical, diplomatic and political sides to it. The word "Syndrome" in its colloquial name is not a reason to strictly reduce the whole discussion/encyclopedic description of a discussion to a biomedical aspect.
Maybe a good idea would be to rework/reword this article to be an article about an event. That looks like a better alternative to this never-ending debate of WP:BMI/WP:NOTBMI and whether the syndrome exists, doesn't exist or is not a medical condition. And it is definitely never-ending because there is no reason to expect that we can get several papers from WP:MEDRS reaching a consensus and a definitive result in the foreseeable future. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please remember
How does a comment on the applicability of WP:BMI/WP:MEDRS and the potential rework of the article fall under WP:NOTFORUM? TinyClayMan (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has died of Havana Syndrome. Your speculation of whether death should be treated per
WP:MEDRS broadly is not apropos to anything on this article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I was not saying that someone has. As for the broad implementation of WP:BMI, then that is exactly what I tried to say in relation to the comment by @Bon courage, to which I replied to. I am surprised there is a need to explain the reason for indentation in front of the talk page messages. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm surprised I have to explain that bringing up matters entirely unrelated to article content on an article talk page is
WP:NOTFORUM territory. Yet here we are. So let's just close this unproductive line of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Does that mean an article such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? ← it is a common misconception that
WP:ECREE in fact applies everywhere. Any claim about energy weapons and their effects would require strong sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Great job.
“In conclusion, Havana syndrome is a nonspecific neurological illness with an unidentified causative factor(s), an acute phase of auditory-vestibular symptoms and a chronic phase of nonspecific neurobehavioral symptoms. This syndrome should be considered and investigated as a health concern, and not as a political issue.”
from the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review seems pretty solid as a starting point for the medical section of the article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is the proper place to start the medical section of the article:
"Using advanced imaging techniques and in-depth clinical assessments, a research team at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found no significant evidence of MRI-detectable brain injury, nor differences in most clinical measures compared to controls, among a group of federal employees who experienced anomalous health incidents (AHIs)."
The JAMA, JASON and NASEM studies are of the exact same quality. Do you support cutting them from the article? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if they're primary or secondary sources. The NASEM one is a review, not a primary study, but the JAMA one is a primary study. Maybe we can include some primary studies according to
Yes I agree with your reading of MEDRS, but this article is also FRINGE and PARITY comes into play. The idea that HS is even a single thing is predicated on dodgy fMRI PRIMARY studies. So once you let the sketchy claim in the door in violation of MEDRS, you can't then change the standards to keep legitimate SECONDARY domain expert RS refutations of that claim off the page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bartholomew [40] of the same quality as Asadi-Pooya [41]? Is Bartholomew a "review"? (edited for clarity) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Not a proper review, I believe @
WP:WEIGHT. I don't believe it can be placed on the same level as the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The 2024 Bartholomew review should be given less weight than the other review for reasons I mentioned above. But it should still be included, I think, given the paucity of MEDRS sources we have on this. I'd prefer it if anything that is particularly clearly an opinion was attributed to the authors in some way eg. Bartholomew and Baloh wrote that... --Tristario (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use both reviews. Relatively equal weighting. The Bartholomew review may be shorter but it is also more recent and I don't think it should be under-weighted. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 months of difference is nothing for reviews. They are contemporary. The fact they reach such different conclusions despite being contemporary is problematic. Since most seem to agree Bartholomew et al is not a proper review we should be even more cautious and give it proper
Bartholomew et al is usable, but as I and others have noted, it does not resemble a proper review article, let alone a systematic one. Although more recent than the Asadi-Pooya review article, we cannot rely on Bartholomew et al to represent a scientific consensus in support of the MPI hypothesis, despite the authors' intentions. Establishing such a consensus requires multiple review articles that convey more definitive conclusions. FailedMusician (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you base the claim that the brain RF wave acause can solely be supported by one article, the Asadi-Pooya article. Just so my vote gets counted, I support the inclusion of both articles, on the condition that the Asadi-Pooya is properly noted to be old and overall debunked by new evidence. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are good sources per MEDRS. Also, some people might be mistaken about the "governmental agencies". Please check Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations: Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies, the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. "Statements and information". Meaning that something like this would be a good sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a press release about a primary study (NIH does a lot of press releases like that for studies it does or funds), that MEDRS section is talking more about things like "Guidelines and position statements". A press release like this isn't anything like an official position of the NIH, or official guidance from the NIH. Whether we'd include that study would be according to the guidance at
Yeah, a press release is worse even as a source than the primary source itself. Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the cited primary studies, this is obviously a
WP:SECONDARY, and it is issued by NIH as an organization, even as a news report. Hence, I believe it satisfies the letter of WP:MEDRS. I agree it is less reliable than an official CDC guideline, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please focus the discussion about the NIH studies in the section above
WP:BALASP. This aligns with the ongoing RFC below, which addresses scenarios like when the primary source is widely reported in major media. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
Now, citing this NIH report, it says: Forty-one percent of participants in the AHI group, from nearly every geographic area, met the criteria for functional neurological disorders (FNDs), a group of common neurological movement disorders caused by an abnormality in how the brain functions, or had significant somatic symptoms. FNDs can be associated with depression and anxiety, and high stress. Most of the AHI group with FND met specific criteria to enable the diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, also known as PPPD. OK. This is one of several possible explanations to be mentioned on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are good sources. There is too much cherry picking going on here in Talk. There is no policy that says you can go "this reads to me like blah-blah-blah". We don't do vibe checks. If it's a relevant expert in the field published in RS it's MEDRS and SECONDARY.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how
WP:BMI as their opinions are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
We don't get to demote a source because we think it, in your words, "reads more like an editorial/commentary". That's your judgement, but not POLICY. Baloh is in RS. It's a review. He's an expert. It counts as MEDRS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can demote sources. That's the role of editors here. And several editors have challenged that it is a review. They journal itself does not seem to label it as such. The only mention of a "review" is the one line in the methodology section written by the author saying "Method: A review of the literature." That's it. No other details are offered. That is unacceptable and not how reviews work. If you compare to the other source you can see it clearly presents its methodology in detail including study selection method, sources list, guidelines for inclusion etc. Also: it is labeled as a Review in the title and is published on a Journal that focuses exclusively on review articles. The differences are quite evident. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 17:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's rephrase: the argument for why to demote this source is insufficient as it mostly hinges on artifacts of the article's brevity. I don't find that a compelling reason to treat it as non-RS. I will concur that, ideally, secondary sources ahould be conducted by people who didn't execute the primary sources but, with only two reviews to draw from, I fear that the impact to neutrality would be far greater excluding this source than if we were to include it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely goes beyond the "article's brevity". This is simply not a review and the journal does not call it as such. The authors mostly cite their own studies and simply appear to support their own conclusions without discussing other viewpoints. Also: they include significantly less sources than the other review despite being published later (32 sources cited in the first review vs. 20 sources cited in this article). Why did they discard the other evidence? They didn't provide any reasoning for it since no methodology is indicated. Those are major red flags that force us to conclude that this article is of lower quality per
No. Very weak yes. (tl;dr: Asadi-Pooya, 2022 should get more
WP:WEIGHT
than Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023) The Asadi-Pooya, 2022 report is indeed a neutral review article that summarizes the existing research, with careful formulation of the parts that are not part of an established consensus by the scientific community. Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 is different: its general tone is polemic and it obviously works towards reinforcing its' authors previous claims/opinions (from their previous publications) – for one, the "Aims" section from the publication already contains the expected conclusion. The two also differ in the choice of articles for the review: the Asadi-Pooya "Methods" section clearly describes why the studies were chosen (basically, all existing medical studies which were relevant and were found based on searched words). In comparison, the Bartholomew & Baloh review's choice of sources is unclear and unexhaustive. Their review generally follows a formula "Cite a single claim from a source and then debunk it with another single claim" with the debunking claim sometimes coming from the authors, and not another source (even when the claim lies outside the area of expertise for Bartholomew, i.e. medical sociology, and Baloh, i.e. neurology). In addition to studies it also cites a combination of press statements, media publications and a single authors' personal communication source, which are mostly used by the authors to address common misperceptions about MPI – and that part of the publication is not a review of primary medical sources at all.
While parts of B&B, 2023 do fit the
WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
100% agree, great rundown. I think your "very weak yes" equals my view when I say "Not a proper review". The conclusion is the same: "it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022". Maybe you should clear that up so as to make it explicit where you stand to someone reading this quickly. I think we have a pretty strong consensus at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no strong consensus here. TinyClayMan is literally tone policing. We don't get to do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TinyClayMan correctly checked the sources cited by the paper. And found them lacking. Which is pretty clear if one compares it to the other proper review. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Asadi-Pooya article relies on sources that have since been debunked/superceded, such as the NIH report saying it was likely RF wave weapons, which they have rolled back on saying there is no damage to syndrome "sufferers" brains, and goes against the consensus of the entire intelligence community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a strong MEDRS review as the claim that Radio Frequency was the cause comes SOLELY from a single citation to a NASEM report to a Senate standing committee, which at this point is four years old. And yes, the consensus of the intelligence community, as you just stated, is that it is very unlikely. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with that review you can publish your own review in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can cite it. Until then you are doing original research
WP:OR which is not allowed on Wikipedia. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not the one advocating for inclusion, also see
Unfortunately consensus is against you so give it a rest. You are the only one proposing to ignore the Asadi-Pooya review. There is no doubt that it is a review of high quality that conforms to
WP:MEDRS and it is included in the article. The only "review" in doubt is the Bartholomew review which most editors in this discussion believe is of lesser quality. Express your view on that if you wish in your own comment articulating your thoughts but let's reduce the non constructive discussions or this talk page will explode. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Its already mentioned in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the point of this discussion is what weight to give to the Bartholomew's article and if it is a proper "review". I'll maybe clarify the question above. Let's keep the discussion orderly. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed that Bartholomew is clearly marked as a "Brief Report" by the publishing journal[42]. Here is their description of what Brief Reports are: [43]. I think that is a clear and incontrovertible indication it should not be treated as a review and definitely not given the same weight as Asadi-Pooya. Case closed? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a review of the literature, even if it is 'brief'. That's not a 'clear and incontrovertible indication' of anything.
This is getting a little bit tedious. Reviews aren't reviews if they don't support specific POVs seems to be the gist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal states clearly it is a "Brief report". If it were a literature review it would have an appropriate structure and it would be marked as a "Review article" such as here. Brief reports are absolutely not literature reviews (it absolutely does not mean "brief review") and are at the bottom of
WP:MEDASSESS scale with "Case-Controlled Studies/Case Series/Reports" instead of a the top. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
We have literally already discussed this, see LITERALLY the first response to bon courage in this very thread. There is no way you JUST noticed this as you participated in this thread. You are just
WP:BLUDGEONing
by posting this again. We get it, you don't think it counts. Others think the Bartholomew review is still a review of the literature on the topic, albeit brief, yet it is still a review. Yet you conclusively say "case closed' - the article is also subjected to a double blind peer review so I am only more confident that it should be included as a reliable source. What levels of peer review were the Asadi-Pooya article subjected to?
A 'Brief report' is not mutually exclusive with being a literature review. One way we can tell this is a literature review is by this text, quoted from the source at issue: Method: A review of the literature.
Seems I missed a similar comment above. Even more surprised we are still discussing about this. According to the publisher: Editorials and Brief Reports. Editorials are generally invited by the Editor and reflect on topics of current controversy or to serve as introductions to themed editions of the journal. Brief reports will be up to 1,000 words in length and provide a brief account of innovative work in the field. and they are clearly separate from Review Articles will, in a scholarly fashion, summarise an important area of the literature.[44]. This discussion should have been over a long time ago. Calling this article a review is demonstrably false. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're concerned with what sources actually are (in this case as demonstrated by a direct quotation), not with categories that do not actually mean what you seem to think they mean. Publisher categories don't actually have any bearing on Wikipedia or its policy requirements. Also, please stop trying to shut down discussions - we get that you disagree, but that you disagree does not mean that discussions will simply end and endorse your personal view of the matter.
They have a bearing if their status as a review article is being challenged. This is clearly not a normal review article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reviews and summarizes academic literature - it is a review article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It calls itself a review, but otherwise it is disputed if we can call it that. FailedMusician (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhhh do you think the article doesn't review and summarize academic literature? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. And several (most?) other editors agree. Per
In the #Adding the new investigative report? talk page section primary works by James C. Lin describing the effects caused by exposure to microwave and RF radiation were brought up earlier this month (and were subsequently forgotten in the following discussions). His statement, given to Guardian, is also cited on the article page[1].
There is a review article by him on the related subject
James C Lin; Zhangwei Wang (June 2007). "Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds". Health Physics (Review). 92 (6): 621–628.
The author's level of expertise on the subject is clear from the "About the author" section on the monograph's page. There is a problem with accessing these sources as they are behind a paywall (leaving only the chapters' and the article's abstracts), but they might be available through
WP:LIBRARY (definitely available through shadow libraries). I think that these sources can be used for the section of the article devoted to potential causes. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Absolutely. He is a top expert on the subject. Are they accessible via Wikipedia library? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. I could get electronic copies from the uni library though, but are we sure they are the first one is even due for this article? Wouldn't they it need to mention Havana syndrome directly (which the first one couldn't possibly)? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree only the second one is relevant here. I managed to read some of it through google books using the search and preview feature. Here are some selected quotes: "Many have come to believe that the microwave auditory effect — induced by a targeted beam of high peak-power pulsed microwave radiation — may be the most likely scientific explanation for the sonic attack [Best, 2017; Hambling, 2017; Hignett, 2017; Broad, 2018; Deng, 2018]. Of course, until the truth is revealed, this specific matter will remain somewhat of a mystery." and "It is not clear whether a weapon that covertly uses sonic energy to injure people exists today." "...the required technology is mature and for the most part, commercially available or readily adaptable from existing microwave radar systems."{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should use this source. Something published by Springer and written by an expert (formerly a professor in "bioengineering" as well as "physiology and biophysics") has to meet the threshold for inclusion, and feel free to reach out if you want a pdf-copy. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to stick to MEDRS even for experts. @Gtoffoletto did you mention a secondary source among those? Could you highlight that one? Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
according to
WP:MEDRS:Ideal sources for biomedical information include: … academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; so this is a very strong source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Great. If Lin is MEDRS in your book than so too is Repacholi.
"Factors that decrease the likelihood that the sounds perceived by embassy staff were due microwave hearing include: * Huge peak and average microwave power densities would be needed to elicit the sensation of "a loud sound". This would require large microwave generating equipment, such as military radars used close to the target. * Embassy staff did not report any thermal sensation or feeling of warmth that results from exposure to high power microwaves. * There were no reports of electromagnetic interference that would certainly result from exposure to high power microwaves. * The reported directional nature of the sound does not fit the description of the microwave hearing effect. Finally it would be technically challenging to produce RF equipment that could produce loud sounds. The committee produced no convincing evidence that pulsed RF at high or low power can produce the symptoms reported by US embassy personnel in Havana and China. Mass psychogenic illness and related psychological mechanisms remain a plausible explanation for the symptoms."[45]https://www.jeic-emf.jp/english/assets/files/pdf/whats_new/20201220RRG_Public(ENG).pdf
And Foster, Garrett, and Ziskin:
"We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined. There are easier ways to harass or harm an adversary and using directed energy weapons against people might be ill-advised for a variety of other reasons as well."[46]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733248/
All mentions of 60 Minutes report deleted from page
As of this post, all mention of the 2024 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel report has been removed from this page. Some editors argue that the report is "junk," that this is a MEDRS article, and some have resorted to attacks against editors suggesting they believe in UFOs, bigfoot, and want this to be a "James Bond article." As I have previously stated, it is not the job of Wikipedians to determine what is true or false. Our job is to simply restate what reliable sources state on a topic. 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel are reliable sources so WP:FRINGE does not apply here as some suggest. A one-sentence section that was previously removed should be re-added. One possible wording is below:
"On March 31, 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that their investigators had uncovered evidence that the Russian government as directed by Vladimir Putin had perpetrated the attacks for the purpose of retribution against specific individuals through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons."
No claim is made here that the report is true or false. We are merely reporting what RS on the topic have stated. To ignore adding this in the article would be editorial misconduct and biased through omitting information based on the personal beliefs of editors about what is/is not worthy of inclusion. This topic has created significant media attention from reliable sources and to not include it in this article, again, shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. This article is not solely a MEDRS article and claiming MEDRS should not be used to remove any content from a non-journal article if such content is widely reported from reliable sources. Again, the article is not taking a position on this claim, but we must include a mention of this claim. BootsED (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should only include studies & results produced by professional scientists & physicians; OR reliable media sources reporting on studies by professionals. BUT when a media source (CBS, Insider etc) do their own investigation, that does not rise to the level needed by this article. Those particular media, in particular, are very sensational (60 minutes has made MANY mistakes over the years they've had to retract). Noleander (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report was covered by a very wide array of reliable sources, including the BBC, CNN, CBS, DW, Le Monde, WashPo, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, etc. There were also an official responses from the US and Russian governments, raising it to the level of
I have moved it to the chronology section as it is more appropriate there. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should definitely be conservative in how we report this, but I think removing this entirely from the article is an overly broad application of
WP:BMI. I probably wouldn't put this under the "possible causes" section though, and I would use wording even more conservative than what you have suggested, eg. I wouldn't say "the attacks". I would try to objectively as possible describe what the investigation said, and try the best to avoid anything claiming causation or making biomedical claims. Which may entail excluding parts of what the investigation said Tristario (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. There is a firm consensus for inclusion in the discussions above. Editors @Bon courage and @LegalSmeagolian do not have consensus for their removal of this content. Ping @El C. FailedMusician (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously not a consensus. And including content because there is no consensus for exclusion, is you did, is an inversion of what should happen. Maybe start a RfC is you're so keen on this? But in general this article needs to slim down a lot, not bulk up with junk. Bon courage (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wouldn't mind a formal RfC with pinging a larger community then just us Havana-heads in here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, @Simonm223 expressed highly conditional support that it would not be included in the way it is currently being proposed to be included, and @Slatersteven did not express support for inclusion, was completely neutral erring on the side of not inclusion "I have already stated above, we need only 1 mention of this (at best)." (emphasis added). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus to include the 60 minutes investigation in the article should be abundantly clear. Anyone entirely removing it is clearly doing so against consensus at this point and should stop. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 05:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was due mention but should have been treated as a notable fringe view. I have been very consistent about this. If it is not presented as fringe it should be excluded. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think a sentence or two might be due, sourced to the BBC which has a secondary-ish take which we would need to align to (i.e. "Media reports further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons"). Media reports have fuelled a view, yup. That's a good independent take. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be satisfactory; I don't want to see causal claims coming from that report. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be removed from the causes section but I understand wanting to include it in the chronology section. However I am not sure you have the consensus you claim for inclusion, as it seems multiple edits, aka @Bon courage, myself, @Simonm223, and a few others disagree with at least how it is being included. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire chronology section needs to be replaced by a couple of succint, well-sourced paragraphs. It it mostly poorly sourced and an excuse for an unencyclopedic dumping ground of undigested content. Bon courage (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting because Slatersteven removed it from the Chronological section yesterday, saying it is already in the Causes section you removed it from. There is in fact a majority in favour of including the content in the article, and moving the it to the Chronological section after I reinstated it to the Causes section, based on the argument that it needs MEDRS, makes no sense. No sources in the Causes section are MEDRS. Both of you are edit warring. FailedMusician (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are too, heavily, while completely mis-stating policy, Bon courage (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contest that any edit warring is occuring on my or your end. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage, you just made a couple of massive deletions to the page claiming original research or primary sources. BootsED (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We don't want original research or undue primary sourcing, surely. Bon courage (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content you deleted was not OR or primary sources. For instance, one was a secondary source from Politico describing US intelligence agencies reporting on H.S. to members of Congress. This does not fall under OR or primary sources. BootsED (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019 JAMA report and commentary should also have not have been deleted. They are part of the narrative of events. Calling NYtimes "unreliable" is just ridiculous. FailedMusician (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is this not a medical condition article, its a narrative of an event article? So you would be in favor of splitting the article, correct? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal, again, this is not solely a MEDRS article. MEDRS should not be used to deny including widely-reported RS on a topic that is not solely a biomedical article. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine the truth, we merely report on what RS have stated about a topic. Much of this topic is surrounded by politics and competing claims by governments. Look at the categories this page is listed under. Ex: "B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles," and "B-Class North American military history articles." Countless news organizations have reported on this recent report from RS. To not include any mention of it "because MEDRS" is editorial bias. BootsED (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a 'MEDRS article'. Please search this page for the phrase 'common misconception'. It is not MEDRS which is at issue for much of this, it is NPOV. Articles need to be based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should split the article between the reported "medical condition" and the events surrounding it, with the non medical stuff going in the events article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using Politico as a source for 'Politico reported ...' is primary sourcing; it's just
Primary does not mean "bad." Secondary does not mean "good." Articles will often have a mix of both. Removing primary sources just because they are primary is itself not a valid reason, especially considering that most of the sources you are removing are both RS and making points which you have previously stated you personally disagree with. BootsED (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of the article must be secondary sourcing. Primary sources are useful for adding stuff once that foundation has been laid. The problem with this article is that the foundation is primary sourcing, seemingly added in a sort of rolling scrap book way. If something has not garnered attention in secondary sourcing, how is
My concern is that some editors are seemingly using primary source and MEDRS arguments to remove information that they have stated multiple times they personally disagree with. They have also made unilateral edits to the page ignoring the consensus of other editors, engaged in edit warring, and are now seemingly stating that no RfC is necessary to resolve this issue. If I am mistaken please inform me. BootsED (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary good.when someone says we can use primary sourcesLegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to exit this conversation now that I see we are resorting to insulting other people's intelligence. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am calling myself a caveman, if that wasn't clear. My ape brain only can compute secondary sources as good (they are, primary sources should be avoided). Also Neanderthals were highly intelligent. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually true. Neanderthals were highly intelligent! BootsED (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not edit warring - Slatersteven did remove it from the "Chronological section yesterday, saying it is already in the Causes section" as they were correct, it was duplicated information. It is my belief they removed the wrong duplicate as the sources do not indicate or provide actual medical evidence for a medical cause, so it would be better in the chronological section (if in the article at all). You are welcome to make a report at the edit warring noticeboard, however I think dispute resolution noticeboard would be a better place for this, or opening up a request for comment, especially in light of Talk:Havana syndrome#Reminder of WP3RR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I ask again, can we have a suggested text, posted here so we can comment on it before it is added? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. This report added further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons." (citation to the three plus the BBC article discussed above). Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this makes the fringyness of this clear enough. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try 2:
""On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. This report added further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons but provided no evidence of the existence of such weapons." (citation to the three plus the BBC article discussed above) Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did they provide any medical evidence that anyone suffered medically proven harm? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It provides Relman's 2022 claims. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And selectively quoted in a way that should make anyone with basic media literacy put up the [dubious – discuss] tag. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically "What we found was we thought clear evidence of an injury to the auditory and vestibular system of the brain." Emphasis mine. Note past-tense. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So no, not really so what we have is enough for "In March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. reported that Russia had agents in those countries around the time of the alleged attacks" Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)."[reply]
How about "On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. It claimed that Russia had agents in various countries around the time of some alleged attacks." Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, and it can be said of the USA (thus, is a forum issue), its very flimsy "evidence" but in effect, this is what they are saying, and other does seem to be some consensus for some kind of inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but included with proper phrasing and with a NPOV lens. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and propose an improved copy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've been such a stick in the mud about it I would prefer you did it, then we will know that you won't object to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is, being honest, my best effort for the phrase. If my proposed text requires additional workshopping I would like to see what others think would improve it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed text (if at any point I suggested I didn't I apologize), its a good start to build a paragraph off of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose: Wikipedia editors should not be putting forward their own arguments, like Russia likely has agents in pretty much all countries all the time, to delete widely reported details of the investigative report, without referencing significant viewpoints from reliable sources. This kind of tomfoolery is why the article is locked and should remain locked.
Which is why the "Russia has agents" reasoning is extremely stupid. You will not find any Wikipedia rule that forces editors to include every bit from every reliable source. We have to choose what to include, and not including stupid stuff is a good criterion not forbidden by
Or maybe people who can't edit the topic dispassionately need to stay away from it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that the investigative report has produced a lot of smoke with effective no fire. Its claims are basically: thatcthe journalists believe Relford's 2022 claims and thwre were Russians in some areas of some countries where alleged attacks occur. It's a notable source for sparking controversy but of no evidentiary value. I'm trying to ensure the reference doesn't give it undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cover both smoke and fire on wikipedia, they're actually equally worthy of inclusion. We aren't conducting original research so the evidentiary value is meaningless to us, why would you bring it up? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that evidentiary value was used when assessing due weight, it isn't mentioned on the linked page. Perhaps you meant to link a different one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's noteworthy that 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider all agree on the Russia theory (or at least they agree that it's plausible enough to warrant a report). I think it's still noteworthy even if it's wrong.
This isn't a medical journal; it's an encyclopedia. If governments and medical associations say one thing while major trustworthy media outlets say something else, that disagreement is itself notable and deserves coverage in this article. Even if the 60 Minutes report is dead wrong, it's still useful to be aware that they made that report in the first place, as it teaches us something about 60 Minutes.
This isn't some fringe website. It's a collaborative report with multiple major trustworthy media organizations. We shouldn't ignore it. Sonicsuns (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time for RfC(s)?
It seems like there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved, and outside help could be beneficial:
Should the article include information on political/social/economic aspects of H.S? If not (i.e. if article should be constrained to pure medicine) should a second article be created for the political/social/economic aspects?
Is information provided by primary medical sources acceptable for this article? (i.e. should article only rely on secondary reviews/surveys)? (Of course, any primary source must be used as provided in
WP:MEDRS
: ".... Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors .... " )
Should the article include historical information such as a chronology of older medical studies & speculations, some of which have perhaps been superseded?
Should 2024 NIH/JAMA reports (possibly including references thereto from major RS media) be included in the article?
Should the 2024 60 Minutes/Insider report be included in the article?
Five Four RfCs may be a lot, but maybe we could have one RfC with a few queries in it? Noleander (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the rfc was focused on #1, it would also resolve #3, #4 and #5. The main objection being used is that this is a MEDRS article and thus all non-medical journal sources should be removed. BootsED (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is tempting to only pose 1 or 2 questions in the RfC, but posing a few fine-grained questions may promote good discussion and lead to a higher-level "stubify" or "exclude non medical" conclusion. Noleander (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's five potential RfCs. I vote stubify this article as the "medical condition" article and create a new "claims surrounding Havana Syndrome" article that can have all the pseudoscience theories and report on them accurately. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I reject the notion that the 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel report is "pseudoscience." Disagreeing with something does not make it pseudoscience, especially if it comes from RS. I do not believe splitting the article is necessary in this regard. BootsED (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying claims in the 60 Minutes report do not have any grounded medical backing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have the debate in this section of Talk page: this section is only asking if an RfC would be useful. Noleander (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an RfC would be useful. The problem here is something else. FailedMusician (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold to claim consensus without an RfC. I think the more users that look at this, the better. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FailedMusician: I don't understand what you are saying. Why wouldn't 3rd party input via RfC help? Noleander (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was already a firm consensus for inclusion of the Insider investigation. I posted a discussion to RSN. FailedMusician (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really is not the right form to answer these questions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's been quite disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to "vote" here in this section of the Talk page ... this section is simply asking if an RfC would help. In the RfC, if we have one, stubify can be proposed as an option. Noleander (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think for #2 this is actually a proposal to modify core
WP:MEDRS, so would need to be held elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll edit the text above to clarify that any primary sources would be used only as MEDRS permits: ".... Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). "Noleander (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More fundamentally, "primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are exceptional cases where they may be justified, but this isn't one of them. Bon courage (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions on the application of MEDRS to this article can be voiced in the RfC ... this section of the Talk page is simply asking if we should have an RfC. Noleander (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The danger is
WP:LOCALCON. If an RfC is trying to override policy, it needs to be a bigger deal than something on an article Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You've made it clear that you, personally, have concluded that the exceptions listed in MEDRS do not apply to this article. You've said that over and over. And you can say it again in an RfC. But other editors may suggest that the exceptions DO apply to this article (e.g. because H.S. is a new and evolving syndrome). Personally, I don't have an opinion on the matter. But an RfC will get input from a wider variety of editors. Noleander (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What 'exceptions listed'? So far as I'm aware the only attempt to 'list' such exceptions is in
WP:MEDFAQ in the 'rare cases' for primary sourcing section. Bon courage (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Add one to the number of times you've stated your conclusions as to how MEDRS's "primary source" rules apply to this article. In the RfC, other editors may suggest that MEDRS permits primary sources in some medical articles (e.g. new and evolving syndromes) that DO NOT YET HAVE many secondary sources. That discussion belongs in the RfC, not here. If the RfC consensus is that primary sources are not permitted in this article, the RfC will be very useful in helping us decide (1) should we do a "stubify" action; and (2) should we create a second history/politics/espionage H.S. article. Your attempts to bypass an RfC are puzzling. Noleander (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think @Bon courage is suggesting bypassing an RfC, just choosing a different forum than this talk page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to propose waiving MEDRS, at least
WT:MED and the village pump will need to be notified. Bon courage (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
that DO NOT YET HAVE many secondary sources ← Err, we do have several strong recent secondary sources. See the 'Quality sources' section on this very Talk page. MEDRS does not in any case 'permit' primary sources for 'new and evolving syndromes'. That is just made up. Bon courage (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the RfC comes to the conclusion that this is not a MEDRS article, will you claim WP:LOCALCON about why this ruling shouldn't stand? BootsED (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a 'MEDRS article'. Bon courage (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC that "comes to the conclusion that this is not a MEDRS article" would be ignored per WP:LOCALCON. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have strong consensus in the discussions above for some of those points. E.g. inclusion of the 60 minutes investigation has overwhelming support Talk:Havana syndrome#Adding the new investigative report?. Editors ignoring that consensus are being disruptive at this point.
Questions 2/3/4 are already answered by well established policies such as
WP:MEDRS
so an RfC would be useless.
Question 1 is obvious in my view. We should clearly cover the topic comprehensively following all available
as pointed out support for inclusion does not mean "support for this text". That is what the RFC would do, someone suggests a text to add, and we then say yay or nay. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is then on those removing the text to change it. FailedMusician (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:ONUS "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", so in fact you have that totally the wrong way round. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Also another reason is the discussion about the 60 minutes (et all) investigation is split over two or three threads, an RFC might make it easier to follow. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a removal of long-standing content from the page. So, yes, please start an RfC if someone strongly feels about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The
WP:ONUS (which is policy) is on those wanting to restore the content to get consensus for it, not edit-war it back in
. That was mentioned by Slatersteven just above your post, so no one should have been blanket restoring disputed content at this point.
There are clear issues in the content including in terms of MEDRS and weighting articulated already, so if you feel strongly about it, craft specific content on the talk page to address the specific issues so it can get consensus. Blanket restorations make it nearly impossible to focus on specific content, so my suggestion would be to focus on specific sections at a time on talk since a large amount of material had to be removed because of problems with it. If there are issues with the MEDRS-focused content added in that diff you gave, then mention them here too, but from what I've seen mentioned on this talk page, there's nothing undue or otherwise at issue in the new content that would warrant removal yet. KoA (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was never consensus that the article had MEDRS issues. A few editors claimed there was, then proceded to delete massive parts of the article despite no talk page consensus. Now, somehow, the people who are attempting to preserve the page's content need to prove why the page should be restored as it was? This makes no sense. BootsED (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BootsED, please reread what was mentioned about policy. You (and others wanting it) need to get consensus for the content. You can't just declare there was no consensus to remove it as a way of avoiding that. Those of us who have been watching moreso from the noticeboards can't help when even that basic procedure isn't be followed here.
Even if it weren't for that policy, we're dealing with medical content and comments in the remove section that overlap with the
WP:WEIGHT of those medical statements. Normally when MEDRS issues come up like that, the content is removed, discussed, and often either retailored, left out, or recontextualized in terms of better sources. Instead of having issues with how MEDRS is typically applied across the encyclopedia, I suggest bringing up specific content like I advised My very best wishes above. If there's something that truly isn't needing due weight from medical sources, then that can be worked on a piece at a time like I suggested above. KoA (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
KoA, I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy is that a few editors may delete massive amounts of content on a page, then claim WP:ONUS and make others prove to them why the content should be restored? This is not how Wikipedia works. The content was on this page was a very long time. A few editors removed it without consensus claiming violations of Wikipedia policy that have been heavily debated on this page. This page does not solely deal with medical information. MEDRS sourcing requirements do not apply to everything on this page, and MEDRS should not be used to remove information that has nothing to do with MEDRS. This is my concern. BootsED (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC is needed here. Debate has changed from "should we include the 60 Minutes interview" to "should we delete massive, long-standing parts of the page based on a few editors' interpretation of Wikipedia policy." WP:ONUS does not fall upon people attempting to protect the page from mass deletions. The burden of proof falls upon the few individuals who are pushing to massively cut long-standing content from the page then claim WP:ONUS. BootsED (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this page should be reverted to a stable version prior to starting the RfC. This is definitely not the version we have at this moment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the page as it was at its last edit on April 2, 2024. It's relatively recent enough and slightly before the most recent turbulence with the page. BootsED (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps timezones are an issue, but that would seem to be in the middle of the first few warring edits.
It might be an idea to remove the text in question, but undoing all the other work is just disruptive. Remember reverting editors take ownership of the article they change to. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which text, as I see a lot of reverts. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking me? You are meant to know what you are doing. Why have you de-tagged the article and removed the MEDRS reviews that replace the (previous) 'causes' section? This has nothing to do tje the RfC and has just FRINGEified the article again. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure I am reverting to last stable version and not my preferred version. Its called being even-handed, no one wins with this revert. Then we work to fix it by only inserting non controvershal material for now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should edit to improve the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to what I think is thge last stable version, bedffero all teh edit warring. Now can we not add stuff untill we have some kind of conseneus for it? Or will we have to also ask for PP? Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just highly disruptive. You've removed the MEDRS reviews, removed all the tagging, and have inserted a load of badly-sourced cruft. Why have you personally elected to take ownership of such a bad article? Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when was the last stable version, before the first contested edit? As there is a hell of a lot of back-and-forth edits over the last few days. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary choice, as there is no 'stable version'. There is a particular matter in question for the RfC (the CBS stuff), but you have just erased a lot of other work as well. Why have you deleted MEDRS sources and put back unreliable sources? It looks like the worst kind of FRINGE POV pushing. Why ave you removed all the tags in the artile? Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell things are getting heated when people on both sides of an argument make multiple spelling mistakes! But to back up bon (strange, I know!), I do think the page as it was at the end of April 2nd was very good. There are some grammar fixes and better sources that were used that bon and Legal did make positive contributions towards on this page. I just disagree to the extent to which they took them in the most recent edits and deletions. BootsED (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So feel free to pick that as your last stable version, but as far as I can see there were also a lot of reverts after the edit I chose. I suspect (I could be wrong) your choice might also be contested. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying you don't know or care what your revert did. Could you please look again as this is causing a huge problem. You are POV-pushing badly sourced content. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying I might be wrong, as there has been so much reverting here. I am saying that if others disagree I will not revert them, but they need to be sure that what they are reverting to is the last stable version. But as far as I can tell this was the last stable version, before all the edit warring (which is the version we are supposed to revert to). Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Slatersteven! BootsED (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version of the pageI believe should be restored. A lot of the badly sourced content Bon removed is not in here, but it still retains high-quality sources dealing with aspects of Havana Syndrome that were in contention. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A version in the middle of disputed editing is obviously unacceptable. I'm not sure why we would want to find some stable version to revert to at all, though. Blanket reverts are usually not a good idea.
IS the full diff [[47]] so no, not the last stable version, and efforts are already being made to re-add non contentious content, hopefully we can work together. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed disruptive, deleting disputed neutrality tags and choosing a version that clearly favours one point of view and calling it "stable version". Almost a gimmick action.Machinarium (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PP now asked for, and for an uninvolved admin to decide when the last stable version was. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we can find a stable version. We might need to simply re-add content from the current version. BootsED (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a sensible compromise. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected Havana syndrome for two weeks at the latest version, based on this RFPP request. If anyone believes the wrong version was protected please file an edit request. After scanning the talk page above, it appears there have been lots of reverts and not much discussion of the rationale for the reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Three related questions:
a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act[1] and [2].
b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: [3] and [4].
c) For medical information in this article: does
WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: [5] and [6]
a) and b) YES, c) NO Havana syndrome definitely should not be subject to medical topic area guidelines, because this article is not primarily about a well-defined medical condition. AFAIK we don’t apply these guidelines to articles like tabun or Zyklon B, so why here? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, and no – I agree with RadioactiveBoulevardier in full. --BDD (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two leading hypotheses for the cause of Havana Syndrome are (a) psychogenic; and (b) hostile nations using directed EM energy weapons. Perhaps someday - 10 or 20 years in the future - there will be a medical conclusion reached that H.S. was psychogenic in nature, and at that time, the "directed EM energy weapons" hypothesis will be considered Fringe science.
But, as editors, we cannot jump to those kind of conclusions. Here in this RfC, we have to treat it as a medical condition, simply because many scientists are saying it is. Hence
WP:MEDRS applies, and that leads us to the questions posed above at the top of RfC. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, depends, and YES WP:MEDRS: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article." The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DolyaIskrina: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c): what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc. Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)? Another example: What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome: Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)? Noleander (talk) Noleander (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring wp:fringe. You are trying to change policy with an RfC. Both are really bad strategies. US Senators don't get to make pronouncements about science and medicine, and we sure as ish don't use wikivoice to repeat their claims. It's not complicated, you just don't like it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If secondary sources for a medical claim do not exist then we do not include the medical claim. A RfC does not have the power to override policy as discussed at
WP:LOCALCON, so item (c) should be removed from the RfC as it is nothing but a distraction. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A better question might have been whether specific claims made by 60 Minutes/Spiegel, such as whether Russian intelligence agents allegedly received medals for acoustic weaponry of some kind, is biomedical information or not. Geogene (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c). For Havana Syndrome, let's say there are only two secondary sources for the medical info. Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say? And all other medical sources be prohibited? If the answer is "yes, rely only on the secondary", then what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc. Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)? Another example: What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome: Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)? Noleander (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say? And all other medical sources be prohibited?
WP:MEDREV is pretty clear on this: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Outdated information clearly identified as such is also discussed later on in the same guideline. I'm not really clear on what the outcome of this RfC can be other than "follow our PAGs". VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, okay, thanks for pointing out the part of MEDRS that says "There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: ... History sections often cite older work." I overlooked that before. Just to clarify my intention in this RfC: Some editors were saying "Primary sources can never be used" ... implying that they cannot even appear in a timeline/history section. I found that position to be irrational, and item (c) in this RfC is to get clarity on that particular question. Noleander (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAGs. The POV that "Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving" and therefore MEDRS can be waived/relaxed is bizarre in the extreme, and that principle in general would invite a boatload of quackery into Wikipedia with fake "syndromes" (and some MEDRS says Havana Syndrome is not actually a real syndrome anyway). We have recent quality secondary sources on this and to invite in older primary sources to undercut/problematize their knowledge would run counter to NPOV. This should probably be withdrawn and the filer trouted before it causes too much of waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize if the RfC is not worded to your satisfaction. I strove to make it clear and neutral. Question (c) (about primary vs secondary sources) is worded that way because above in this Talk page you stressed, four or five times, that primary sources should be absolutely prohibited in this article, and in fact you said WP:MEDRS does not permit primary sources for any medical content. You said that there are no exceptions to the "secondary sources are better" guidance from MEDRS. Your opinion seemed very much contrary to the plain text of MEDRS (which merely says that primary sources should be "avoided", but clearly lists a few situations where they are permitted). Question (c) is merely asking if Havana Syndrome's nature allows for some primary sources ... i.e. when any new medical syndrome arises, for the first few years there may be only primary sources available, is it okay to use them? If you feel that primary sources should be prohibited in this article, could you explain here why you think MEDRS prohibits primary sources, when the plain text of MEDRS plainly says primary sources are merely discouraged (not prohibited)? Noleander (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply untrue and wrong
you stressed, four or five times, that primary sources should be absolutely prohibited in this article, and in fact you said WP:MEDRS does not permit primary sources for any medical content. You said that there are no exceptions to the "secondary sources are better" guidance from MEDRS.
and in fact I linked to the
WP:PAGs are as they are. As DolyaIskrina astutely observes "The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less". Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree this is a bad RfC as it has an obvious conclusion. As @
WP:MEDRS works… there is too much confusion on this topic and a lot of editors are applying it improperly (both excessively and insufficiently!) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 10:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A YES (if it is notable and covered by RS), B depends (
The intention of question (c) is to get some guidance from outside editors on whether any primary medical sources related to Havana Syndrome can be used in this article, and if so, how? In a timeline section? In a politics section? In a "recent medical developments" section? Saying "follow WP:MEDRS" does not help bring an end to edit-warring. Question (c) is asking for outside editors to help us determine how primary medical sources can be used in this article, if at all. Maybe the answer is "none" and if so, that is okay. Noleander (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way of using primary medical sources. That’a the point of
WP:MEDRS. Primary medical studies are unrealible. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Bad RfC Yes on A and C articles about diseases generally cover these societal aspects and as far as these sections do not make any biomedical claims they may use the lower standard of
WP:V in this instance, a less is more approach is needed. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize if issue (c) was not worded clearly. The intention was not to "overturn" MEDRS, but rather to address an question raised above in this Talk page, viz: some editors were saying that primary medical sources can never be used in this article. That didn't seem right, and my reading of MEDRS indicated that there were some exceptions. The purpose of issue (c) in this RfC is to get some input from outside editors on what sort of exceptions to "Dont use primary sources" rule exist, and whether any of those exceptions may apply to this article. I think the RfC is working ... several editors have provided excellent insight into how MEDRS can and should be applied to this article (e.g. primary sources may be appropriate in a historical/timeline section of the article).
Aside from issue (c) .... we still need to address issues (a) and (b) in this RfC because they were the cause of edit warring (and contributed to the fact that this article got protected). Hopefully, the RfC can help come to closure on issues (a) and (b) and allow work on this article to resume in a friendly and productive fashion. Noleander (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, with caveats we can't add medical claims not sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and any other claims must be attributed and stated as opinions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Do you have any thoughts on a particular situation which was the source of some recent edit-warring in this article: Two new studies were published in early 2024 (both primary sources ... i.e. written by scientists performing tests on people that reported H.S. symptoms); because Havana Syndrome is so noteworthy (in the USA, at least) many, many major news outlets reported on the studies. Some news articles contained interviews with scientists analyzing the studies. It may be a long time (years?) before a secondary study is published that encompasses these 2024 sources. Query: Should this Havana Syndrome article exclude all mention of these 2024 studie until a secondary study that includes them is published? Or should the 2024 studies be mentioned (perhaps in way that presents their publication as a newsworthy event, and de-emphasizes their medical conclusions)? Noleander (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have already commented on that above. This is not the question the RFC asked. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there seems to be a lot of confusion about what is bioengt asked, because of a non nuetalty worded RFC opening. close and start again. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a) Yes.b) Yes. Without the non-medical information this article would lack a huge part of the public discussion necessary to the perception of the topic (as with the previously mentioned
WP:MEDRS
.
Non-medical claims and analysis by
WP:MEDRS
, but not the non-medical part (for example, in the context of this article, WP:RS is to be used for "Cold War espionage" and "professional reluctance" statements, and WP:MEDRS is to be used for "psychogenic" and "brain damage due to directed energy" statements).
I agree that biomedical primary sources should be used conservatively and with great care ("used in rare situations" as per
WP:WHYMEDRS
. One of the WP:MEDFAQ examples of rare cases include "when writing about a rare disease, uncommon procedure, etc", which could apply, but that is matter of a separate discussion on a case by case basis for each source. Personally, I am not familiar enough with BMI sources here, so I can't say whether any of them can qualify to be that rare situation.
Further discussion is needed to determine/agree which WP:BMI sources are primary and which are not (after several days of monitoring the discussion and edit history I feel like some medical sources (or part of their contents) are actually review articles/meta-analysis, i.e. secondary and not primary). This should ideally be done on a case by case basis.
There was also a question on whether currently rejected theories should be included for chronological/historical purposes. I say "yes" (taking into account all the previous guidelines considerations), provided they are marked as rejected and were important to the public discussion of this topic (that is, if this was not a single op-ed no one else commented upon). As an example in the context of this article, that includes the crickets theory (which is also WP:BMI, afaik).
I think everyone is in agreement that secondary sources are absolutely the best source for medical conclusions. Issue (c) is simply asking if the nature of Havana means that some primary medical sources can be used in some contexts, e.g. in a timeline/history section; or in a "what politicians said" section. There were some editors saying that primary sources could never be in this article, and that did not seem right. As you point out, WP:MEDFAQ contains the guidance that primary sources may be "used in rare situations". Based on what you say, if primary medical sources are mentioned in this article, there should be surrounding contextual verbiage ensuring that readers do not use the primary source for its medical data (instead: use it only for some historical / political / etc purpose). Noleander (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bothers me immensely that the reaction to several editors emphasizing that primary medical sources really really shouldn't be used in this way amounts to: So they can be used? Draken Bowser (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all RfCs ask how to apply a particular WP policy to a given source/sentence/article. In this case: there are several primary sources (for example, footnotes 5 and 6 below) that perhaps should be in the article. Asking if specific sources can be used in the Havana Syndrome article is exactly what RfCs are for. Simply saying "Nope, never use primary medical sources" is not helpful. WP:MEDRS does permit primary sources in some situations - the RfC is asking if any of those situations are applicable here. The goal is to get clarity and put an end to edit-warring.
Can you clarify: are you saying that a historical/timeline section of this article (if one exists) cannot utilize primary medical sources when listing historical events? Noleander (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close malformed RFC Should provide a question about the inclusion about specific content, not a class of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time. We will get to that next. FailedMusician (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that items (a) and (b) are in this RfC is that - during the edit wars that preceded the RfC - some editors (above in Talk page) suggested (1) this article can only include medical info; and (2) this article can only utilize on medical/science sources. There was back-and-forth on that, and so the primary purpose of the RfC is to come to closure on those issues. Issue (c) is a bit different. Noleander (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC remains entirely malformed regardless of what came before it. It includes incredibly vague edit directions and should be closed for that reason alone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to (a) and (b), and a nuanced Yes to (c) – My view is that the scope of this article should encompass all geopolitical and historical aspects, as they're essential for a full understanding of the topic. This is especially as there is no consensus in the scientific community on what the cause, symptoms and treatments of this condition are. For (b), using U.S. government studies and statements on Havana syndrome, true or otherwise, Russian government sources and claims in Crocus City Hall attack. As a specific example, the recently reported NIH studies elicited criticism about its methods from a scientist who conducted a previous study, with access to the classified case files [48][49][50]. Yet, despite the the reception these studies received, the content and sources were unceremoniously deleted [51], citing MEDRS to support what is essentially a deletionist argument (for which WP:DUE would be the relevant policy). See also: #NIH reports deleted?. On (c), while MEDRS is crucial for accuracy on medical topics, the unique and evolving nature of Havana Syndrome means that in some cases, well-publicised primary medical sources might temporarily complement the article, pending secondary reviews. This balances our high sourcing standards with the need to provide current and comprehensive information on the topic. FailedMusician (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they're right? Many primary sources are faulty or wrong. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice to employ primary sources for straightforward facts, such as the formal name of the condition, which I added. For more contentious claims, we can rely on reputable secondary news sources, like the New York Times article detailing the NIH studies and Relman's critique. Until there are a number of quality review articles offering definitive conclusions about which hypothesis is proven or likely, we cannot delete well written and sourced content just because editors don't like it. FailedMusician (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just because editors don't like it ← Leaving aside that pathetic personalisation, the fact is that on Wikipedia the NYT is not a reliable source for biomedicine. See
WP:NOTBMI so any RS will do for that. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This discussion isn't the venue for promoting personal viewpoints. Please cast your vote if you haven't already and allow a closer to determine the application of our MEDRS policy to this topic. If there's contention over whether the New York Times reference pertains to biomedicine (which I believe it does not) we can address that in a separate RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FailedMusician, I don't think your (c) reasoning fully captures the complexity. Primary medical sources can sometimes be used for biomedical content in articles. However, MEDRS specifically prohibits editors from using primary sources to debunk secondary sources. This means that you can use a primary medical source for obviously relevant, obviously significant information[*] that isn't covered by a secondary medical source at all, but you can't set up the article to say – or even imply – something like "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer,[secondary source] but this one study found that cigarettes prevent cancer.[primary source]"
[*] By "obviously relevant, obviously significant information", I mostly mean that if you can't find a secondary source for information about a major section heading in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections, then you can usually justify using a primary source for that. For example, if you are writing about a drug, and 100% of the reliable sources on the Pharmacokinetics for that drug are published in primary sources, then you can use those primary sources instead of omitting the ==Pharmacokinetics== section entirely. It is also sometimes okay to use a primary source to provide additional detail that supports the conclusions of the secondary sources. For example, if the secondary sources say that tobacco causes cancer, then one might be able to justify using a primary source to provide more detail (e.g., how many deaths last year in a particular country). What I don't mean is that it's okay to use primary sources to debunk the secondary sources. For example, if the secondary sources say that Havana syndrome isn't actually one disease and almost certainly didn't involve directed-energy weapons, then you can't cram the other POV into this article by using primary sources, or use primary sources to cast doubt on the analysis by secondary sources. For example, you should not use primary sources to say that some detail remains unexplained, or that the explanation is not accepted by some people.
On a more general note, the victims of illness do not have magical, trustworthy insights into the cause of their conditions. Medieval people thought witchs' hexes killed people and livestock, but they didn't believe in bacteria. In the slightly more modern era, people thought that wetlands produced poisonous miasmas, but they were actually dying of mosquito-born viruses. Even now, people with dangerous psychotic illnesses will say there is nothing wrong with them, but that doesn't mean that psychotic illness doesn't actually exist. Similarly: Americans (in particular) seem to have a hard time believing that stress can lay them low, so a victim claiming that they're so mentally tough that an unknown, undetectable top-secret weapon is more plausible than the human body rebelling under unreasonable amounts of stress, or having an unfortunate post-viral illness, is not proof that an unfortunate, but completely ordinary, illness cluster is not the most plausible explanation.
The main message in this article should be based on secondary sources, and nothing we write in this article should try to cast doubt on the main message.
(Also: Can I just confirm that we all agree that a daily newspaper is a news source and not a medical source, right? If anyone in this discussion thinks that a newspaper is a medical source, please let the rest of us know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following information was removed because it was not "MEDRS compliant."
"On March 31, 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that their investigators had uncovered evidence that the Russian government as directed by Vladimir Putin had perpetrated the attacks for the purpose of retribution against specific individuals through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons."
How is this MEDRS? MEDRS is being used loosely to apply to content that obviously has nothing to do with medical claims, but geopolitics. BootsED (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that they found evidence of this would actually fail verification. A point I keep making that has people claiming the question of lack of evidence is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reply. This has been covered in dozens of reliable sources. (WaPo, BBC, NYT, etc.) It is directly related to H.S. How does this "fail verification?" BootsED (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying evidence. The only verification that matters to us is staying true to what sources report. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot claim they found "evidence" based on the content of the report. To claim they found "evidence" of a specific biomedical mechanism we would need supporting
If the RS say they found evidence of a weapons related cause in connection to some specific cases, then we can attribute it to them. Are you familiar with
Wikipedia is not journalism. If unreliable source start airing fringe views outside their realm of reliability, Wikipedia shuns them (unless there's a reliable secondary source commenting on the 'journalism'). Attribution is not some magic pixie dust that allows in bad content. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. This is why I keep bringing up the absence of evidence in the investigative report - because it was being inappropriately cited with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement when all it really did was inflame discourse and reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks which are better cited to stronger sources. Furthermore Relman is a single researcher and, while he is due inclusion, his talent for getting in front of cameras should not be used to inflate his significance compared to... literally any other scientist working in the field. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to analyse the evidence or absence thereof for claims published by reliable sources. You claim that the source was used with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement, but I've asked you before to provide examples of that [52], and you haven't. The text that you and Bon courage reverted says that the investigation published claims[53]. You are also mistaken that Relman is a single researcher, as I explained below, with sources. FailedMusician (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all it really did was … reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks ← That is false.
The report by The Insider, Der Spiegel and 60 Minutes is cited not because of that but because it does the following things (from more to less
WP:WEIGHT
):
Connects the movement of known GRU Unit 29155 agents (which, for example, were previously uncovered here, here and here) with known cases associated with Havana Syndrome;
Presents leaked interdepartmental correspondence which connects some of the agents with the development of "non-lethal acoustic weapons";
Mentions that the journalists possess documents describing government programs related to the development of "sonar and acoustic weapons systems" (and describes/summarises their contents);
Mentions that the journalists possess a US State Department memo for diplomats in the Tbilisi embassy with the advised response to AHI (and partially quotes it);
Mentions that some of the victims recognized the photographs of those GRU agents (and quotes them).
None of those are
WP:BMI
.
It also contains Relman reiterating his previous comments, other people's (related to the US government's investigations of HS) comments and victims' comments. But from what I see, these are mostly ignored as sources for the article (and they seem to be a simple reiteration of other information in the article already attributed to other sources).
I want to emphasize that the WP is not tasked with verifying all those statements,
WP:RSP. The Insider is not mentioned there but they have a reputation for their investigations of the Russian government activities (part of those are described in the article
Totally agree with @TinyClayMan. I would add that The Insider’s main journalist was Christo Grozev an expert in Russian intelligence investigations and European Press Prize winner for investigative journalism. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 05:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The investigative journalists do not say they are certain that directed energy weapons are used. They reveal they have evidence connecting the travel of a notorious Russian secret service unit, widely known for poisonings abroad, to some reported Havana Syndrome cases, but say nothing conclusive about how these agents could have inflicted the reported damage.Machinarium (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, your points on MEDRS are well taken, and since no primary sources were being used to "debunk" secondary medical sources (in the plural), I don't think its the issue here. The main issue this RFC is seeking to address is how to balance accuracy with comprehensiveness, by including non-medical secondary sources that largely do not contradict the medical sources, most of which leave things open as to what the cause is. Moreover, since it is possible that earlier HS cases were caused by a weapon (news and academic sources talk of two types), and later cases by some form of psychosis (an effect that a hostile actor have anticipated), this isn't a binary situation (both hypotheses can be true). This is an argument made by David Relman, a relevant expert, and his opinion does not contradict medical sources, all but one (Bartholomew et al). FailedMusician (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you seriously asserting that a quotation from David Relman, the person, in a news article, should be treated equivalent to a statement from all organizations he is involved in? Or do you believe David Relman is, in fact, several people? I am unsure which is more of an absurd waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment wasn't addressed to you. Relman is discussed above and below. Please be mindful of
WP:V. No to (c) for two reasons. First, I think this is a loaded question. There is no significant medical content on the page. Secondly, WP:MERDS is needed because people can harm their health after reading incorrect info, for example by practicing certain types of alternative medicine or by using certain drugs. But there is no such danger here.My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the intent and purpose of WP:MEDRS is accuracy, not preventing harm. FailedMusician (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The idea that MEDRS is somehow related to (bad) medical advice is a canard; Wikipedia does not give medical advice. The purpose of MEDRS is stated plainly in its opening para: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article". Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my idea. I saw it somewhere in our guidelines (maybe old versions). But I completely agree with the idea of preventing harm to users who read WP. Such harm is very much possible, in many subject areas, and we should try to prevent it by providing good info per WP:NPOV, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I think this page and sources [54] are not really about human health, but about the alleged devices or weapons. Yes, we do not know which devices were used here and if they were used at all. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to (c), but it is applicable only to truly biomedical content. For example, here, the sub-section "Psychogenic causes" (starting from "Some scientists suggest that...") and some other sub-sections need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources, i.e. as it was in "Causes" before the revert (I should not be reverting this, sorry). My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, yes, no - Using U.S. government sources to describe a disorder is okay, as long as it's balanced. Adding a bit of background info is fine as long as its not overbroad. And yeah, primary medical sources are needed in an article like this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes/yes as long as it's relating to a non-medical topic, no to the extent normally permitted by
WP:EXTRAORDINARY still applies. Loki (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Important to clarify that the 2019-2020 NASEM report that considered all possible biologic, acoustic, radiologic, chemical, toxicological and psychological causes isn't a "government report". NASEM constitute private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine[55]. Our article includes a detailed section on the NASEM report, which notably suggested that directed pulsed RF energy may be a plausible cause. Similarly, the 2022 IC report with similar findings was also produced by an independent panel of experts. FailedMusician (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PMID:33411434 is a MEDRS, but it's a little old so it is better to use more recent reviews which cover the same ground. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not all that old and since one of the more recent review articles is hardly a review article, we can't use it to present a scientific consensus in favour of one hypothesis. FailedMusician (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Directed-energy weapons are very much real and widely used. Claims that such weapons were used is not a biomedical topic. "Governmental sources" can be used to source such claims. However, if the claim was made about specific effects on human health (or lack of such), then such claim should be included with areference to WP:MEDRS-complacent sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim that a direct-energy weapon may have been used is a biomedical topic, but it straddles the line as a political topic too, and is something the closer needs to assess. I believe its inappropriate to use MEDRS to restrict political content in discussions about topics that blend both biomedical and political elements. FailedMusician (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any connection the article makes between a group of symptoms and the cause of those symptoms should require MEDRS-compliant sources.
WP:BMI to define what information is covered by the policy. The first example under types of biomedical information is "attributes of a disease or condition" and includes "symptoms" and "causes". This is a new and poorly understood syndrome. That doesn't mean we should slacken our standards; on the contrary it's all the more reason to be as careful as possible. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
As follows:
a) Yes This has become not just a medical topic, but also one pertaining to the US' relationship with other countries, the way the intelligence service operates, and how the media covers stories. For that reason, non-medical sources are needed to bring out the full picture. However, these should be used with proper consideration to
may adversely affect our ability to get a neutral perspective
on the topic.
b) Yes with the following caveat: US Government sources have a clear motive to, as governments often do,
WP:INTEXT
liberally.
c) No Specific clauses of the policy apply here that are worth remembering.
WP:MEDDATE
.
Consider that while the topic was nascent, it attracted a great deal of media attention because of the fact that, if foreign countries were attacking US diplomatic staff, that would be a significant breach of protocol, if not an act of war. Since the US did not, ultimately, act or retaliate on that basis, any evidence that the syndrome is of natural origin or non-existent is unlikely to generate the same attention from secondary sources. It becomes a mere historical footnote. Therefore it may be quite a long time before reliable sources, which by that point will likely be historians, synthesize the information.
That being said, primary sources used should probably be cited as individual studies rather than conclusions to draw, as per
WP:PRIMARY medical sources at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, yes, no. MEDRS is MEDRS: however this doesn't apply to the more political/international relations side of this story - obviously. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a). Yes as long as it isn't used to describe causes or effects. b). Ditto my comment on 'a'. c). No, and no consensus on the talk page could negate MEDRS. Also this is hardly a 'rare disease that has little coverage in medical sources' so using primary sources that way doesn't work either. However the main takeaway away from this RFC is that it's a mess, and the cause is that its question is anything but neutral and brief (
WP:RFCBRIEF) so it should be closed as a bad RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Just realised I've answered 'no' to c). when I mean 'yes' and reading through other replies the same mistake has been made. Again this is caused by having a rambling non-neuttal statement to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 17:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yes, No. Per previous discussions. -- GreenC 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC due to non-neutral framing and vagueness as to the actual implications of each answer;
WP:CONLOCAL does not allow us to selectively override or reinterpret MEDRS in a sweeping manner like this any case. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
David Relman
Has been raised a number of times as an expert in the field, what is his expertise in? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's a microbiologist with ties to veterans affairs. Well respected but also seems a bit of a cold warrior based on his comments about the origins of COVID. His opinions are certainly due but he is, ultimately, one guy and should not be given undue focus just because he has a bit in his teeth about the enemies of the USA. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relman headed the NASEM committee that undertook the 2019-2020 study of AHIs and co-chaired the 2022 Intelligence Community Experts Panel on AHIs. It is not for Wikipedia editors to challenge the expertise of a scientist described by reputable sources such as The New York Times as a "prominent scientist" in an article on the topic. Moreover, The NYT article emphasises that the American Medical Association published his critique of the NIH studies, highlighting his respected standing in the scientific community, specific to this topic. He is also mentioned and quoted in articles by the Washington Post, Axios and PBS in articles on the same story about the NIH studies. He has been quote extensively in many RS on HS related stories over the years. FailedMusician (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this contradicts what I said at all. His tendency to get into newspapers is irrelevant to our treatment of his work for
WP:DUE. I don't know why this seems insufficient to you. Simonm223 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You claimed he is a single researcher[56]. I pointed out that he headed two groups of scientists investigating HS. That is quite a contradiction, and effects how his comments are due. FailedMusician (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So was Havana Syndrome a biological or Chemical attack? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His leadership roles in both the NASEM investigation and the intelligence panel, affirm his status as a leading expert on the topic. It is normal for such committees to include and be directed by scientists from a variety of disciplines. FailedMusician (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, as often the heads of teams are (for example) administrators, nothing more. He is not a qualified expert in the field, as his expertise is in microbiology (by the way, he might have been there to offer his opinion on that). Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just your opinion and has no impact on our article. RS call him a prominent scientist in articles on the topic. Neither do his opinions contradict MEDRS, besides for one review article by an author who is also not an expert on the topic according to your definition. FailedMusician (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read
wp:undue, a view should only here where if it is by an expert in the field, he is not, as this is not a microbiology topic. prominent scientist is not a field of study, position, or qualification. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think your view that he is not an expert, when he was appointed to lead these groups and has his editorials accepted in journals, would find consensus here. FailedMusician (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes by sources, not individuals. Has this guy published any peer-reviewed/secondary sources that are relevant to this article? Because since there are peer-reviewed/secondary sources, his stuff won't be usable otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends what MEDRS say and what we quote Relman as saying, and where in the article. Relman's views do not contradict secondary medical sources (WP:MEDRS says review articles in the plural), so I think he's useable as a contrarian voice, specifically on the NIH studies story. FailedMusician (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it kinda depends on where and how you want to put it as well. "Causes" is understood to mean etiology and patophysiology. Anything that goes there is strict MEDRS. You wanna include it somewhere else? Then it depends Draken Bowser (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific text deleted, as discussed above, was about a widely reported NIH study, which multiple RS quoted Relman critiquing [57]. It concerns the etiology, but was placed in Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis, a longstanding section that some editors then decided shouldn't exist. Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data, yet Relman is one of the few experts with access to classified files, so I do think his views should even be in the "possible causes" section (recently renamed to "Cause", misleading IMO). FailedMusician (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So an unreliable source opining on an unreliable source. That's ... not useful. Bon courage (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data.." Yes, that's where it should stop, with a scientific interpretation of evidence, not speculation. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Causes" section header
I agree that the "Cause" section in its current state is misleading. It manipulates the perception of the subject in a way that makes a reader think that a definite and unanimous conclusion was reached. Which is obviously not true – it is just that Bartholomew-Baloh publication happened to be released in the last five months, so it was chosen to be framed as drawing the bottom line. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in the wrong section? I'm not sure how it's related to the topic of how to treat Relman's comments per
Yes, and I'm not sure how the "Cause" section can be read as having a "definite and unanimous conclusion" when it states two different reviews say two different things. The level of huh? with this Talk page is increasing with every post! Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former section was entitled "possible causes" which imo was much more accurate to the reality of our knowledge on H.S. It should be returned to that and sections on the various speculated causes be re-added to the article. There is no medical consensus on the cause of H.S. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one does accept that there isn't a medical consensus, that does not then mean the article would include stuff that has been ruled out or has no MEDRS sourcing as a potential cause.
Changing the title to "possible causes" would increase the risk of unaware editors using non-MEDRS-sourcing to "verify" speculation. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which we can revert. And not be guilty of misleading readers. There is no clear cut cause, as we can't imply there is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. So we say what the different recent & high-quality reviews say (as now), even if they conflict. I'm completely baffled by the complaints about this. We have some super high quality sources; we reflect what they say; job done. What's the problem again? Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to make it clear to readers that there there is no clear cut cause by renaming Causes to Possible Causes, but we can't include one of the leading experts on the topic (being the lead of two investigations), as quoted in multiple high quality RSs, in a section titled Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis? Explain that for the closer please. FailedMusician (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of our sourcing policy. One guy's opinions in OpEds is undue when we have quality sources. The "chronology" section is a POV section seemingly being used as a dumping ground for crap sources, and is an invention of Wikipedia editors since no RS (that I know) takes this "chronological" approach. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the causes section, as it stands, is good. I am entirely neutral as to whether we add the word "potential" or "possible" to it so long as we don't start filling it back in with newspaper articles again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Causes" and "Possible Causes" can imply different meanings, causes imply more certainty; The first line of the Causes Section says, "Possible Causes." I also, noticed the info box says, Causes "Not determined," Not sure if I'm being picky, that may throw some people off? Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title should definitely be something like “potential causes” as nothing has been determined yet.
Also: as discussed above, the Bartolomew 2024 “Review” doesn’t actually look like a “review”. So I would not use it to contradict the actual December 2023 Asadi-Pooya review we have in the article (the best source we have so far for medical claims) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section title can be either; it doesn't matter. PMID:38146090 is a review in a high-quality journal and it certainly due, not to "contradict" necessarily, but to present alongside. Trying to suppress such high-quality sourcing would savour of POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly fine to label such sections with the standard "causes" even for idiopathic conditions, but I won't fight you on this tooth and nail. :) Draken Bowser (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have noted that
WP:NOTBMI) and sources on the weapons hypothesis, would be seen as POV-pushing. FailedMusician (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Speculation about what Relman has access to, outside of what he has disclosed via published work, is
Not sure what you're talking about. Its written clearly in New York Times that he has access to the classified case files. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Please read
There are no systematic reviews on this topic, only narrative ones. Relman is not published in any MEDRS. We use the quality sources, not the weak ones. Discussion of what causes a health effect is
The Ali A. Asadi-Pooya Review is high quality, recent, and very clear in reviewing the existing literature.
With regard to causes it states:
Potential causes of Havana syndrome:
Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy: The most plausible mechanism: Presentation of acute, directional or location-specific early phase signs and symptoms were consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed RF. Many of the chronic, nonspecific symptoms are also consistent with known RF effects.
Functional disorder: persistent postural-perceptual dizziness. A secondary reinforcing mechanism: A functional vestibular disorder that may be triggered by vestibular, neurological, other medical and psychological conditions and may explain some chronic signs and symptoms in some patients.
Psychogenic: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [3][3, 12, 22]
Chemicals/ neurotoxins: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [23, 30]
...
This is what we should report in the article and is consistent with
WP:BMI
and only deal with the intelligence aspects. I'm not sure what this whole RfC is doing except wasting editor time.
You sayiing something does not mean it's established. Both reviews are due. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count at least Tristario, FailedMusician, and me agreeing that it does deserve the same
WP:WEIGHT as the other source and does not appear to be a proper review. I will ask other editors in that discussion to express their views explicitly. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Two noted RS, PMID:33411434 and this, are scientific review articles, consistent with WP:MEDRS and should be used on this page. They can be used to source a lot of different claims, whatever is relevant. PMID:38146090 - I am less certain (agree with some others above), but again, seems to be MEDRS-consistent. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I was satisfied with both reviews being included as both appeared consistent with
WP:MEDRS compliant so it can't be used to discuss causes. Good article tho. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no consensus on how MEDRS applies to this topic. Bartholomew is a well known commentator on the topic who also, and proponent of the MPI hypothesis. While MEDRS remain undecided, Bartholomew's opinion, just like Relman's expert opinion is
There is clear policy based governance on how MEDRS applies. Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not exclusively deal with BMI content on it. MERDS should not be used to apply to non-BMI content. BootsED (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this specific article speaks, specifically, to causes. The truth is that I liked the article and I generally, personally, agree with what it's saying. But that doesn't matter. We shouldn't be using non MEDRS sources to speak specifically to causes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But articles such as this one provide important context that can still find a place within this page. BootsED (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 11 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "External links" section, please italicize "Havana Syndrome" in the Vice News: Havana Syndrome podcast link, per
MOS:MAJORWORK, under the "Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials" clause. I.e., change to [[Vice News]]: [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/havana-syndrome/id1661362245 ''Havana Syndrome'' podcast] (leaving the remained of the line alone). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
Also: the source [58] states that "Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" is "The most plausible mechanism" not all three causes and also mentions neurotoxins as one of the causes most favoured in the literature.
A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a
chemicals/neurotoxins
.
The second edit fixes an obviously incomplete and imprecise sentence. I'm sure someone would object to it but I'm not sure if that makes it controversial. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done No comments or opposition, so request carried out in full — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because RF is not a commonly known abbreviation, change RF in the final paragraph of the lead section to radio frequency. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 16 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
First sentence in the lead: "formally" should be changed to "also known as". If either of these terms predates the other, it is HS that came first. Also many current articles prefer AHI, so AHI is not "formally" in any possible sense of the word.
A formal name does not designate which came first but rather which term is preferred in the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, formally not formerly. I'm embarrassed. But still. I think "also known as" is much more user friendly. Especially since there is nothing formal about AHI. It's not a diagnosis. There have been over a thousand claimed cases and only 24 that seem to remain unaccounted for. Which of those would be AHI? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would help. However, I just did a quick search of Wikipedia. "formally called" "formally known as" barely appear in wikipedia. So far I haven't found "formally x" in any lede at all. Contrast that with "informally" which is used much more. I am personally very familiar with "informally" but have never seen "formally" used in a lede. This is an odd bird and needs to be culled. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I added it just to give it the formal name that government agencies refer to it by after reading about it in the Insider article. FailedMusician (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we start from this since it's the extent we actually all pretty much agree with. And then we can build from there if sources that can be presented that suggest relevance.
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2]Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some text taken from a previous revision of the article. In my opinion, the proposed sentence should be augmented with some variant of this information:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The investigation, which primarily consisted of interviews with former U.S. government officials, claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155 received awards and promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that coincidentally, members of the unit were geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents.[3][4] The Kremlin dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely."[5] The Insider report has caused multiple U.S. Senators to call for further investigations.[3]ChaseK (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The investigation, which primarily consisted of interviews with former U.S. government officials, claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155 received awards and promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that coincidentally, members of the unit were geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents. is speaking to causes and we should not be using this piece to slip in a finger on the scale about possible causes.
This part The Kremlin dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely." is effectively boilerplate and I don't think it's really
WP:DUE
.
This part The Insider report has caused multiple U.S. Senators to call for further investigations. I don't have any objection to in principle but it should be more specific - it should indicate who the senators are who led the call for further investigation and what steps they took. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The proposed text does not speak to causes in wikivoice, it simply reports what the report claims as a "claim".
(2) I agree it's boilerplate but it seems appropriate to contextualize the claims of the report with the existing government consensus about those claims - in particular that this report did not change the existing government consensus.
(3) Would you like to propose a wording with the details you believe should be added? ChaseK (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think that presents the risk of seeming like that claimed cause has additional authority beyond what is in MEDRS compliant sources.
2) That's fine, I guess, I just don't know that a blanket reporting of the two government's boilerplate communicates that the report didn't change those responses. This is the one I'm kind of on the fence enough. It seems harmless enough to include - but I just don't know it really adds anything of value to the article.
3) I would like to but I couldn't find any mention of the senators who called for further investigations in the linked source. [failed verification] unless I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not constructive. Its clear that this dispute his highly personalised and there won't be any agreement on anything. While I opposed the need for an RFC, since there is already consensus to cover the 60 minutes report, I think the page protection gives us the time to draft with one with three lengths of text and let it run its course for a month. FailedMusician (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I don't quite understand what you mean by with one with three lengths of text and let it run its course for a month. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if we can't get agreement this will not be added. Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be made more clear this is speculation. One line is all it needs. Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with re-adding the text above. I think it gives a clearer picture of the context of the claims. No more than a few sentences is needed here. BootsED (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed text versions
Text #1 as first added by @User:Thornfield Hall[59] and expanded by me with reactions of Russian and US governments [60]:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The investigation, which primarily consisted of interviews with former U.S. government officials, claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155 received awards and promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that coincidentally, members of the unit were geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents.[3][4]
The Kremlin dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely."[5]
The Insider report has caused multiple U.S. Senators to call for further investigations.[3]
Text #2: is based on a "trim of by @User:Simonm223 of Text #1 [61], omitting all contents of the report.
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2]
Text #3: I propose here, with a few clarifications, emphasised in bold.
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2][6] Drawing from interviews with former U.S. government officials and open source intelligence, the report claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155, a secretive Russian military intelligence unit, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these unit members closely correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide. The report highlighted that members of the CIA, especially those with expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions, were primary targets and disproportionally effected.[7][3][4]
The Kremlin swiftly dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely."[5]
Following the report, several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into high-energy weapons and their possible use targeting U.S. national security officials.[3]
Please feel free to post the RFC with these versions or create a new one. FailedMusician (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Text #3.1 My take on improving the texts #1 and #3
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][6] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[7][3][4] The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people.[7][3][4]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[5]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
The key differences, IMO, are changing the "reigniting allegations" to emotionally neutral wording, shrinking the press secretaries' boilerplate statements, adding the correct source for those senators' call, and removing the incorrect part about it being open-source (flight and phone data is easily illegally bought in Russia, but that is still not open-source, and the documents related to the development of the weapons are essentially closed-source). Though in this version of the text, I am not sure where (if at all) to add the part about the statements by victims and people related to the government investigation present in the report.
I'd support #3.1 if you nix the last sentence, unless the letter leads to something I don't think it's due. I'm not entirely sure of the wording of the last sentence in the first paragraph, but that could always be tweaked if necessary. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this with all due respect, but "The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." is an incredibly poorly written sentence. Additionally, so I don't forget, support text #2 as the other two proposals push fringe content, like non-lethal acoustic weapons that don't have any scientific evidence supporting them and go against the consensus of the intelligence community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Draken Bowser said, the text can be tweaked, for better English I presume. We don't need to go off on people for their writing skills here. I think 3.1' is making some progress. FailedMusician (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some better wording, which I VERY weakly support after #2:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting claims that Havana Syndrome was the result of hostile Russian action.
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."
Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your watered down version amounts to the same thing as #2. It mentions absolutely nothing of what this investigative report actually says, as if we are protecting our readers from some forbidden knowledge. FailedMusician (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually states that the report discusses "claims that Havana Syndrome was the result of hostile Russian action." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why leave out details about what the alleged Russian action was and which unit of the Russian army was given the order? Why leave out the alleged pulsed microwave radiation and/or accouistic sound weapon that this widely covered investigative report talks about, and is mentioned in some form or another all over our article? FailedMusician (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The specificity is a notable part of this report. ChaseK (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incorporates the stuff about the senators I was thinking about putting in. I'd endorse it over my original proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we can put it as version #2.1 in an RFC instead of the original #2. FailedMusician (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "igniting claims" doesn't really make sense. The claims aren't what was "ignited". It should probably say "published an investigative report claiming that"... ChaseK (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At best text 2, but change it to re-ignighting speculation, as this is all it is. Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support 3.1, if this sentence was taken out, " The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." I don't think it is necessary. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Text 2.1
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." [1]In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely.""[5]
Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents. [8]
^ abcdeDieckmann, Cornelius; Dobrokhotov, Roman; Grozev, Christo; Lüdke, Steffen; Schadwinkel, Alina; Schmid, Fidelius (March 31, 2024). "Did Russian agents use microwave weapons against US diplomats". Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved April 1, 2024. Cite error: The named reference "SpiegelMarch2024" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.
Version 3.1:
On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence.[1][2][3] The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]
Support version 3.1 as it provides a detailed, neutral account of the widely reported investigative report, describing the alleged involvement of GRU Unit 29155 and reactions from the Russian and U.S. governments. This version also uses a wider array of reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the story. FailedMusician (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose version 3.1, no opinion on version 2.1 -- I could probably be persuaded to something like 3.1, but "claimed" is too strong for me when it comes to the sources provided. In essence, the articles read to me as saying "there's a lot of smoke here," but as currently phrased, 3.1 strikes me as going beyond that. I would expect, for instance, some certainty of the exact method used, which does not appear to me to be in evidence. In essence I see quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, but not what I would call a claim. As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3.1, or some version between the two. It simply provides more context and information. Version 2.1 is so vague that it's not clear to the reader what the fuss is about. And it is actually misleading: By removing all specifics and evidence summary, then following that with a bunch of pooh-poohing, WP strongly takes the dismissive side and gives the incorrect impression that The Insider had no evidence and was simply making stuff up. So, that's obviously a
WP:OR, in manipulating the nature of the source material to give an impression that it is much weaker than it really is. However, 3.1 might be compressable a bit. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support 3.1 It provides more useful information on the report and I find the inclusion of "reigniting speculation" in 2.1 to be speculative itself. I'll also note that I see little risk that the article will give readers an undue impression that Havana Syndrome really was caused by an energy weapon. The introduction and preceding material are sufficiently clear that such claims would be dubious. Groceryheist (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3.1. Clearly and neutrally defines the topic at hand and provides necessary context. BootsED (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose both, this warents at most the briefest of mentions. What we currently have gives it all the coverage it needs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2.1 but with a note that I was, as the editor who compiled 2.1, still workshopping it. Would be open to discussion of further revision and I think the RFC was premature. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took the workshopped version 2.0 from LegalSmeagolian [62]. The main difference between the two versions is that one describes the allegations and one doesn't. FailedMusician (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just saying that I still viewed 2.1 as very much a work in progress and it seems that the initiation of this RFC was somewhat rushed. That being said, I still say it's much better than the other RFC in that it is, at least, framed neutrally and nothing stops people from further amending the text after the closure of the RFC assuming 2.1 is selected. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 3.1 or something similar because it says something about the contents of the report, as opposed to 2.1, which states that there was a report, but nothing about the contents or what differentiates it from previous speculations. ChaseK (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Version 3.2: A synthesis of my preferred parts of 2.1 and 3.1
On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome.[1][2] The report alleged that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations[2], received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of some Havana Syndrome incidents.[4][5][6]
The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media."[1] In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."[7]
Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.[8]
Oppose version 3.1, support 2.1 for reasons enumerated by @Dumuzid. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support 3.1, if this sentence was taken out, " The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." I don't think it is necessary or adds anything. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2.1 (formatted correctly as originally suggested in the previous discussion). I don't think going into detail about the allegations is
WP:DUE. I'm open to some other wording but I don't think we should give significantly more detail for the allegations than the denials. Loki (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I suppose Support 2.1, per Dumuzid, though I think this RFC is premature and a better option might present itself if discussion continues. -
Support 3.1 as it succinctly and neutrally describes the key points of the report and the reaction to it. As a compromise between 2.1 and 3.1 I can support 3.2, but I still think the wording there (as in 2.1) is not in neutral tone. And I completely oppose 2.1, because in addition to that wording it unduly withholds the basic information about the report from the reader. TinyClayMan (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omit entirely or Support 2.1. This is a recent event with minimal long-term coverage that contradicts higher-quality sources; putting excessive weight on single studies is something we're specifically warned against in
WP:RECENTISM fixation on a few relatively recent bits of coverage. One person argued that 3.1 helps show what all the fuss is about... but there wasn't much fuss; it was a blip and coverage has already mostly faded. Beyond that, I'd oppose the current wording of 3.1 in strongest possible terms because it flatly misrepresents the sources - the sources do not "[claim] that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence." They argue that it is a possibility, but do not claim it to be established fact. See the Reuters source, report that Russian military intelligence may be behind the mysterious and the BBC source, They may have been targeted by Russian sonic weaponry, according to a joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS's 60 Minutes. (Emphasis mine in each case.) The "may" in each of those is unambiguous and turning it into an overt "claimed" is flatly misusing them as sources. All other objections aside, no version is acceptable that words it as any stronger than may or claimed it is possible or something along those lines. --Aquillion (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
easier to say Oppose all until I say otherwise, again we need one line, what we have is fine. Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to leave out any description of the contents of the report? Just mentioning that the report exists is nigh useless to the reader. ChaseK (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am unsure it should even be here, thus is is a compromise. It is (in effect) one report, thus (as I have argued more than once) inclusion violates
wp:undue to give this any coverage, thus one line is all i can support. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's one report with 3 sources, reading through this talk page that part seems to get lost. If this report was just 60 minutes, I would agree this report shouldn't be included. 2.1 is gives zero context or any information about the report and just seems like an effort to squash this report from being included and drag the process out. We have 19 vs 7 people who want some form of this report being included. That to me looks like a consensus. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)t here.[reply]
But I am not required to agree with it, just to obey it, thus I am entitled to put my point of view, which is all I have done. And an RFC is not an vote, a close only has to take into account policy-based arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my concern with the vote-counting going on at this talk page is that I think it's being a bit selective. How many of those 19 people are supporting inclusion per 2.1? Because I know I've been counted several times as supporting inclusion in the same breath that the form of inclusion I prefer is decried. Regardless Slatersteven is entirely correct that there is no requirement for them to support 3.1 or 2.1 (or even the recently added option referred to as 3.2) within the perspective of their !vote. They have said they feel 2.1 gives undue space to the 60 minutes report. They are entitled to hold that view. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can just tag them all here to find out. All editors from all relevant discussions. FailedMusician (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? They deserve to know this has gone to an RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, dislike being pinged over and over again. Furthermore many of them have already commented on the RfC. Also the RfC is going to remain open for some time. If they are interested they will have plenty of time to see it. It really does feel like you are trying to rush this process. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3.1 or close to it per my arguments raised earlier on this page. Just want to point out again their new evidence relates to the trips of Unit 29155 members and eyewitness statements. They say nothing conclusive about how the attacks were committed, and as such do not challenge science. The sources are reliable enough considering their track record on exposing other Russian special operations in Europe. The text mentions their findings as allegations and not as facts, allowing readers to draw their own conclusion. Machinarium (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3.2 (or something akin to it, like 3.1, with the understanding that specific wording is not set in stone, and can be improved during the normal course of editing). 3.2 is sensibly and neutrally stated, clear, and well-cited. It avoids definitive unattributed statements, which is best. (Notably, the 60 Minutes report itself provides information without drawing a specific conclusion.) Omitting entirely makes no sense, as this is classically noteworthy: a 60 Minutes investigation that drew responses from the U.S. and Russian governments, as well as substantial follow-up coverage. I also oppose Version 2.1: it is simply vague and elliptic, giving airtime to the government responses than to the report's actual substance, leaving the reader to guess what the report was really about. The wikilink here to GRU Unit 29155 is crucial, since that was the bottom-line point of the report. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree and I also oppose Version 2.1 as simply too vague for no valid reason. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3.1 or 3.2 as it provides readers with the needed context in an accurate way. I haven't seen any convincing reason for omitting the contents of the report or the reactions. Claiming this was not a significant event when both the US and Russian governments officially released statements within 24 hours is absurd. This was a significant diplomatic event that requires the proper coverage in this article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A report which two adversarial nations both agree is inaccurate is "a significant diplomatic event"? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the involved adversarial parties are a nation known for concealing the other nation's criminal actions for diplomatic and reputational reasons and a nation that alwaysdeniesitsinternationaloperations. The contents of these responses are totally expected and don't reflect that the report itself is "good" or "bad", the important part is that the statements were made. But this discussion is not for this talk page section, I think. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US government could also have strategic reasons for denying any foreign adversary involvement, to allay fears of its personnel stationed abroad. Still not a reason to exclude these statements. FailedMusician (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 23 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The sentence in the first subsection beginning "The review stated that plausible explanation given" is missing a word before plausible. 2600:1002:B156:9F53:0:1:D1BF:801 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you rewrite exactly? Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably add the word "that a plausible" LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that addition if that's what they want. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As per [63] and two follow on comments [64][65], please add this review article to the Possible Causes section:
A review article published in 2020 by Julie A. Pavlin and David A. Relman, titled An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, suggested that the incidents commonly referred to as "Havana Syndrome" could potentially be linked to directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy, considering all examined biologic, acoustic, radiologic, chemical, toxicological, and psychological factors.[9]
Disagree with inclusion - first, not a peer-reviewed review article, its a report from a
NASEM standing committee. Second, it does not actually review patient-level cases, and such review has showed that the incidents are not related to directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A note that this is not one of the two reviews that were being discussed in my comment but rather a third one I have not actually assessed from a basis of MEDRS compliance at this time. As such keep that in mind when looking at the diff above that is cited to one of my comments. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 'Consensus Study Report' from the National Academy of Sciences. It isn't a review article - pubmed has miscategorized it. I would say even calling it an 'article' is a bit misleading. It's a report that was authored by a committee. The proposed text incorrectly suggests that Pavlin and Relman were the authors - they were in fact the editors. This clearly cannot be included as suggested. -
Yeah this request fails the "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." there was no discussion surrounding this inclusion, additionally the NASEM report is the basis of the
WP:FRINGE claims from the Asadi-Pooya review article, so I view it with quite a bit of skepticism, especially given the more recent review articles and analysis of Havana Syndrome. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What you call "WP:FRINGE claims" are the conclusions of a high level
WP:IDHT at this point. We can't keep going in circles like this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 11:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed - I have clearly stated that I believe that more recent MEDRS sources supplant the NASEM and Asadi-Pooya article in terms of weight and dueness. We will likely not come to agreement on this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
MrOllie Could you clarify? The article is clearly marked as a review and describes in detail who peer reviewed it and the review process of the draft and final result (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566412/ for the list of committee members and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566406/ for the review process and who performed it). I don't see any evidence of "a miscategorization" and this seems to me to be published as a "peer-reviewed review article" and of high quality. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 11:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Review the publisher's site rather than pubmed: [67]. It's not a review article in some other journal, it is an independently published report. The proposed text is incorrect about the authorship and publishing model. Even aside from that, it cherry picks from the report in a misleading way. To quote NASEM's summary of the document: Multiple hypotheses and mechanisms have been proposed to explain these clinical cases, but evidence has been lacking, no hypothesis has been proven, and the circumstances remain unclear.
If you download the full report from the link you provided it states clearly (emphasis mine): Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.. So this checks all boxes required for a
WP:MEDRS source of the highest level. What you report as NASEM's summary is an exact summary of the current knowledge we have on the subject. That is exactly what our article should say. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't even mentioned MEDRS or whether it meets that standard or not. The proposed text is simply incorrect.
We have now two RFCs open. One is malformed. The other is much better formed but, imo, premature as workshopping was still underway for appropriate text. Can we at least close the malformed and non-neutral RFC? Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have only one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both RFCs are necessary and should be closed according to procedure. The first RFC is important to settle the application of MEDRS to this topic, though it could have done a better job at defining what is and is not BPI, where the debate seems to have moved to. No RFC is ideal as editors should attempt to reach consensus through open collaboration, but unfortunately there was firm opposition to including content about the allegations, so we are forced to draw straws. FailedMusician (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first RFC is highly non-neutral, entirely too vague, and extends beyond the scope of what an RFC can accomplish through its attempt to redefine
WP:MEDRS - it's clearly malformed and is of no value for improving this page. The second RFC was merely premature. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's nothing a skilled and experienced closer can't see to. FailedMusician (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm rather confident that a skilled and experienced closer will immediately see that the first RFC is malformed and of no value it should be closed ASAP to reduce the level of noise on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree all a closer can do in the first RfC is to probably simply close it as malformed. But maybe they may save some sort of consensus out of that long discussion. Might as well let it finish its course at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 20:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Beyond Cuba" section (formatting only discussion)
I propose that we merge "Elsewhere in Asia" and "Elsewhere" into the two paragraphs at the top. Right now its a bit of a mess... Currently we spread non-China Asia stuff among the three sections, for example you won't find Taiwan in "Elsewhere in Asia" but you will find it at the top and in elsewhere. No content would be added or dropped, the existing paragraphs/sentences would just be integrated together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you throw up what that would look like in talk? It sounds non-controversial but would like to see. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have done so, to me this looks a lot cleaner and the groupings make more sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but I have a few questions.
Could we stack notes 12-18 in one efn/ref? Could we remove the NYT's speculative quote? Also: "While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal." - the phrasing is a bit tendentious, could we just state plainly (for context) that these talks were ongoing at the time? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We likely could, but those sorts of changes are not within the scope of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, the first one is though. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to avoid trying to list every claimed incident. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but this discussion is only to change the format of the extant text on the page. And within the bounds of this discussion I like the suggestion. We can discuss trimming content at a later date - preferably after we've calmed down the sturm und drang over 60 minutes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond Cuba (proposed)
Beginning in late 2017, suspected attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported in an expanding set of locations around the world,
Tbilisi, Georgia; Poland; Taiwan; and Australia.[11] Other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria,[12] among other countries.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] One of the CIA officials with symptoms in Australia and Taiwan was one of the agency's top five officials.[11] The Russian embassy in Australia dismissed reports of Russian operatives targeting CIA personnel in Australia.[19]
The U.S. government has not released the number of affected persons, but media reporting indicated a total of 130 possible cases by the end of May 2021,[12] rising to more than 200 by mid-September 2021.[20] The cases variously affected CIA, U.S. military, and State Department personnel and their family members.[12] Some reports, after investigation, were determined to be possibly related to Havana syndrome, while others were determined to be unrelated; BBC News reported in 2021 that "One former official reckons around half the cases reported by US officials are possibly linked to attacks by an adversary."[21]
In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the
Bogota, Colombia, had developed symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome.[25][26]
Starting in early 2018, U.S. diplomats in China began reporting symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome. The first such incident was reported by an American diplomat in China in April 2018 at the
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, reported a different incident in September 2017; the employee's report was discounted by the U.S. State Department.[30]
Answering questions from the
House Foreign Affairs Committee in May 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified that U.S. diplomatic staff in Guangzhou had reported symptoms "very similar" to, and "entirely consistent" with, those reported from Cuba.[31][32] On June 6, 2018, The New York Times reported that at least two additional U.S. diplomats stationed at the Guangzhou consulate had been evacuated from China and reported that "it remains unclear whether the illnesses are the result of attacks at all. Other theories have included toxins, listening devices that accidentally emitted harmful sounds, or even mass hysteria."[28] In June 2018, the State Department announced that a task force had been assembled to investigate the reports[33] and expanded their health warning to all of mainland China amid reports some US diplomats outside of Guangzhou had experienced the same symptoms resembling a brain injury.[34] The warning told anyone who experienced "unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises" to "not attempt to locate their source".[35]
Washington, D.C., area
In 2019, a White House official reported experiencing debilitating symptoms while walking her dog in a
House Armed Services Committee in April 2021.[15] Investigators told members of Congress that they had not been able to determine the cause of the events or who was responsible.[15]
Europe
Vienna, Austria
In 2021, dozens of U.S. personnel stationed in Vienna, including diplomats, intelligence officials, and some children of U.S. employees, had Havana syndrome-like symptoms.[37]
The
Austrian foreign ministry stated it was collaborating with American investigators. Aside from Havana, Vienna has reported the most incidents. While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal.[39] In September 2021, the CIA station chief in Vienna (the top U.S. intelligence officer in the country) was recalled over concerns over his management; he had been criticized for not taking quicker action in response to the Havana syndrome cases at his post.[20][37]
In the months preceding August 2021, cases of Havana syndrome were reported at the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Germany, including from two U.S. officials who sought medical treatment.[40] Several new cases were reported at the embassy in October 2021.[41]
In 2021, the CIA evacuated an intelligence officer serving in Serbia suspected of being a victim of the neurological attack.[10]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
−
{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}{{multipleissues|1={{primarysources|date=April2024}}{{pov|date=April2024}}}}{{Short description|Medical symptoms of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}}
{{Use American English|date=April 2018}}
+
{{Short description|Medical symptoms of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers}}
{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}
{{multiple issues |1=
{{primary sources|date=April 2024}}
{{pov|date=April 2024}}
}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}}
{{Use American English|date=April 2018}}
per
Queen of ♡ | speak 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
