Talk:Havana syndrome: Difference between revisions
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212 |
:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212 |
||
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6]] ([[User talk:2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|talk]]) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6]] ([[User talk:2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|talk]]) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::... "The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, |
|||
::Engineering, and Medicine released its |
|||
::report [8] examining the plausible causes |
|||
::of the described illnesses and makes the |
|||
::point that “among the mechanisms the |
|||
::study committee considered, the most |
|||
::plausible mechanism to explain these |
|||
::cases, especially in individuals with dis- |
|||
::tinct early symptoms, appears to be di- |
|||
::rected, pulsed RF (microwave) energy.” |
|||
::https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212 [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6]] ([[User talk:2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6|talk]]) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 03:21, 2 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Havana syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | 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.
|
Short description
@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)
- But this is what they were. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Did you read the article, not all the incidents were over seas (for a start). Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ah. Well, wouldn't adding a "mostly" solve that? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Maybe "non-physical" is better? 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Looking good! Rp2006 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- On most issues, you can find commentators saying just about anything. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- And often commentators are politically motivated. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- On most issues, you can find commentators saying just about anything. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Microwave transmission is commonly used in civilian communications. Wave interference from two or more transmitters, or just reflections from buildings, can give rise to large changes in intensity over small areas. There is also this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26556835/92.24.225.104 which mentions something similar in the 1970s. (talk) 92.24.225.104 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- This is now widely reported:
- https://theins.ru/en/politics/270425
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNRpw6DWN0M
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/havana-syndrome-culprit-investigation-new-evidence-60-minutes-transcript/
- https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/havana-syndrome-evidence-investigation-russia-60-minutes FailedMusician (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is a WP:MEDRS article. None of these are WP:MEDRS-quality sources. Loki (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Is it really a WP:MEDRS article though? Or is it an espionage article? — Red XIV (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The passage you keep reverting includes several reliable sources (all present in WP:RSP)
- Here is one more.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68706317.amp
- 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)
- Is CBS not a respectable perennial source? What's fringe about it? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes it is a MEDRS article as it talks about medical conditions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The investigation in question is not WP:MEDRS. ChaseK (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It would be worth coverage if some high-quality source takes a overview and analyses the coverage in a WP:FRIND manner. But mostly what we have is 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Should this website be added to the external links section from the report? Addressing Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs) | Go Forward with Advanced Echelon LLC Indexcard88 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Support covering this investigation in the article. Wikipedia should be based on WP:RELIABLE sources. Nothing else. This investigation was conducted by several high profile investigative journalists (such as Christo Grozev from Bellingcat) who are specialised in Russian investigations. It has been widely reported by WP:SECONDARY sources of the highest quality (all in the 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)
- It's just news churn. Where are the decent WP:SECONDARY sources you claim exist? Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- All the sources linked above are WP:SECONDARY and of high quality being all WP:RSP outlets. The 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)
- Their just re-reporting the news, with none of the in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis that characterize secondary sources. WP:NEWSPRIMARY in other words.More generally, it's evident this article has descended again into being a fringe of FRINGE POV, with a tonne of primary sourcing spliced together by editors here. I have raised a query at 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, they think its newsworthy enough, why is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Their just re-reporting the news, with none of the in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis that characterize secondary sources. WP:NEWSPRIMARY in other words.More generally, it's evident this article has descended again into being a fringe of FRINGE POV, with a tonne of primary sourcing spliced together by editors here. I have raised a query at 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)
- All the sources linked above are WP:SECONDARY and of high quality being all WP:RSP outlets. The 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Certainly... no one was arguing for that. ChaseK (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what is the suggested text? Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly... no one was arguing for that. ChaseK (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support inclusion. Suggested text:
- 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]
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)
- 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.
- Assuming reported accounts are reli-
- able, the microwave auditory effect
- provides a scientific explanation for the
- Havana Syndrome [4], [5]. Pulsed mi-
- crowaves can create an acoustic wave
- inside the head [6], [7], [14]. It is plausible
- that the loud buzzing, burst of sound,
- or pressure waves could have been co-
- vertly delivered using a beam of high-
- power pulsed microwave radiation rather
- than blasting the subjects with conven-
- tional sonic sources. Microwave hearing
- doesn’t go through the ear; it goes di-
- rectly from the brain tissue to the cochlea.
- Absorption of short pulses of microwave
- energy by brain tissues creates a rapid
- expansion of brain matter and launches
- an acoustic wave of pressure (sound
- wave) that travels inside the head to
- the inner ear cochlea [7], [14]. The short
- high-power microwave pulses do not
- generate noticeable amounts of heat in
- the brain tissues."
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... "The U.S. National Academies of Sciences,
- Engineering, and Medicine released its
- report [8] examining the plausible causes
- of the described illnesses and makes the
- point that “among the mechanisms the
- study committee considered, the most
- plausible mechanism to explain these
- cases, especially in individuals with dis-
- tinct early symptoms, appears to be di-
- rected, pulsed RF (microwave) energy.”
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Dobrokhotov, Roman; Grozev, Christo; Weiss, Michael (31 March 2024). "Unraveling Havana Syndrome: New evidence links the GRU's assassination Unit 29155 to mysterious attacks on U.S. officials and their families". The Insider. Retrieved 2024-04-01.
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Cuba articles
- Mid-importance Cuba articles
- WikiProject Cuba articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Articles with connected contributors