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]
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]
No one is obliged to respond to your dispute to your specifications. Certainly not within a few hours. That is not a reason to blank well-sourced content from the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 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]
This is a WP:MEDRS article. None of these are 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 WP:RSP)
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]
Ray Cats don't exist and yet I was greeted with them on the DYK section when I opened up the homepage. Are they or 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: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)[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: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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[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]
No, they think its newsworthy enough, why is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 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 WP:CANVASS[8]. FailedMusician (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Experts say all kinds of novel things and are sometimes wrong. Wikipedia has sourcing standards for pronouncements in the realm of WP:BMI: see WP:MEDRS. Editors need to abide by them, otherwise the appearance of WP:PROFRINGE is a risk. Bon courage (talk) 08:41, 3 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 WP:MEDRSSimonm223 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:DUE about an issue to ensure a reliably sourced and neutral article. I would also caution you that some of your comments about other, non-Havana Syndrome, things that may have been done by either Russia or the Soviet Union and the problems with diagnosis of other, non Havana Syndrome, conditions borders on WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with @Simonm223. There is an ongoing debate at all levels on this topic (scientific/diplomatic/intelligence). There are some prevailing theories but nothing is settled yet. We must be very cautious and precise in saying who claims what exactly and with due 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 WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:MEDRS (Case selection bias is the most obvious potential red flag for those studies). Those studies are 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:MEDRS sources but based on WP:PRIMARY exploratory studies. Everything is still being researched here. No definitive medical claims can be made until we have WP:MEDRS sources which we currently do not have (Or do we?). On the contrary: the 60 minutes report as far as it relates to non biomedical claims 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."
Please read 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:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:FRINGE and 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:undue to mention it more than once. As I have said many times, and not that being reported is not a guarantee of inlcudsion, you have to say what this needs saying more than once, the 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]
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.
Half of this article is a violation of WP:MEDRS and should be deleted as no appropriate sources exist yet given the early research on this topic. We cannot make any biomedical claims WP:BMI by sourcing it to newspapers and WP:PRIMARY sources/studies.
For example this reversion by @Simonm223 reintroduces some of those claims. All of the sources in those paragraphs are not WP:MEDRS compliant:
"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:BMI and Source 1 and Source 2 are newspapers reporting on 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 WP:BMI and Source 1 is a newspaper reporting on a WP:PRIMARY source Source 2
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 astronomy is immediately dismissed as science fiction for example. Also, don't forget the possibility of sonic weapons. Machinarium (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:BMI claims we can't rely on single WP:primary studies. Those are also just exploratory studies! What if they missed damage to the brain because they selected the wrong cases? Or what if the damage is not to the brain but to the ears? Or it is not visible through an MRI? Or after too much time? The list goes on of potential problems. That is why WP:MEDRS exists. Until the science is settled in a medical review we cannot make biomedical claims WP:BMI. We can say that the cause of the symptoms in unknown and that it is being investigated and that it is currently still unclear if the condition is cased by a mass hallucination and that some scientists have proposed that theory (as reported by 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:MEDRS then we will be stubifying it at best. Now I'm not *entirely* against that. What I am against is a selective argument that political / espionage concerns can source to newsmedia while the specifically medical angle must require a higher standard of source. If the consensus at talk is that we should allow newsmedia speculation about Russia having secret guns that defy the known laws of physics then we need to include the primary source medical information that does exist to ensure neutrality and avoid this becoming a repository of WP:FRINGE science. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! WP:MEDRS applies to the entire encyclopaedia but only for WP:BMIclaims and not for 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]
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 wp:RECENTISMSimonm223 (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 @FailedMusician. Not all of the content is medical. But we should remove badly sourced 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:PRIMARY medical studies should not be included and certainly should not be used to make definitive biomedical claims 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 WP:MEDRS perspective.Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per @FailedMusician. This article should follow the sources and cover all aspects of this story: medical, diplomatic, intelligence, political, etc. When dealing with medical aspects it should be aware that biomedical claims WP:BMI must be sourced according to WP:MEDRS. 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 WP:WHYMEDRS{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those other claims should be framed as speculative fiction at minimum, and are potentially not WP:DUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other claims should be framed as WP:RS frame them. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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[12] about MEDRS sourcing at lab leak. MEDRS applies to WP:BMI, and not 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:PARITY helps to address this. When answering fringe claims, a source as good as what is being answered is needed (not WP:MEDRS level necessarily), specifically so that science isn't held to a higher standard than fringey story telling. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to remind all editors to refresh themselves on WP:3RR; @FailedMusician I was not casting aspirations as you suggest by the reversion on your talk page, rather I have very real concerns about edit warring on this article coming from you.
Reinstating removed content is a reversion. You did so twice in 24 hours, in addition to reverting two other edits:
Rather than address this at 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 Bold - Revert - Discuss rather than Bold-revert-revert-revert furthermore everybody should be careful that 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. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is the kind of 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 WP:MEDRS{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:RS while ensuring that no medical claim is made (see WP:NOTBMI).
We shouldn’t prefer one or the other hypothesis at this stage. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not when those sources are implying that extraordinary technology is being used to cause these symptoms, which lack any WP:MEDRS support. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:16, 5 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 WP:POVFORK. Besides, all the same content policies would apply just the same at another article title. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 @FailedMusician and @Gtoffoletto seem hellbent on adding WP:FRINGE information that is the result of sensational journalism and is not WP:DUE so maybe stubifying is best. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [13], and nor are you familiar with Relman's analysis of recent NIH studies purportedly showing no evidence of neurological injuries [14]. Your reference to "space lasers" suggests you've also missed the MEDRS-compliant review article that discusses different types of weapons [15]. 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]
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 (2022-06-30). "Ockham's razor, not a barber's weapon but a writer's tool". Brain. 145 (6): 1870–1873. doi:10.1093/brain/awac159. ISSN0006-8950.
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:PAGs are discussed multiple times; WP:MEDRS sources are required for 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]
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]
@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 [16], 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:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are 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 WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN before wasting community time with an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023). "Havana syndrome: a scoping review of the existing literature". Rev Environ Health (Review). 38 (4): 655–661. doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0182. PMID35962646.
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:
I think, at least for WP:Biomedical information, all the primary/old non-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" [17], 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 [18] and on the fringe noticeboard [19] 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:SCHOLARSHIP on this? To best achieve NPOV, the 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:BMI (to state the obvious). But I don't see what the issue is anyway; we have a recent strong 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 Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? That sounds like a rather 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 WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:MEDRS (like WP:BLP) applies at the article level. It applies to content in any article which is WP:BMI (same as WP:BLP applies to any content anywhere about living people). Obviously within the realm of WP:BMI different claims can have different sourcing (read MEDRS, and pay attention to the spinning plate). A claim that blowing your brains out with a gun is fatal does not require strong sourcing; a claim that drug X can prevent colon cancer would require super-strength MEDRS sourcing. 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)."
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 WP:DUE. FailedMusician (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:MEDRS, as this strongly relates to history and current affairs, and in a number of ways does not match what is described as biomedical information in 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]
Editors in favour of inclusion in #Adding the new investigative report?: Endwise, Redxiv, Gtoffoletto, Thornfield Hall, Chase1635321, TinyClayMan, Running dog59, Edittlealittle, BootsED, LuckyLouie, GreenC, Machinarium and DolyaIskrina. Even Simonm223 and Slatersteven agreed to inclusion. Yet you remove it citing WP:ONUS? FailedMusician (talk) 02:05, 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 WP:NEWSPRIMARY reportage. Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:WEIGHT demonstrated? Bon courage (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Not with the WP:CLAIM. Russia likely has agents in pretty much all countries all the time. (Which makes the Russia-did-it reasoning pretty silly and the inclusion pretty WP:UNDUE.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 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.
Any major power with an intelligence service has agents in most countries or at least some kind of information system in those countries, WP:SKYISBLUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:59, 5 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:PAGs, WP:V and 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 WP:RS{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 05:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IS the full diff [[20]] 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? Does the fact that Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving permit the use of 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]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
