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.
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
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
True, but if caused by a weapon would be an injury. Also symptoms having symptoms does not mean they were ill, as they may not even really had them. We can't word anything to imply we know what this was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having symptoms is experiencing illness by definition, and I don't see how this implies that we know the origin. We don't need to include every detail in the short description. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having symptoms IS being ill. Thinking that you have symptoms while you don't is still being ill. The current SD does not take a side on this point either, and I don't see why we have to include this facet in a summarizing and distinguishing short description.Pinging @Bon courage for a fresh pair of eyes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Even if the illness is entirely psychological in character and brought about by a straightforward stress response that still constitutes illness. The question is not whether people who claim Havana Syndrome are sick - it's what they're sick with. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Citing Bartholomew & Raloh, 2023, MPI is a collective stress reaction that is based on a belief and is commonly found in normal populations and anyone can exhibit psychogenic symptoms and they are as real as any other symptoms. Basically, every theory mentioned on this article (including crickets, RF effects, MPI) treats it as "real", except for the "feigning for insurance" theory – and the general consensus seems to be that this theory is highly unlikely. TinyClayMan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Currently, it is a "medical condition", followed by a mention of main symptoms in the next sentence, which looks fine to me. I don't think any other term from Disease#Terminology is needed, "medical condition" and "syndrome" seem to be the most fitting. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't get it. It's necessary to put the unknown nature in the short description because it has an unknown nature? Why do you support D but oppose B? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because it is widely associated with radiofrequency weapons, but that is only a proposed cause of this idiopathic condition. I oppose B because it contains the word "illness". Draken Bowser (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's wrong with the word "illness"? It's much more concise and means the same thing as "medical condition". If anything, the latter only makes it sound a bit more real. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your sources only state that non-physical injuries are injuries. In fact, one of the sources you've provided includes mental illness inflictions under non-physical injuries and calls it "Disabling mental illness".My source is any competent dictionary. Merriam-Webster for example defines "illness" as "an unhealthy condition of body or mind", which this falls under. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're obviously not going to find consensus for that particular word, so it is time to start looking at the thesaurus. I'll start: How about 'affliction'? MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
New section summarizing explanations that have been speculated?
Latest comment: 7 months ago14 comments4 people in discussion
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
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
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
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
Latest comment: 7 months ago24 comments10 people in discussion
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
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 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
The allegations of a government conspiracy, allegations that victims were lying, PTSD, etc., are all not psychogenic causes. Furthermore, the allegations in this section are mostly coming from random non-expert pundits. And the section is dramatically unbalanced. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Copied and pasted from the talk thread on the section.
The problem is there is a section called psychogenic causes which is not about psychogenic causes. A section on psychogenic causes has subsections "Politics and Cold War", "Financial Incentives", and "Professional Reluctance", and "Media Reports". If there should be a section on such topics and the possible reasons for why assessments may have been biased, it should be a different topic and also more balanced.
For example, maybe in a section on "Allegations of Bias, Wrongdoing, and Cover Ups", or something like that, it would be appropriate to include allegations that people are lying, allegations that the government suppressed a line of research, etc. The section on possible causes should be about the possible causes. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's mostly not very well sourced. Most of the claims in the section are based on opinion pieces by non-experts. Most of the subsections to the Psychogenic section begin with, "Some commentators have suggested that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed ...". And there is an obvious misunderstanding of what psychogenic illness is, as it seems to be conflated with all kinds of other issues like stress and PTSD. Other parts are about allegations of government conspiracies to suppress research. There are many glaring problems with this section. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I removed the sections on financial incentives (arguably too many pundits, but I am willing to compromise) and the cold war section as it is already covered in the first two paragraphs. The rest content wise is good, could use a rewrite but the substantive information is well-sourced. Hope this helps address your concerns. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's an improvement. If we want to include allegations by pundits that the causes were downplayed, it would be more balanced to include allegations of the same nature for the Attacks by Hostile Powers section. It has been widely suggested by commentators, for example, that there was a reluctance to be forced to respond to an attack by a foreign power. It probably doesn't make sense however to promulgate speculations of this nature on Wikipedia at all.
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?
Latest comment: 6 months ago105 comments28 people in discussion
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
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
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}}talk09:03, 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
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 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}}talk15:59, 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}}talk16:34, 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}}talk16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
At this point the page history looks like an edit war between @Bon courage and everyone else, because some sources are not sources enough. While I agree that all those Guardian, Politico, Reuters and the like's retellings of the investigation are on the same level of "sourceness" as the investigation itself (published originally in 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel), I disagree that they are primary sources. In the context of the article (Havana syndrome) they are all secondary, because they do not make an initial report on the event – they are an aftermath analysis and an investigation of it. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Secondary sources on Wikipedia are described in WP:SECONDARY. They are not not secondary because of editor say-so. We would really need some authoritative, quality overview of this. Not just news churn. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What you're asking for is beyond what the policy requires. We would need an "authoritative, quality overview" to assert that the claims are true or false. We do not need such a source to simply quote the claim, evidence, and responses by the Director of National Intelligence and Russian Government. ChaseK (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lets look at this another way, If Havana Syndrome is real, and IF RS say it is real...this (to me) is the heart of this issue, for this report to be not wp:undue Havana Syndrome has to be accept as a single, identifiable medical complaint. As (as far as I know) this is not the case, and it has not been proven to be real, thus accusing anyone of it is saying it is real by the back door, which is why I say this fails, MEDERS, as these are not medical sources making (in effect) an indirect medical diagnosis (as if it is not real, buy definition Russia did not do it). Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Surprised this is being debated. Wikipedia doesn’t decide what is important or true, we merely report on what reliable sources state. Multiple reliable sources have reported on this issue. To not include their commentary is itself biased. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, agree, but let's not sensationalize it to read as if the 60 Minutes report is conclusive proof and now represents the mainstream POV on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
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
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}}talk11:38, 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}}talk12:12, 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
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}}talk12:50, 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
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
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}}talk15:45, 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
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
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}}talk18:57, 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
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}}talk18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most discussions should not be 'closed' at all. They certainly should not be closed by someone involved in the discussion with a closure box restating their opinion, as was just done here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
More than a week had passed since the discussion was active and I don't see a single "oppose" in the discussion above so I applied WP:SNOW. Everyone seems to agree that the report should be included. My assessment of the result of the discussion above is The 60 Minutes investigation should be covered in the article. It is not a WP:MEDRS compliant source so it may not be used to support any biomedical claim WP:BMI. The source should be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT without giving it excessive coverage.. Do you disagree with it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 7 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion
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
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
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
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}}talk18:25, 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
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}}talk18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Needs updates on scientific assessments on the plausibility of directed energy attacks
Latest comment: 7 months ago27 comments9 people in discussion
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."
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
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}}talk12:20, 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
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}}talk18:50, 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
Latest comment: 7 months ago29 comments9 people in discussion
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
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?
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
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
Latest comment: 7 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion
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:
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}}talk18:34, 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
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
Unprofessional CBS/60 Minutes report has re-ignited controversy
Latest comment: 6 months ago56 comments15 people in discussion
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.",
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
And as for the Relman comments, "neither those reports, nor the two new studies, rule out the possibility that some individuals have been attacked and injured" is entirely dissimilar from "we have evidence some individuals have been attacked and injured." As I've said repeatedly, absence of evidence is not evidence. Relman has drawn attention to an absence of evidence. This is why we should be stubbing this article rather than filling it with speculation. The scientific consensus is "we don't know." The science fictional consensus preferred by sensationalist media is inappropriate for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide a specific example of an edit where it has been definitively stated, either in the talk page discussions or within the article itself, that the cause of all or even specific cases was a weapon? I haven't seen anything like that. Conversely, I've seen many instances where you've confidently asserted the non-involvement of weapons [16], despite sources saying it is a possibility. Wikipedia's guidelines strictly prohibit the introduction of personal viewpoints into editing, as outlined in WP:NPOV. FailedMusician (talk) 12:08, 6 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
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, 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
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..."
So we should stubify the article as it deals with a medical condition, and create a seperate article regarding the media narrative. Or at least stubify the causes section to only include medrs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, because the "syndrome" here does not mean any actual (scientifically proven) medical condition, but rather a common name of the subject. This is the reason WP:MEDRS is not applicable to this page as a whole. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes... In fact, as I recall, the original name of this article was "Sonic attacks in Cuba" because Trump and the US gov't claimed publicly that they "knew" the Cubans had done just that before any medical studies were even performed. Then when it became apparent that "sonic weapons" could not do the (claimed) organic damage, the gov't backed off that claim, and other types of weapons were proposed. So the article became "Health attacks in Cuba." THEN when scientists pushed back on THAT as well, the article became just "Anomalous health incidents." See a pattern folks? But the press dubbed it "Havana Syndrome," and thus we have the current name for the article. To me this indicates that the term Havana Syndrome is actually meaningless medically. It is a catch-all description for AHI - anomalous symptoms and illnesses that can be due to a wide variety of unrelated things - including normal sickness and reframing of such ailments due to the belief one is under attack. (Ask any "Targeted individual" about this! Many times these delusional people have vandalized this article with their personal claims of being attacked by such weaponry for decades, and their belief that Havana Syndrome proves their case. It is actually very sad.) Thus IMHO (as well as in the opinion of some scientists mentioned in the article), HS is not a specific medical "disease" needing MEDRS rules. (BTW, the name chain is from memory as I know of no way to discover old article titles! I'd love to know if there is a way.) Rp2006 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
NIH reports deleted?
Latest comment: 6 months ago31 comments9 people in discussion
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.
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 [17], 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
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
If you include political comments made by non-experts in news reports that are associated with the potential causes, you could just as well include comments made that the IC's recent conclusion that a foreign adversary attack is unlikely may have been influenced by ulterior motivates.
I think neither speculation that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed, nor speculation that the attack hypothesis was downplayed are worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. Other speculations coming from news commentators, such as financial incentives, etc, aren't worthy of including either. Political drama playing out in the news media is polarized, highly speculative, and generally very unreliable. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If this information isn't notable, then neither is 40% of what is on the page right now. The exact same type of RS is being used. So let's put it in or start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can someone who opposes inclusion of the 2024 NIH reports (as reported by major RS such as NY Times, BBC, etc) explain the opposition? I read the comments above and I don't grasp the opposition. Are the opposers suggesting that the entire "Chronology of investigations, studies... " section should be deleted? That section seems exceedingly encyclopedic, because H.S. is an evolving situation, and new data is coming out every few months. A chronology of the history seems very encyclopedic. Or is the opposition based on the fact that ALL data from the article related to politics and espionage should be deleted (leaving only medical info)? Even if that were the appproach: the NIH studies were 100% medical. Or is the opposition related to the fact that NIH studies are primary sources? But they were noted by many major media sources. Noleander (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
All these are unreliable sources. Primary research reported on by new organisations is notoriously poor. We have really good sources on this, so why is the barrel being scraped? Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why do you say the NIH reports from JAMA are unreliable? Or are you saying the NY Times is unreliable? What about other studies in years 2018 to 2023 (listed in the Studies section) ... do you have the same opinion of those prior studies? Do you propose removing the entire "Studies" section? When you say "we have really good sources" which specific sources are you considering? I ask all these questions because your point seems a bit irrational, no offense. Noleander (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's primary research, so unverified. Primary research is often wrong; read WP:WHYMEDRS if you want some background. The NYT is an unreliable sourcer for health content (like all newspapers). This is well established consensus on Wikipedia, for very good reasons. To be clear all the primary research should go: the article needs a major haircut. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The US gov't sponsored the early JAMA reports finding supposed evidence of energy weapon attacks, and it and the media used this result to claim attacks had occurred. And of course this was widely (and sensationally) covered in the media. How is this NOT acceptable to report on here? And then the US gov't sponsored another set of studies - also published in JAMA - which largely contradicted the early JAMA reports. And the media also reported this. And this information also should not be in this article? Rp2006 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because as you can see the primary studies are often contradictory/unreliable. Which one is right? We wait for the matter to be settled through the process of science. That's what Reviews are made for @Rp2006. Those reports are unreliable for WP:BMI{{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quality sources
Latest comment: 6 months ago48 comments9 people in discussion
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" [18], 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}}talk05:11, 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 [19] and on the fringe noticeboard [20] 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
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
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
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.”
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)."
It depends on if they're primary or secondary sources. The NASEM one is a review, not a primary study, but the JAMA one is a primary study. Maybe we can include some primary studies according to WP:MEDPRI, I'm not sure, but starting the medical section with a primary study would definitely be a no go according to WP:MEDRSTristario (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes I agree with your reading of MEDRS, but this article is also FRINGE and PARITY comes into play. The idea that HS is even a single thing is predicated on dodgy fMRI PRIMARY studies. So once you let the sketchy claim in the door in violation of MEDRS, you can't then change the standards to keep legitimate SECONDARY domain expert RS refutations of that claim off the page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are the two reviews of the same quality? And are they both reviews?
No, Not a proper review, I believe @Tristario, @FailedMusician (please confirm below) and me have already expressed our views that the second source reads more like an editorial/commentary rather than a proper review and that it should be given less WP:WEIGHT. I don't believe it can be placed on the same level as the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The 2024 Bartholomew review should be given less weight than the other review for reasons I mentioned above. But it should still be included, I think, given the paucity of MEDRS sources we have on this. I'd prefer it if anything that is particularly clearly an opinion was attributed to the authors in some way eg. Bartholomew and Baloh wrote that... --Tristario (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Use both reviews. Relatively equal weighting. The Bartholomew review may be shorter but it is also more recent and I don't think it should be under-weighted. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
3 months of difference is nothing for reviews. They are contemporary. The fact they reach such different conclusions despite being contemporary is problematic. Since most seem to agree Bartholomew et al is not a proper review we should be even more cautious and give it proper WP:WEIGHT. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bartholomew et al is usable, but as I and others have noted, it does not resemble a proper review article, let alone a systematic one. Although more recent than the Asadi-Pooya review article, we cannot rely on Bartholomew et al to represent a scientific consensus in support of the MPI hypothesis, despite the authors' intentions. Establishing such a consensus requires multiple review articles that convey more definitive conclusions. FailedMusician (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Both are good sources per MEDRS. Also, some people might be mistaken about the "governmental agencies". Please check Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations: Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies, the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. "Statements and information". Meaning that something like this would be a good sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a press release about a primary study (NIH does a lot of press releases like that for studies it does or funds), that MEDRS section is talking more about things like "Guidelines and position statements". A press release like this isn't anything like an official position of the NIH, or official guidance from the NIH. Whether we'd include that study would be according to the guidance at WP:MEDPRITristario (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unlike the cited primary studies, this is obviously a WP:SECONDARY, and it is issued by NIH as an organization, even as a news report. Hence, I believe it satisfies the letter of WP:MEDRS. I agree it is less reliable than an official CDC guideline, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please focus the discussion about the NIH studies in the section above #NIH reports deleted?. It seems unlikely that there will be consensus to include them in the 'Possible Causes' section until they are covered by review articles. For now, we should focus on discussing specific edits, including whether Relman's quote can be incorporated in accordance with WP:BALASP. This aligns with the ongoing RFC below, which addresses scenarios like when the primary source is widely reported in major media. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also remember that something like PTSD is a perfectly legitimate medical diagnosis/condition. If this is "merely" a psychiatry problem (no brain damage found), it does not disprove the existence of the "syndrome" as the actual medical condition, at least in theory. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now, citing this NIH report, it says: Forty-one percent of participants in the AHI group, from nearly every geographic area, met the criteria for functional neurological disorders (FNDs), a group of common neurological movement disorders caused by an abnormality in how the brain functions, or had significant somatic symptoms. FNDs can be associated with depression and anxiety, and high stress. Most of the AHI group with FND met specific criteria to enable the diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, also known as PPPD. OK. This is one of several possible explanations to be mentioned on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Both are good sources. There is too much cherry picking going on here in Talk. There is no policy that says you can go "this reads to me like blah-blah-blah". We don't do vibe checks. If it's a relevant expert in the field published in RS it's MEDRS and SECONDARY.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not how WP:MEDRS works though. From the "nutshell": Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.. We don't include whatever "experts" say if it is WP:BMI as their opinions are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We don't get to demote a source because we think it, in your words, "reads more like an editorial/commentary". That's your judgement, but not POLICY. Baloh is in RS. It's a review. He's an expert. It counts as MEDRS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. Very weak yes. (tl;dr: Asadi-Pooya, 2022 should get more WP:WEIGHT than Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023) The Asadi-Pooya, 2022 report is indeed a neutral review article that summarizes the existing research, with careful formulation of the parts that are not part of an established consensus by the scientific community. Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 is different: its general tone is polemic and it obviously works towards reinforcing its' authors previous claims/opinions (from their previous publications) – for one, the "Aims" section from the publication already contains the expected conclusion. The two also differ in the choice of articles for the review: the Asadi-Pooya "Methods" section clearly describes why the studies were chosen (basically, all existing medical studies which were relevant and were found based on searched words). In comparison, the Bartholomew & Baloh review's choice of sources is unclear and unexhaustive. Their review generally follows a formula "Cite a single claim from a source and then debunk it with another single claim" with the debunking claim sometimes coming from the authors, and not another source (even when the claim lies outside the area of expertise for Bartholomew, i.e. medical sociology, and Baloh, i.e. neurology). In addition to studies it also cites a combination of press statements, media publications and a single authors' personal communication source, which are mostly used by the authors to address common misperceptions about MPI – and that part of the publication is not a review of primary medical sources at all.
While parts of B&B, 2023 do fit the WP:MEDDEF for being a WP:SECONDARY, it also contains the authors' personal opinion and theorisation on the subject which should be carefully cited taking in account WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and the authors' area of expertise. So I think that Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 can be used on the article, but it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
100% agree, great rundown. I think your "very weak yes" equals my view when I say "Not a proper review". The conclusion is the same: "it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022". Maybe you should clear that up so as to make it explicit where you stand to someone reading this quickly. I think we have a pretty strong consensus at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
All mentions of 60 Minutes report deleted from page
Latest comment: 6 months ago67 comments12 people in discussion
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 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
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
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}}talk05:21, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
""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
Specifically "What we found was we thought clear evidence of an injury to the auditory and vestibular system of the brain." Emphasis mine. Note past-tense. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So no, not really so what we have is enough for "In March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. reported that Russia had agents in those countries around the time of the alleged attacks" Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)."Reply
How about "On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. It claimed that Russia had agents in various countries around the time of some alleged attacks." Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
True, and it can be said of the USA (thus, is a forum issue), its very flimsy "evidence" but in effect, this is what they are saying, and other does seem to be some consensus for some kind of inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
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
Opppose: Wikipedia editors should not be putting forward their own arguments, like Russia likely has agents in pretty much all countries all the time, to delete widely reported details of the investigative report, without referencing significant viewpoints from reliable sources. This kind of tomfoolery is why the article is locked and should remain locked.
Which is why the "Russia has agents" reasoning is extremely stupid. You will not find any Wikipedia rule that forces editors to include every bit from every reliable source. We have to choose what to include, and not including stupid stuff is a good criterion not forbidden by WP:OR. Anybody in favor of including stupid stuff should read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issue here is that the investigative report has produced a lot of smoke with effective no fire. Its claims are basically: thatcthe journalists believe Relford's 2022 claims and thwre were Russians in some areas of some countries where alleged attacks occur. It's a notable source for sparking controversy but of no evidentiary value. I'm trying to ensure the reference doesn't give it undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We cover both smoke and fire on wikipedia, they're actually equally worthy of inclusion. We aren't conducting original research so the evidentiary value is meaningless to us, why would you bring it up? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware that evidentiary value was used when assessing due weight, it isn't mentioned on the linked page. Perhaps you meant to link a different one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's noteworthy that 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider all agree on the Russia theory (or at least they agree that it's plausible enough to warrant a report). I think it's still noteworthy even if it's wrong.
This isn't a medical journal; it's an encyclopedia. If governments and medical associations say one thing while major trustworthy media outlets say something else, that disagreement is itself notable and deserves coverage in this article. Even if the 60 Minutes report is dead wrong, it's still useful to be aware that they made that report in the first place, as it teaches us something about 60 Minutes.
This isn't some fringe website. It's a collaborative report with multiple major trustworthy media organizations. We shouldn't ignore it. Sonicsuns (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Time for RfC(s)?
Latest comment: 7 months ago49 comments11 people in discussion
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?
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
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'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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Latest comment: 7 months ago20 comments7 people in discussion
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
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 [[21]] 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
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
Request for comment: Scope and sourcing
Latest comment: 6 months ago112 comments24 people in discussion
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Three related questions:
a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act[1] and [2].
b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: [3] and [4].
c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: [5] and [6]
a) and b) YES, c) NO Havana syndrome definitely should not be subject to medical topic area guidelines, because this article is not primarily about a well-defined medical condition. AFAIK we don’t apply these guidelines to articles like tabun or Zyklon B, so why here? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The two leading hypotheses for the cause of Havana Syndrome are (a) psychogenic; and (b) hostile nations using directed EM energy weapons. Perhaps someday - 10 or 20 years in the future - there will be a medical conclusion reached that H.S. was psychogenic in nature, and at that time, the "directed EM energy weapons" hypothesis will be considered Fringe science.
But, as editors, we cannot jump to those kind of conclusions. Here in this RfC, we have to treat it as a medical condition, simply because many scientists are saying it is. Hence WP:MEDRS applies, and that leads us to the questions posed above at the top of RfC. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, depends, and YES WP:MEDRS: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article." The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DolyaIskrina: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c): what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc. Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)? Another example: What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome: Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)? Noleander (talk) Noleander (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are ignoring wp:fringe. You are trying to change policy with an RfC. Both are really bad strategies. US Senators don't get to make pronouncements about science and medicine, and we sure as ish don't use wikivoice to repeat their claims. It's not complicated, you just don't like it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If secondary sources for a medical claim do not exist then we do not include the medical claim. A RfC does not have the power to override policy as discussed at WP:LOCALCON, so item (c) should be removed from the RfC as it is nothing but a distraction. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
A better question might have been whether specific claims made by 60 Minutes/Spiegel, such as whether Russian intelligence agents allegedly received medals for acoustic weaponry of some kind, is biomedical information or not. Geogene (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@VQuakr: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c). For Havana Syndrome, let's say there are only two secondary sources for the medical info. Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say? And all other medical sources be prohibited? If the answer is "yes, rely only on the secondary", then what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc. Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)? Another example: What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome: Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)? Noleander (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say? And all other medical sources be prohibited?WP:MEDREV is pretty clear on this: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Outdated information clearly identified as such is also discussed later on in the same guideline. I'm not really clear on what the outcome of this RfC can be other than "follow our PAGs". VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, okay, thanks for pointing out the part of MEDRS that says "There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: ... History sections often cite older work." I overlooked that before. Just to clarify my intention in this RfC: Some editors were saying "Primary sources can never be used" ... implying that they cannot even appear in a timeline/history section. I found that position to be irrational, and item (c) in this RfC is to get clarity on that particular question. Noleander (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bad RfC and there really should have been better WP:RFCBEFORE. The answer to (a) is obviously YES and the answer to everything else is to follow the WP:PAGs. The POV that "Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving" and therefore MEDRS can be waived/relaxed is bizarre in the extreme, and that principle in general would invite a boatload of quackery into Wikipedia with fake "syndromes" (and some MEDRS says Havana Syndrome is not actually a real syndrome anyway). We have recent quality secondary sources on this and to invite in older primary sources to undercut/problematize their knowledge would run counter to NPOV. This should probably be withdrawn and the filer trouted before it causes too much of waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I apologize if the RfC is not worded to your satisfaction. I strove to make it clear and neutral. Question (c) (about primary vs secondary sources) is worded that way because above in this Talk page you stressed, four or five times, that primary sources should be absolutely prohibited in this article, and in fact you said WP:MEDRS does not permit primary sources for any medical content. You said that there are no exceptions to the "secondary sources are better" guidance from MEDRS. Your opinion seemed very much contrary to the plain text of MEDRS (which merely says that primary sources should be "avoided", but clearly lists a few situations where they are permitted). Question (c) is merely asking if Havana Syndrome's nature allows for some primary sources ... i.e. when any new medical syndrome arises, for the first few years there may be only primary sources available, is it okay to use them? If you feel that primary sources should be prohibited in this article, could you explain here why you think MEDRS prohibits primary sources, when the plain text of MEDRS plainly says primary sources are merely discouraged (not prohibited)? Noleander (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is simply untrue and wrong
you stressed, four or five times, that primary sources should be absolutely prohibited in this article, and in fact you said WP:MEDRS does not permit primary sources for any medical content. You said that there are no exceptions to the "secondary sources are better" guidance from MEDRS.
and in fact I linked to the WP:MEDFAQ sourcing section where exceptional cases are discussed. MEDRS says (it's even bolded) "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". That is the general case, but there are exceptional cases. Havana syndrome is not such an exceptional case especially since we have multiple MEDRS sources we can use. Your argument, if applied to the Lancet MMR autism fraud would have been "the link between vaccines and autism is new, so we should relax our guidelines and use primary sources and news media". There is a reason the WP:PAGs are as they are. As DolyaIskrina astutely observes "The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less". Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree this is a bad RfC as it has an obvious conclusion. As @VQuakr said: we cannot override with an RfC well established policy such as WP:MEDRS. It is non negotiable for bio-medical claims within any article. We can have RfCs if we really have to on whether some stuff is WP:BMI or WP:NOTBMI or if one source is good enough or not for a claim. But this RfC is unfortunately useless. We need to find a way for editors to understand better how WP:MEDRS works… there is too much confusion on this topic and a lot of editors are applying it improperly (both excessively and insufficiently!) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The intention of question (c) is to get some guidance from outside editors on whether any primary medical sources related to Havana Syndrome can be used in this article, and if so, how? In a timeline section? In a politics section? In a "recent medical developments" section? Saying "follow WP:MEDRS" does not help bring an end to edit-warring. Question (c) is asking for outside editors to help us determine how primary medical sources can be used in this article, if at all. Maybe the answer is "none" and if so, that is okay. Noleander (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes on A and C articles about diseases generally cover these societal aspects and as far as these sections do not make any biomedical claims they may use the lower standard of reliable sources. I reiterate: Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. Further: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials. The proper level of discussion to overturn WP:MEDRS is centralized discussion, this talk page does not have "jurisdiction". I endorse the view of DolyaIskrina, to observe WP:V in this instance, a less is more approach is needed. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I apologize if issue (c) was not worded clearly. The intention was not to "overturn" MEDRS, but rather to address an question raised above in this Talk page, viz: some editors were saying that primary medical sources can never be used in this article. That didn't seem right, and my reading of MEDRS indicated that there were some exceptions. The purpose of issue (c) in this RfC is to get some input from outside editors on what sort of exceptions to "Dont use primary sources" rule exist, and whether any of those exceptions may apply to this article. I think the RfC is working ... several editors have provided excellent insight into how MEDRS can and should be applied to this article (e.g. primary sources may be appropriate in a historical/timeline section of the article).
Aside from issue (c) .... we still need to address issues (a) and (b) in this RfC because they were the cause of edit warring (and contributed to the fact that this article got protected). Hopefully, the RfC can help come to closure on issues (a) and (b) and allow work on this article to resume in a friendly and productive fashion. Noleander (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, with caveats we can't add medical claims not sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and any other claims must be attributed and stated as opinions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Slatersteven: Do you have any thoughts on a particular situation which was the source of some recent edit-warring in this article: Two new studies were published in early 2024 (both primary sources ... i.e. written by scientists performing tests on people that reported H.S. symptoms); because Havana Syndrome is so noteworthy (in the USA, at least) many, many major news outlets reported on the studies. Some news articles contained interviews with scientists analyzing the studies. It may be a long time (years?) before a secondary study is published that encompasses these 2024 sources. Query: Should this Havana Syndrome article exclude all mention of these 2024 studie until a secondary study that includes them is published? Or should the 2024 studies be mentioned (perhaps in way that presents their publication as a newsworthy event, and de-emphasizes their medical conclusions)? Noleander (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
a) Yes.b) Yes. Without the non-medical information this article would lack a huge part of the public discussion necessary to the perception of the topic (as with the previously mentioned Zyklon B or as with the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko). That includes the reports and statements made by the government-affiliated institutions (taking into account their potential conflict of interest and bias). c) Yes, depends. I disagree that the topic being "new and evolving" is a valid reason for ignoring WP:MEDRS.
Non-medical claims and analysis by WP:RS are okay (WP:PAG compliance implied). If a WP:RS contains both medical and non-medical claims and analysis, the medical part is treated according to WP:MEDRS, but not the non-medical part (for example, in the context of this article, WP:RS is to be used for "Cold War espionage" and "professional reluctance" statements, and WP:MEDRS is to be used for "psychogenic" and "brain damage due to directed energy" statements).
I agree that biomedical primary sources should be used conservatively and with great care ("used in rare situations" as per WP:MEDFAQ), with the major considerations for that being described in WP:WHYMEDRS. One of the WP:MEDFAQ examples of rare cases include "when writing about a rare disease, uncommon procedure, etc", which could apply, but that is matter of a separate discussion on a case by case basis for each source. Personally, I am not familiar enough with BMI sources here, so I can't say whether any of them can qualify to be that rare situation.
Further discussion is needed to determine/agree which WP:BMI sources are primary and which are not (after several days of monitoring the discussion and edit history I feel like some medical sources (or part of their contents) are actually review articles/meta-analysis, i.e. secondary and not primary). This should ideally be done on a case by case basis.
There was also a question on whether currently rejected theories should be included for chronological/historical purposes. I say "yes" (taking into account all the previous guidelines considerations), provided they are marked as rejected and were important to the public discussion of this topic (that is, if this was not a single op-ed no one else commented upon). As an example in the context of this article, that includes the crickets theory (which is also WP:BMI, afaik).
I think everyone is in agreement that secondary sources are absolutely the best source for medical conclusions. Issue (c) is simply asking if the nature of Havana means that some primary medical sources can be used in some contexts, e.g. in a timeline/history section; or in a "what politicians said" section. There were some editors saying that primary sources could never be in this article, and that did not seem right. As you point out, WP:MEDFAQ contains the guidance that primary sources may be "used in rare situations". Based on what you say, if primary medical sources are mentioned in this article, there should be surrounding contextual verbiage ensuring that readers do not use the primary source for its medical data (instead: use it only for some historical / political / etc purpose). Noleander (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I bothers me immensely that the reaction to several editors emphasizing that primary medical sources really really shouldn't be used in this way amounts to: So they can be used? Draken Bowser (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Almost all RfCs ask how to apply a particular WP policy to a given source/sentence/article. In this case: there are several primary sources (for example, footnotes 5 and 6 below) that perhaps should be in the article. Asking if specific sources can be used in the Havana Syndrome article is exactly what RfCs are for. Simply saying "Nope, never use primary medical sources" is not helpful. WP:MEDRS does permit primary sources in some situations - the RfC is asking if any of those situations are applicable here. The goal is to get clarity and put an end to edit-warring.
Can you clarify: are you saying that a historical/timeline section of this article (if one exists) cannot utilize primary medical sources when listing historical events? Noleander (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Procedural close malformed RFC Should provide a question about the inclusion about specific content, not a class of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reason that items (a) and (b) are in this RfC is that - during the edit wars that preceded the RfC - some editors (above in Talk page) suggested (1) this article can only include medical info; and (2) this article can only utilize on medical/science sources. There was back-and-forth on that, and so the primary purpose of the RfC is to come to closure on those issues. Issue (c) is a bit different. Noleander (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes to (a) and (b), and a nuanced Yes to (c) – My view is that the scope of this article should encompass all geopolitical and historical aspects, as they're essential for a full understanding of the topic. This is especially as there is no consensus in the scientific community on what the cause, symptoms and treatments of this condition are. For (b), using U.S. government studies and statements on Havana syndrome, true or otherwise, Russian government sources and claims in Crocus City Hall attack. As a specific example, the recently reported NIH studies elicited criticism about its methods from a scientist who conducted a previous study, with access to the classified case files [22][23][24]. Yet, despite the the reception these studies received, the content and sources were unceremoniously deleted [25], citing MEDRS to support what is essentially a deletionist argument (for which WP:DUE would be the relevant policy). See also: #NIH reports deleted?. On (c), while MEDRS is crucial for accuracy on medical topics, the unique and evolving nature of Havana Syndrome means that in some cases, well-publicised primary medical sources might temporarily complement the article, pending secondary reviews. This balances our high sourcing standards with the need to provide current and comprehensive information on the topic. FailedMusician (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's standard practice to employ primary sources for straightforward facts, such as the formal name of the condition, which I added. For more contentious claims, we can rely on reputable secondary news sources, like the New York Times article detailing the NIH studies and Relman's critique. Until there are a number of quality review articles offering definitive conclusions about which hypothesis is proven or likely, we cannot delete well written and sourced content just because editors don't like it. FailedMusician (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
just because editors don't like it ← Leaving aside that pathetic personalisation, the fact is that on Wikipedia the NYT is not a reliable source for biomedicine. See WP:MEDPOP. The only sources which have standing to assess primary research on biomedicine are secondary biomedical ones; not lay sources and especially not Wikipedia editors. But agree, etymology is WP:NOTBMI so any RS will do for that. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This discussion isn't the venue for promoting personal viewpoints. Please cast your vote if you haven't already and allow a closer to determine the application of our MEDRS policy to this topic. If there's contention over whether the New York Times reference pertains to biomedicine (which I believe it does not) we can address that in a separate RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
FailedMusician, I don't think your (c) reasoning fully captures the complexity. Primary medical sources can sometimes be used for biomedical content in articles. However, MEDRS specifically prohibits editors from using primary sources to debunk secondary sources. This means that you can use a primary medical source for obviously relevant, obviously significant information[*] that isn't covered by a secondary medical source at all, but you can't set up the article to say – or even imply – something like "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer,[secondary source] but this one study found that cigarettes prevent cancer.[primary source]"
[*] By "obviously relevant, obviously significant information", I mostly mean that if you can't find a secondary source for information about a major section heading in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections, then you can usually justify using a primary source for that. For example, if you are writing about a drug, and 100% of the reliable sources on the Pharmacokinetics for that drug are published in primary sources, then you can use those primary sources instead of omitting the ==Pharmacokinetics== section entirely. It is also sometimes okay to use a primary source to provide additional detail that supports the conclusions of the secondary sources. For example, if the secondary sources say that tobacco causes cancer, then one might be able to justify using a primary source to provide more detail (e.g., how many deaths last year in a particular country). What I don't mean is that it's okay to use primary sources to debunk the secondary sources. For example, if the secondary sources say that Havana syndrome isn't actually one disease and almost certainly didn't involve directed-energy weapons, then you can't cram the other POV into this article by using primary sources, or use primary sources to cast doubt on the analysis by secondary sources. For example, you should not use primary sources to say that some detail remains unexplained, or that the explanation is not accepted by some people.
On a more general note, the victims of illness do not have magical, trustworthy insights into the cause of their conditions. Medieval people thought witchs' hexes killed people and livestock, but they didn't believe in bacteria. In the slightly more modern era, people thought that wetlands produced poisonous miasmas, but they were actually dying of mosquito-born viruses. Even now, people with dangerous psychotic illnesses will say there is nothing wrong with them, but that doesn't mean that psychotic illness doesn't actually exist. Similarly: Americans (in particular) seem to have a hard time believing that stress can lay them low, so a victim claiming that they're so mentally tough that an unknown, undetectable top-secret weapon is more plausible than the human body rebelling under unreasonable amounts of stress, or having an unfortunate post-viral illness, is not proof that an unfortunate, but completely ordinary, illness cluster is not the most plausible explanation.
The main message in this article should be based on secondary sources, and nothing we write in this article should try to cast doubt on the main message.
(Also: Can I just confirm that we all agree that a daily newspaper is a news source and not a medical source, right? If anyone in this discussion thinks that a newspaper is a medical source, please let the rest of us know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following information was removed because it was not "MEDRS compliant."
"On March 31, 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that their investigators had uncovered evidence that the Russian government as directed by Vladimir Putin had perpetrated the attacks for the purpose of retribution against specific individuals through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons."
How is this MEDRS? MEDRS is being used loosely to apply to content that obviously has nothing to do with medical claims, but geopolitics. BootsED (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The claim that they found evidence of this would actually fail verification. A point I keep making that has people claiming the question of lack of evidence is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand your reply. This has been covered in dozens of reliable sources. (WaPo, BBC, NYT, etc.) It is directly related to H.S. How does this "fail verification?" BootsED (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We cannot claim they found "evidence" based on the content of the report. To claim they found "evidence" of a specific biomedical mechanism we would need supporting WP:MEDRS. This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not journalism. If unreliable source start airing fringe views outside their realm of reliability, Wikipedia shuns them (unless there's a reliable secondary source commenting on the 'journalism'). Attribution is not some magic pixie dust that allows in bad content. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Precisely. This is why I keep bringing up the absence of evidence in the investigative report - because it was being inappropriately cited with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement when all it really did was inflame discourse and reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks which are better cited to stronger sources. Furthermore Relman is a single researcher and, while he is due inclusion, his talent for getting in front of cameras should not be used to inflate his significance compared to... literally any other scientist working in the field. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to analyse the evidence or absence thereof for claims published by reliable sources. You claim that the source was used with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement, but I've asked you before to provide examples of that [26], and you haven't. The text that you and Bon courage reverted says that the investigation published claims[27]. You are also mistaken that Relman is a single researcher, as I explained below, with sources. FailedMusician (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
all it really did was … reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks ← That is false.
The report by The Insider, Der Spiegel and 60 Minutes is cited not because of that but because it does the following things (from more to less WP:WEIGHT):
Connects the movement of known GRU Unit 29155 agents (which, for example, were previously uncovered here, here and here) with known cases associated with Havana Syndrome;
Presents leaked interdepartmental correspondence which connects some of the agents with the development of "non-lethal acoustic weapons";
Mentions that the journalists possess documents describing government programs related to the development of "sonar and acoustic weapons systems" (and describes/summarises their contents);
Mentions that the journalists possess a US State Department memo for diplomats in the Tbilisi embassy with the advised response to AHI (and partially quotes it);
Mentions that some of the victims recognized the photographs of those GRU agents (and quotes them).
It also contains Relman reiterating his previous comments, other people's (related to the US government's investigations of HS) comments and victims' comments. But from what I see, these are mostly ignored as sources for the article (and they seem to be a simple reiteration of other information in the article already attributed to other sources).
I want to emphasize that the WP is not tasked with verifying all those statements, WP:V refers only to verifying that those statements come from the WP:RS. Der Spiegel is directly mentioned in WP:RSP. The Insider is not mentioned there but they have a reputation for their investigations of the Russian government activities (part of those are described in the article about this newspaper).
I also don't recall any WP:PAG that states that "only WP:RS that feel plausible to me should be used as sources". The discussion whether these statements are plausible or not sounds like something falling under WP:NOTFORUM. TinyClayMan (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The investigative journalists do not say they are certain that directed energy weapons are used. They reveal they have evidence connecting the travel of a notorious Russian secret service unit, widely known for poisonings abroad, to some reported Havana Syndrome cases, but say nothing conclusive about how these agents could have inflicted the reported damage.Machinarium (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
WhatamIdoing, your points on MEDRS are well taken, and since no primary sources were being used to "debunk" secondary medical sources (in the plural), I don't think its the issue here. The main issue this RFC is seeking to address is how to balance accuracy with comprehensiveness, by including non-medical secondary sources that largely do not contradict the medical sources, most of which leave things open as to what the cause is. Moreover, since it is possible that earlier HS cases were caused by a weapon (news and academic sources talk of two types), and later cases by some form of psychosis (an effect that a hostile actor have anticipated), this isn't a binary situation (both hypotheses can be true). This is an argument made by David Relman, a relevant expert, and his opinion does not contradict medical sources, all but one (Bartholomew et al). FailedMusician (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
are you seriously asserting that a quotation from David Relman, the person, in a news article, should be treated equivalent to a statement from all organizations he is involved in? Or do you believe David Relman is, in fact, several people? I am unsure which is more of an absurd waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes to (a) and (b) - per WP:V. No to (c) for two reasons. First, I think this is a loaded question. There is no significant medical content on the page. Secondly, WP:MERDS is needed because people can harm their health after reading incorrect info, for example by practicing certain types of alternative medicine or by using certain drugs. But there is no such danger here.My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The idea that MEDRS is somehow related to (bad) medical advice is a canard; Wikipedia does not give medical advice. The purpose of MEDRS is stated plainly in its opening para: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article". Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was not my idea. I saw it somewhere in our guidelines (maybe old versions). But I completely agree with the idea of preventing harm to users who read WP. Such harm is very much possible, in many subject areas, and we should try to prevent it by providing good info per WP:NPOV, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify, I think this page and sources [28] are not really about human health, but about the alleged devices or weapons. Yes, we do not know which devices were used here and if they were used at all. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes to (c), but it is applicable only to truly biomedical content. For example, here, the sub-section "Psychogenic causes" (starting from "Some scientists suggest that...") and some other sub-sections need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources, i.e. as it was in "Causes" before the revert (I should not be reverting this, sorry). My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes, yes, no - Using U.S. government sources to describe a disorder is okay, as long as it's balanced. Adding a bit of background info is fine as long as its not overbroad. And yeah, primary medical sources are needed in an article like this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes/yes as long as it's relating to a non-medical topic, no to the extent normally permitted by WP:MEDRS: "Havana Syndrome" is both a WP:MEDRS topic about a syndrome and a non-MEDRS topic about the political coverage of that syndrome. We can use non-MEDRS sources to talk about the news and politics aspects of this topic, but not about the medical aspects. Specifically, we cannot use government reports suggesting the use of a directed energy weapon to imply that the cause of Havana Syndrome was a directed energy weapon in absense of clear medical evidence of that theory. WP:EXTRAORDINARY still applies. Loki (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Important to clarify that the 2019-2020 NASEM report that considered all possible biologic, acoustic, radiologic, chemical, toxicological and psychological causes isn't a "government report". NASEM constitute private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine[29]. Our article includes a detailed section on the NASEM report, which notably suggested that directed pulsed RF energy may be a plausible cause. Similarly, the 2022 IC report with similar findings was also produced by an independent panel of experts. FailedMusician (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its not all that old and since one of the more recent review articles is hardly a review article, we can't use it to present a scientific consensus in favour of one hypothesis. FailedMusician (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Directed-energy weapons are very much real and widely used. Claims that such weapons were used is not a biomedical topic. "Governmental sources" can be used to source such claims. However, if the claim was made about specific effects on human health (or lack of such), then such claim should be included with areference to WP:MEDRS-complacent sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any connection the article makes between a group of symptoms and the cause of those symptoms should require MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:MEDRS links to WP:BMI to define what information is covered by the policy. The first example under types of biomedical information is "attributes of a disease or condition" and includes "symptoms" and "causes". This is a new and poorly understood syndrome. That doesn't mean we should slacken our standards; on the contrary it's all the more reason to be as careful as possible. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As follows:
a) Yes This has become not just a medical topic, but also one pertaining to the US' relationship with other countries, the way the intelligence service operates, and how the media covers stories. For that reason, non-medical sources are needed to bring out the full picture. However, these should be used with proper consideration to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, for the reasons explained below. Also, we should keep in mind how the relative paucity of Cuban sources may adversely affect our ability to get a neutral perspective on the topic.
b) Yes with the following caveat: US Government sources have a clear motive to, as governments often do, say things about other countries based on their agendas, rather than a commitment to the facts, deliberately or accidentally. That the US government might therefore be non-neutral with respect to countries that it, verifiably, does not get along well with, should be taken as a given. Thus consider using WP:INTEXT liberally.
c) No Specific clauses of the policy apply here that are worth remembering. MEDFAQ, it says primary sources are acceptable, "when writing about a rare disease, uncommon procedure, etc., for which no high-quality secondary literature is available, or for which the available secondary sources do not cover all of the information normally included in an encyclopedia article." As the condition, to the extent that it may exist, is indeed rare and of recent provenance, we will likely have to content ourselves on primary sources for some time, replacing them with secondaries as they become available. Not including them now though risks violating WP:MEDDATE.
Consider that while the topic was nascent, it attracted a great deal of media attention because of the fact that, if foreign countries were attacking US diplomatic staff, that would be a significant breach of protocol, if not an act of war. Since the US did not, ultimately, act or retaliate on that basis, any evidence that the syndrome is of natural origin or non-existent is unlikely to generate the same attention from secondary sources. It becomes a mere historical footnote. Therefore it may be quite a long time before reliable sources, which by that point will likely be historians, synthesize the information.
That being said, primary sources used should probably be cited as individual studies rather than conclusions to draw, as per WP:MEDPRI.
He's a microbiologist with ties to veterans affairs. Well respected but also seems a bit of a cold warrior based on his comments about the origins of COVID. His opinions are certainly due but he is, ultimately, one guy and should not be given undue focus just because he has a bit in his teeth about the enemies of the USA. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Relman headed the NASEM committee that undertook the 2019-2020 study of AHIs and co-chaired the 2022 Intelligence Community Experts Panel on AHIs. It is not for Wikipedia editors to challenge the expertise of a scientist described by reputable sources such as The New York Times as a "prominent scientist" in an article on the topic. Moreover, The NYT article emphasises that the American Medical Association published his critique of the NIH studies, highlighting his respected standing in the scientific community, specific to this topic. He is also mentioned and quoted in articles by the Washington Post, Axios and PBS in articles on the same story about the NIH studies. He has been quote extensively in many RS on HS related stories over the years. FailedMusician (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
None of this contradicts what I said at all. His tendency to get into newspapers is irrelevant to our treatment of his work for WP:MEDRS matters where his assertions are due inclusion but should not be treated as authoritative.I am advocating treating him neutrally and per WP:DUE. I don't know why this seems insufficient to you. Simonm223 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You claimed he is a single researcher[30]. I pointed out that he headed two groups of scientists investigating HS. That is quite a contradiction, and effects how his comments are due. FailedMusician (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
His leadership roles in both the NASEM investigation and the intelligence panel, affirm his status as a leading expert on the topic. It is normal for such committees to include and be directed by scientists from a variety of disciplines. FailedMusician (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it does not, as often the heads of teams are (for example) administrators, nothing more. He is not a qualified expert in the field, as his expertise is in microbiology (by the way, he might have been there to offer his opinion on that). Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is just your opinion and has no impact on our article. RS call him a prominent scientist in articles on the topic. Neither do his opinions contradict MEDRS, besides for one review article by an author who is also not an expert on the topic according to your definition. FailedMusician (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read wp:undue, a view should only here where if it is by an expert in the field, he is not, as this is not a microbiology topic. prominent scientist is not a field of study, position, or qualification. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think your view that he is not an expert, when he was appointed to lead these groups and has his editorials accepted in journals, would find consensus here. FailedMusician (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia goes by sources, not individuals. Has this guy published any peer-reviewed/secondary sources that are relevant to this article? Because since there are peer-reviewed/secondary sources, his stuff won't be usable otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It all depends what MEDRS say and what we quote Relman as saying, and where in the article. Relman's views do not contradict secondary medical sources (WP:MEDRS says review articles in the plural), so I think he's useable as a contrarian voice, specifically on the NIH studies story. FailedMusician (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well it kinda depends on where and how you want to put it as well. "Causes" is understood to mean etiology and patophysiology. Anything that goes there is strict MEDRS. You wanna include it somewhere else? Then it depends Draken Bowser (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The specific text deleted, as discussed above, was about a widely reported NIH study, which multiple RS quoted Relman critiquing [31]. It concerns the etiology, but was placed in Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis, a longstanding section that some editors then decided shouldn't exist. Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data, yet Relman is one of the few experts with access to classified files, so I do think his views should even be in the "possible causes" section (recently renamed to "Cause", misleading IMO). FailedMusician (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data.." Yes, that's where it should stop, with a scientific interpretation of evidence, not speculation. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Causes" section header
I agree that the "Cause" section in its current state is misleading. It manipulates the perception of the subject in a way that makes a reader think that a definite and unanimous conclusion was reached. Which is obviously not true – it is just that Bartholomew-Baloh publication happened to be released in the last five months, so it was chosen to be framed as drawing the bottom line. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and I'm not sure how the "Cause" section can be read as having a "definite and unanimous conclusion" when it states two different reviews say two different things. The level of huh? with this Talk page is increasing with every post! Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The former section was entitled "possible causes" which imo was much more accurate to the reality of our knowledge on H.S. It should be returned to that and sections on the various speculated causes be re-added to the article. There is no medical consensus on the cause of H.S. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Even if one does accept that there isn't a medical consensus, that does not then mean the article would include stuff that has been ruled out or has no MEDRS sourcing as a potential cause. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This. So we say what the different recent & high-quality reviews say (as now), even if they conflict. I'm completely baffled by the complaints about this. We have some super high quality sources; we reflect what they say; job done. What's the problem again? Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So you want to make it clear to readers that there there is no clear cut cause by renaming Causes to Possible Causes, but we can't include one of the leading experts on the topic (being the lead of two investigations), as quoted in multiple high quality RSs, in a section titled Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis? Explain that for the closer please. FailedMusician (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because of our sourcing policy. One guy's opinions in OpEds is undue when we have quality sources. The "chronology" section is a POV section seemingly being used as a dumping ground for crap sources, and is an invention of Wikipedia editors since no RS (that I know) takes this "chronological" approach. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the causes section, as it stands, is good. I am entirely neutral as to whether we add the word "potential" or "possible" to it so long as we don't start filling it back in with newspaper articles again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think "Causes" and "Possible Causes" can imply different meanings, causes imply more certainty; The first line of the Causes Section says, "Possible Causes." I also, noticed the info box says, Causes "Not determined," Not sure if I'm being picky, that may throw some people off? Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The title should definitely be something like “potential causes” as nothing has been determined yet.
Also: as discussed above, the Bartolomew 2024 “Review” doesn’t actually look like a “review”. So I would not use it to contradict the actual December 2023 Asadi-Pooya review we have in the article (the best source we have so far for medical claims) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The section title can be either; it doesn't matter. PMID:38146090 is a review in a high-quality journal and it certainly due, not to "contradict" necessarily, but to present alongside. Trying to suppress such high-quality sourcing would savour of POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is perfectly fine to label such sections with the standard "causes" even for idiopathic conditions, but I won't fight you on this tooth and nail. :) Draken Bowser (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Several editors have noted that PMID:38146090 does not read like a standard review article, and certainly not a systematic review as preferred by WP:MEDRS. Using this this article, written by a well-known proponent of the MPI theory who, unlike Relman, lacks access to classified case files, to delete high quality content (much of which is WP:NOTBMI) and sources on the weapons hypothesis, would be seen as POV-pushing. FailedMusician (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you're talking about. Its written clearly in New York Times that he has access to the classified case files. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Please read WP:CIR. FailedMusician (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are no systematic reviews on this topic, only narrative ones. Relman is not published in any MEDRS. We use the quality sources, not the weak ones. Discussion of what causes a health effect is WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Ali A. Asadi-Pooya Review is high quality, recent, and very clear in reviewing the existing literature.
With regard to causes it states:
Potential causes of Havana syndrome:
Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy: The most plausible mechanism: Presentation of acute, directional or location-specific early phase signs and symptoms were consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed RF. Many of the chronic, nonspecific symptoms are also consistent with known RF effects.
Functional disorder: persistent postural-perceptual dizziness. A secondary reinforcing mechanism: A functional vestibular disorder that may be triggered by vestibular, neurological, other medical and psychological conditions and may explain some chronic signs and symptoms in some patients.
Psychogenic: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [3][3, 12, 22]
Chemicals/ neurotoxins: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [23, 30]
...
This is what we should report in the article and is consistent with WP:MEDRS. Reporting by 60 minutes on potential ties to Russian intelligence and their use of Directed energy weapons already has a very strong consensus for inclusion Talk:Havana syndrome#Adding the new investigative report? and should be covered to avoid WP:BMI and only deal with the intelligence aspects. I'm not sure what this whole RfC is doing except wasting editor time.
I count at least Tristario, FailedMusician, and me agreeing that it does deserve the same WP:WEIGHT as the other source and does not appear to be a proper review. I will ask other editors in that discussion to express their views explicitly. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two noted RS, PMID:33411434 and this, are scientific review articles, consistent with WP:MEDRS and should be used on this page. They can be used to source a lot of different claims, whatever is relevant. PMID:38146090 - I am less certain (agree with some others above), but again, seems to be MEDRS-consistent. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no consensus on how MEDRS applies to this topic. Bartholomew is a well known commentator on the topic who also, and proponent of the MPI hypothesis. While MEDRS remain undecided, Bartholomew's opinion, just like Relman's expert opinion is WP:DUE. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
But this specific article speaks, specifically, to causes. The truth is that I liked the article and I generally, personally, agree with what it's saying. But that doesn't matter. We shouldn't be using non MEDRS sources to speak specifically to causes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "External links" section, please italicize "Havana Syndrome" in the Vice News: Havana Syndrome podcast link, per MOS:MAJORWORK, under the "Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials" clause. I.e., change to [[Vice News]]: [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/havana-syndrome/id1661362245 ''Havana Syndrome'' podcast] (leaving the remained of the line alone). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also: the source [32] states that "Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" is "The most plausible mechanism" not all three causes and also mentions neurotoxins as one of the causes most favoured in the literature.
The second edit fixes an obviously incomplete and imprecise sentence. I'm sure someone would object to it but I'm not sure if that makes it controversial. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
