Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Havana syndrome. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Protected edit request on 11 April 2024
 | This edit request to Havana syndrome 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)
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
NIH reports deleted?
Why was all the info about the March 2024 NIH reports funded by the US gov't (and published in JAMA) deleted from this article? This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats. Rp2006 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/havana-syndrome-brain-studies-nih.html
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/no-evidence-of-brain-injury-in-people-suffering-havana-syndrome-us-study
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-study-finds-no-brain-injuries-among-havana-syndrome-patients
- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/18/1239087164/nih-studies-no-pattern-harm-havana-syndrome-patients-brains
- https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/health/havana-syndrome-studies/index.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/18/nih-havana-syndrome-mri-scans/
- https://apnews.com/article/havana-syndrome-diplomat-health-brain-ea64e5c59d57e44a19aab40ac1b91e0d
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/havana-syndrome-study-government-officials
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-study-finds-no-evidence-havana-syndrome-brain-injury-2024-03-18/ FailedMusician (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is historically important info
← have you got a source saying that? Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- 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)
- Okay. I apply Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @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 [1], will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the WP:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:BMI requires WP:MEDRS sources. Always.
- Since we are talking about WP:PRIMARY medical studies it is unlikely that they could be used to support any kind of statement on Wikipedia.
- As far as the encyclopedia is concerned they are useless as they are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the WP:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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 [1], will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I apply Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yup. Bon courage (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great, so it seems there is a consensus here to reinstate the content. FailedMusician (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, the consensus can only be to "start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies". Bon courage (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, your opinion has been noted. FailedMusician (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- We should cut all WP:BMI unless sourced with WP:MEDRS and only keep WP:NOTBMI {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, your opinion has been noted. FailedMusician (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- It should be reinstated without being misrepresented. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. FailedMusician (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, the consensus can only be to "start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies". Bon courage (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great, so it seems there is a consensus here to reinstate the content. FailedMusician (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. Bon courage (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- "This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats."
- Again you're misrepresenting the NIH studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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}} talk 14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- So then, you are advocating removing refs to the JAMA reports in the section "Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis"? Rp2006 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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}} talk 14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Protected edit request on 11 April 2024 (2)
| This edit request to Havana syndrome has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Causes section add links to the relevant articles:
A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon, a functional disorder, or a psychogenic disease.
Also: the source [2] states that "Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" is "The most plausible mechanism" not all three causes and also mentions neurotoxins as one of the causes most favoured in the literature.
A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon. Other likely potential causes identified are a functional disorder, a psychogenic disease or chemicals/neurotoxins.
The second edit fixes an obviously incomplete and imprecise sentence. I'm sure someone would object to it but I'm not sure if that makes it controversial. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done No comments or opposition, so request carried out in full — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @MSGJ {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 15 April 2024
Because RF is not a commonly known abbreviation, change RF in the final paragraph of the lead section to radio frequency. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)