Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two or more source interference

It was reported that the effect varies in amplitude with small changes in position in a room. This is consistent with the interference pattern from two or more stationary sources, as taught to schoolchildren in the UK who are studying physics, and illustrated here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7aftTF--5w Two Source Interference of Waves - A Level Physics. Supposing that the signal(s) are pulsed is not required. 92.24.183.17 (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide a better source for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

See Wave interference. The effect could also be due to one source coming through slits caused by tall buildings, or even just being reflected, and then behaving like two or more sources. I do not recall where I read that the effect varied in amplitude with small changes in position, but it is also mentioned towards the end of this article https://www.livescience.com/havana-syndrome-caused-microwave-energy-government-report.html . 88.111.111.71 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

An interference effect could be just due to the diffraction of waves entering via one or more windows and/or bouncing around off the room walls etc. 88.111.103.185 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Livescience article doesn't mention interference patterns, and we can't use an article that isn't about Havana syndrome per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If the effect is due to microwaves, then it might be Continuous-wave radar or Interferometric synthetic-aperture radar using a small wavelength to measure vibrations caused by sound-waves due to speech, including perhaps directly from the throat and mouth area. 88.111.107.215 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PLease read wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Havana Syndrom - Theories - Possible Migraine?

Concern:

Many of the symptoms described by the affected individuals resemble symptoms of a migraine.The issue I see is that "Migraine" should be top of the symptoms list, or even probable cause.

Migraine symptoms are basically what some of the individuals describe, and having migraines does show up as a brain legion in MRI scans as well.

Migraine (General) 1) Symptoms:--99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/what-is-migraine/ 2) Symptoms phase chart: --99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/timeline-migraine-attack/ 2.1) one area they have wrong is Postdrome symptoms can last for weeks, NOT just 48 hours. 3) Various types of migraines: --99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/what-type-of-headache-do-you-have/ 3.1) this includes: 3.1.2) Migraine with Aura (Complicated Migraine) 3.1.3) Migraine without Aura (Common Migraine) 3.1.4) Migraine Without Head Pain (Silent Migraine) 3.1.5) Hemiplegic Migraine 3.1.6) Retinal Migraine 3.1.7) Chronic Migraine 3.1.8) Ice Pick Headaches 3.1.9) Cluster Headaches 3.1.10) Cervicogenic headache

Migraine lesions on MRI scans: https://mriplus.co.uk/blog/what-is-migraine-and-what-does-mri-of-brain-tell-us/

Quote from link: "Can migraines cause lesions on the brain? Yes. A landmark study published in Neurology concluded that migraines can cause lesions, particularly in the brain’s white matter.

Another well-acclaimed study published in the journal, Cephalalgia in 2011 found that migraine attacks do not only cause brain lesions but also iron depositions. In addition, the researchers reported a correlation between increased risk of developing lesions and the frequency of migraines. Similarly, the longer a person has experienced migraine attacks, the higher the risk is of developing brain lesions."

Clarification': the intent of adding "migraine" as a cause and/or symptoms does not dismiss the possibility that "Havana Syndrome" may be caused by environmental factors (Mold, toxic products/gases, rapid atmospheric pressure change, stress, OR sonar laser used by russians/Chinese/aliens). It just states that the symptoms experienced resemble migraines. Migraine does not get the public's awareness the way it should have, and the lack of the word "migraine" when mention of the Havana Syndrome shows the lack of general awareness of this condition, even for the "scientists" investigating this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say this might be the reason, not your own wp:synthesis?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is so little weight given to mainstream science?

When I look at recent sources about "havana syndrome", they seem to state that scientists give more weight to the psychogenic illness explanation. Take the scientists quoted in this article in The Telegraph, published a couple weeks ago, which I was just reading: The bizarre true story of Havana syndrome: covert sonic warfare or a case of mass hysteria?:

Extended content

Havana syndrome’s apparently irresistible spread has taken place amid whispered scepticism that has, over the years, swelled to a loud chorus of scientific doubt. The initial theory pinned the blame on a sonic attack, a storyline that took hold despite a toweringly inconvenient truth: ... To suggest that sound might enter the ear and thenceforth shock the brain is, says [Irish neurologist Suzanne] O’Sullivan, ‘an anatomical nonsense’. In response, some pointed a finger at microwave radiation... Experts of different stripes queued up to undermine this suggestion. Neurologists wondered how – in defiance of accepted medical knowledge – microwaves could selectively target the brain alone... Physicists and engineers asked if it was seriously feasible that anyone could have developed a weapon of such potency... Bioengineer Kenneth Foster had told The Washington Post that the concept was ‘crazy’ To many in the mainstream medical community, the mystery of Havana syndrome wasn’t a mystery at all... Outbreaks of conversion disorder, also referred to as mass psychogenic illnesses (MPIs), have been part of the human experience throughout recorded history, documented in vast numbers. For Bartholomew, this reluctance [to tell people their illness is psychological] – born of the stigma that remains stubbornly attached to psychosomatic ailments – lies at the heart of the Havana syndrome story.

And to quote that last doctor directly (who co-wrote a book on Havana Syndrome):[1]

Extended content
Ask yourself – what is the more likely? That the diplomats were the target of a mysterious new weapon for which there is no evidence and the use of which defies the laws of physics; or they were suffering from mass psychogenic illness – a well-documented condition that has been described in the scientific literature for millennia? Commonsense and the preponderance of evidence dictate the latter.

Despite this, the explanation favoured by the mainstream medical community is given a grand total three words(!!) in an extremely lengthy lead, with the entire rest of the lead given to explanations favoured by departments of the United States government. This is not the first time the State Department and CIA have pushed WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, and I doubt it will be the last. Why are we giving so little weight to mainstream science? Endwise (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

is it "mainstream " or just one amount many theories? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with Endwise that, as this is a page about a medical condition, it should be following WP:MEDRS, and therefore should be relying much more heavily on medical and scientific sources, and basically not at all on state sources with no direct medical expertise like the CIA or State Department. Whether that means the psychogenic illness explanation is the single medical consensus I'm a little more wary of, but I do strongly suspect that we're giving the microwave explanation way way more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves scientifically. Loki (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should really read more like the article for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Is there any real scientific basis and is this a real medical diagnosis? 122.151.184.34 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes this page should be WP:MEDRS compliant, and it is not. Specifically, there shouldn't be symptoms listed in the infobox or the lead. There is no diagnosis to be made. The symptoms are non-specific to start with, and then there are thousands of claimed cases, but only 24 that haven't been ruled out. So of all the vague non-specific symptoms (I have a headache I must have Havana Syndrome!) which are the ones that count? DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Simple question, can we see a list of MEDRS compliant sources for this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that articles about current events are written in chronological order according to when information is published. So it gives precedence to the symptoms and speculation over the expert conclusions. That should be corrected.

I suggest you post a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which is fairly active.

TFD (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are very few good MEDRS on this subject. There are various studies already cited on the page already, but they are contradictory and inconclusive. The CDC convened a panel which produced a report in 2019 that was never made public, as reported by BuzzFeed News [2]. The US State Department convened a panel which produced a report in Dec 2020, but that wasn't conclusive either [3] [4]. The new expert panel convened by the CIA produced an interim report in Jan 2022 [5] [6], and later released to some media on Feb 2, 2022 [7]. The 2022 report assesses electromagnetic energy as the most plausible cause of the symptoms seen in early victims and psychological factors for the rest of them, which is most of them [8] [9]. I agree with ​​Endwise that the mainstream view has changed, but investigations on early cases is ongoing, and there isn't any MEDRS to go on. This is one of those edge cases where WP:NEWSORGS cover a subject that is clearly WP:BMI, yet we are not restricted by MEDRS from using them. The CIA panel could certainly qualify as a WP:MEDORG and their report is a WP:MEDRS, but we don't have access to it. I have written WP:MEDRSNOT to clarify the application of the MEDRS guideline for these situations. CutePeach (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  "This is one of those edge cases where WP:NEWSORGS cover a subject that is clearly WP:BMI, yet we are not restricted by MEDRS from using them" ← completely wrong, and a call for POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome in civilians

I made an edit on the Havana Syndrome page as follows

Existence of cases among civilians not connected with Federal government has also been acknowledged.

References:

Dr. James Giordano, Chief, Neuroethics Study Program, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University. Neuroscience and Ethical issues in Havana Syndrome.Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives. UT Southwestern Symposium. Feb 10, 2020 https://player.vimeo.com/video/680993448?h=06e276e6e9

Dr. Kenneth Dekleva and Dr. Munro Cullum. Concluding Discussion and Q&A Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives. UT Southwestern Symposium. Feb 10, 2020 https://player.vimeo.com/video/680995857?h=0a6b36ea3f

Alexbrn swiftly removed my edit as unreliable. I wrote to him: Hi Alexbrn You removed my edit on Havana Syndrome page as unreliable. However, it was supported by statements by one of the leading experts in the field of neuroweapons, Dr Giordano of Georgetown University at a medical symposium organized by UT Southwest. Judging by the expediency with which you removed the edit, you didn't have time to review two videos from the symposium I posted as substantiation. I would hardly call a statement from the leading expert in the field at a medical symposium unreliable. Please, correct the situation. Thank you.

Alexbrn responded: We need reputably-published sources, and the WP:LEDE must only be a summary of material already in the article body. Please make any further comment at Talk:Havana syndrome. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk)

My references are not articles, they are videos from the symposium, and calling University organized symposium with the utmost experts in the field unreliable makes little sense. The videos contain statements which I summarized in my edit. Looking forward to everyone's comments, and whether you agree with me, so I can restore the edit.

Thank you --Lenbermd (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Videos are not usually considered reliable sources on Wikipedia since they are often WP:SELFPUBLISH. Individual experts speaking (rather than in written form and vetted by some kind of publisher) is also similarly unpublished and unreliable and easy to cherry pick. Finally, this topic probably falls under our strictest sourcing requirement, WP:MEDRS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it fails MEDRS. To restore it would not be acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Symposium videos are published by University of Texas Southwest. Hardly self-published. Lenbermd (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Self publication or not isn't the point really because of WP:MEDRS which you should read. You may find it enlightening. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is determined by the amount of fact-checking. By their nature, recorded presentations are not fact-checked between recording and release. A speaker could easily say 6% when they meant to say 60% for example. Furthermore, the speaker may be speaking outside their area of expertise or may qualify that they are only giving a draft paper that may still contain errors or omissions. TFD (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a common ground can be found with 'suspected civilian cases'. In which we can mention that Dr. Giordano brought it up in the symposium.

Alongside some other notorious figures in the field like Dr. Hoffer or Mark Zaid. 404UserName (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not without WP:MEDRS, because WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policy: we need suitable reliable sources and to ensure we are reflecting what has been published in them. Also, is 404UserName the same as Lenbermd ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK the Havana Task Force delegated the civilian reports to the FBI. I assume a FOIA request to confirm the existence of these reports does satisfy the conditions of WP:V and WP:NPOV?

Also not the same person. 404UserName (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Google translate tells me that a civilian reported a case in the EU.

It's from an official government document. They didn't investigate but acknowledged the report.

Can we now finally change the page to include suspected civilian case reports?

https://chd.lu/wps/PA_RoleDesAffaires/FTSByteServingServletImpl?path=62581F2FD7D4AF57F862BEB39F27745E70CB7F0CE55BB481275E5659B817DD15DAAEBECB17134F6EA0F1FA32E9183440$17BF3B732F16A34DC452E8AA843D39B3 404UserName (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's trivia that means nothing. Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

New articles

This is a new article, by a psychologist summarizing the case for HS to be psychogenic in nature. While this one from WebMd in January straddles the fence. Rp2006 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

All of this is put to rest in scientifically/medically reliable source book: "Havana Syndrome." So all of this needs to be corrected. THERE was/is no HAVANA SYNDROME simply a form of mass hysteria. No brain damage. No foreign program. :Just very untruthful people and no skeptics.

PJ Andrea (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)pj andrea

The Dancing plague of 1518 could also have been psychogenic illness and yet it is widely regarded as a real thing. Havana syndrome being psychogenic in nature does not mean it does not exist. AceSevenFive (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

References

JASON Report

The JASON report, commissioned by the State Department and made public in February 2022, is the most comprehensive report that I've seen on this subject, yet it is barely mentioned. I therefore wrote a summary and put it in the "government investigations" section, but I'm not sure if that's where it belongs.2600:4040:44E8:FA00:3D31:589C:1027:DDCA (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Official report

Is it finally time to change the tone of this article (such as info box stating cause is "Not determined") to more strongly support that HS was all yet another in the long history of mass psychogenic illness events, rather than possible sci-fi weaponry by mysterious foes? See ‘Havana syndrome’ not caused by energy weapon or foreign adversary, intelligence review finds for the latest. If not, what will it take? Rp2006 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think the first and most important step is to remove the list of vague symptoms from the infobox. This is not a diagnosible condition, so the symptoms, which would apply to anything from a hangover to a concussion should not be placed so prominently. It's fine to list them in the body, IMO. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I took a crack at improving article to reflect current official US opinion. More work is needed! Rp2006 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just spent some time re-organizing/reordering the sections to perhaps better highlight the more important information in light of the new report. Rp2006 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, it’s pretty embarrassing they kept up the charade as long as they did. Thanks for working on the article. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Since this article was created (and was named Sonic Attacks in Cuba), I attempted to strengthen the scientific skepticism POV herein -- with proper RS citations from psychologists and scientists having a contrary view stating that this appears not to be what was being claimed. But the majority of editors would have none of that, said I was pushing a fringe POV, and many of my edits were suppressed making me back-off. I was actually told skeptics should "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot and not delve into medical matters." MEDRS was repeatedly cited as the rationale I should stop adding citations with the contrary POV, as if the "medical conclusions" were the final, undisputed word on HS, thus proving (sci-fi) weaponry was involved. I must admit, vindication feels good. (I wont hold my breath, however, waiting for an apology from some specific people I will not name. They are probably thinking Rubio is correct, because he also will not give up on HS being of enemy origin.) Rp2006 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Being a skeptic on wikipedia against claims from government organizations (particularly US government departments) can often be a losing battle, even if we have RS from professionals raising this point. Some may say this is simply a immune system reaction to relatively recent wildly debased covid conspiracies, but I think it's been the case for quite some time. Hopefully this can serve as a case study for the ways in which wikipedia can (unintentionally or otherwise) amplify US government perspectives at the expense of nuance from the public and related professionals. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It is kind of funny to look back over the article history/talk page discussion and see multiple editors, including one administrator, arguing that skepticism over physically infeasible microwave weapons from science fiction is WP:FRINGE. Maybe there's a lesson for Wikipedia to learn here about not blindly trusting ramblings of the US intelligence community about scientific matters, particularly when there's a political incentive for them to bend the truth.

Not like this scenario is ever going to come up again or anything... Endwise (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there's a lesson for Wikipedia to learn here about not blindly trusting ramblings of the US intelligence community ← LOL, you seen Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory lately? Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Haven't read the talk page discussion, but that's exactly why I linked that lab leak article lol Endwise (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Man… some people here have damn worms in their brains. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• What do involved editors here think about adding something from "Havana Syndrome Is Fake. But Mainstream Media Couldn’t Get Enough of It for Years"? It takes the media to task for credulously reporting on HS as a real thing. This is the primary reason why this WP article has been so slanted toward accepting and documenting the nonsense since 2016 when the Trump administration made the claims w/o evidence. If this is a WP:RS, maybe add to section: Criticism of media coverage? Rp2006 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Support the idea of having a section devoted to the media's coverage of the affair. The Jacobin article would be a good place to start. Hopefully there will be more over time. Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am also wondering if it would be appropriate to change the infobox, which is one for a medical condition, to something else. Part of the reason WP editors restrained valid skeptical opinions from this article was the claim that this fell under WP:MEDRS, which I for one never bought into. Having this infobox results in including things like diagnosis and a list of symptoms (everything under the sun), which at this point seems ludicrous. Rp2006 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  But I do think it's important to keep the short existing list of "symptoms" on the infobox. Specifically, because the very first sentence of the lede on this article says: "Havana syndrome is an alleged set of medical symptoms with unknown causes experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel."

  So it would be good that the alleged symptoms info remains available and visible on the infobox, in my opinion, for quick and easy access by readers. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, including the symptoms was always a violation of WP:MEDRS. The symptoms have always been WP:FRINGE, and the symptoms have always been vague. This is not a diagnosable condition, hence the word Syndrome. I say change the type of infobox, and take the symptoms out of the new infobox. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  How do you square that with the fact that we are talking about Havana Syndrome as an "alleged set of medical symptoms" then? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remind everyone that the original page name was Sonic Attacks in Cuba. What's my point? Perhaps that just because the media started calling it Havana Syndrome (and this page was thus renamed to follow) does not make it a real medical syndrome needing a medicalinfo-box. Or am I wrong? I suggest using "Infobox alternative diagnosis" as is on the Morgellons page. Rp2006 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have spent way too much time looking for a reasonable infobox replacement--I no longer think the Infobox alternative diagnosis is pertinent--but have come up empty! I even posted a query here but there are no replies yet. Any other ideas? Rp2006 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for a reorg

Reports, investigations and/or studies are discussed in too many sections of this article to be reasonably followed regarding what happened when. And the order of these I think is more important than things like where they were associated with (Cuba/China...) I just combined two of these subsections that were both in the Cuba section into one, but there are still too many separate areas (I count 3 at least). I suggest all such material be combined - chronologically - into just one section. I'd like to get consensus on this before spending the time to do it. Rp2006 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No response, so I will attempt a restructuring. Rp2006 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK... I took a stab at it. Moved all the reports, analysis, etc to a new section. Out of time for now, but the basics are complete. Still need to verify the material in each year is applicable as well as not redundant. I'm sure within each year it can be organized in some way as well. (Positive vs negative findings? By agency doing report? Also: one problem was that it wasn't obvious where to put something that was commissioned in one year but released to the press later... not sure the material is consistent yet regarding that issue.) Rp2006 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Probably! Rp2006 (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

is Havana Syndrome unproven?

civilians cases like Len Ber, M.D. have now been diagnosed by Dr. Hoffer who diagnosed the diplomats. Babies across the homeland and their mothers while they try to nurse are also confirmed cases with acquired brain and vestibular organ damage. its not unproven. Tinyurl.com/havanababy Medicineowl (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

New section summarizing explanations that have been speculated?

Kudos for all editors that have worked on this article in the past ... lots of good information & sourcing. However, it appears to be lacking a key section: a summary list of the explanations for Havana Syndrome that have been hypothesized over the years. For comparison, the MH 370 article has the section Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Speculated_causes_of_disappearance.

Some speculated/hypothesized explanations for Havana Syndrome (from the article's existing sources) include:

* Stress (of working overseas, under surveillance);  PTSD
* EM attack from hostile adversary (microwaves, etc)
* Crickets
* Toxins or pesticides
* Psychogenic (hysteria, psychosomatic, etc).

Providing such a section would be very useful to readers. The tricky part would be not duplicating all the detailed text already in the other sections (esp the Research/Study section). So maybe the best approach would be to keep the proposed new "speculated/hypothesized explanations" section terse and leave the details (as-is) in other sections.

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to add the new section (proposed above). The goal is to keep it terse: just a summary. All pre-existing content & cites int eh article are not changed. The "Criticism of media coverage" section was merged into the new "Speculated causes" section initially. I'm trying to decide if that is best or not. If anyone has any suggestions please post a note here. Noleander (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I like it in general. Made a change to one subsection I thought gave the wrong idea. Rp2006 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also... Not at all sure there SHOULD be a crickets section here, as it is an outlier... No one thought the sound CAUSED the ailments. Gonna try a slight re-org to better handle this issue. Let me know what you think. Rp2006 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the changes and making some additional improvements. I'm not sure I understand how the psychogenic section is now organized though ...it now it looks like there's five various types of psychogenic causes such as financial incentives. that's not quite right... those five subsections are just aspects of the the single psychogenic cause. Noleander (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "non-physical" is better? 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the latest mods to the section (to make header statements prior to the sub-sections)? Rp2006 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Current sections are still not quite sensible... the way I see it, "Psychogenic" is a single cause. The subsections (media, etc) are simply details about _why_ the Psychogenic cause was not (and is not still?) widely publicized by the CIA & State dept.

I'll make an edit to the section headers & levels (no content or text change) to show what I'm talking about, and you can check it out. Noleander (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I made the change to the section depth. I also added a transition sentence so the nature of the four subsections under Psychogenic section is clearer to readers, viz: Commentators have suggested several reasons why the psychogenic hypothesis was not widely embraced in the early years of Havana Syndrome, including political motivations, financial incentives, and media sensationalism. Noleander (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking good! Rp2006 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bias on this page

There is clear evidence of bias on this page, towards the idea that psychogenic factors caused this Syndrome, and away from the extensive studies that have demonstrated the plausibility of electromagnetic (pulsed radiofrequency) and acoustic (ultrasound) energy as causes of some cases. The findings of the 2020 NASEM report are misportrayed, and the work of the IC Experts Panel is largely ignored (https://media.salon.com/pdf/22-cv-674%20Final%20Response%20Package.pdf). The many flaws of the 2024 NIH publications in JAMA are also ignored (https://jamanetwork-com.laneproxy.stanford.edu/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816534). Psychosocial factors cannot explain the subset of cases with acute onset audio-vestibular signs and symptoms and strong location-dependence. David657293457056 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable WP:MEDRS sources on this are we missing. Your stanford link does not work. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, and I'm coming to this article fresh (a week ago). I've read thru summaries of nearly all the sources, and I think they are all fairly represented in this article. In particular, all sources that suggest EM/Sound attacks are included in the article, in several places ("Location" section; "Causes" section; and "Chronology of Studies" section).

The impression I get from reading the sources is that the early studies (2017 to 2022) were a bit limited; but as the years have gone by, larger and more thorough (and more dispassionate) studies have shown no evidence of hostile powers attacks. In particular: the sources say there is no known EM/sonic attack that could ONLY produce H.S. symptoms. In my assessment, the article, as it stands to day, is not biased.

If you suggest that EM/Sonic should be more prominently mentioned in the article, it would be best to produce a WP:MEDRS source from after mid 2022 that endorses EM/Sonic causes (and is not from the Miami or UPenn Drs that have conflicts of interest). Noleander (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, this phrase seems to be copy-pasted multiple times: "Some commentators have suggested that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed". Some cleanup is needed here. Han-Kwang (t) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the parts discussing what commentators have said should probably go. Commentators are generally not reliable sources. Any meaningful contribution to the attempts to explain HS should be better cited, and better supported. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

On most issues, you can find commentators saying just about anything. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

And often commentators are politically motivated. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Psychosocial factors can do a lot of things. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you respond to the discussion on "New section summarizing explanations that have been speculated?" 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my change with the comment that we should talk about it, and now you refuse to talk about it? 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We can talk about it here. You are blanking a large amount of reliably sourced content claiming bias - discuss it here in the bias section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about the edit and the section is already ongoing there. I would need to just duplicate what I've already written. And it's not all about bias either. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nobody has responded to my dispute. The section is title Speculative Causes, but is primarily dedicated to allegations of wrongdoing by pundits. The subsection on Psychogenic causes is way longer than the subsection on the other proposed explanation, and is mostly not about a psychogenic cause, but instead about conspiracy theories that the psychogenic cause was suppressed. It's also poorly written.

It would be better to dedicate this section just to the proposed causes, and if you want a section about allegations of wrongdoing or bias, it should probably be separate and balanced. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

How was it inappropriate? These are all speculative causes as there has not been a clear physical medical cause established. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

No one is obliged to respond to your dispute to your specifications. Certainly not within a few hours. That is not a reason to blank well-sourced content from the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's an improvement. If we want to include allegations by pundits that the causes were downplayed, it would be more balanced to include allegations of the same nature for the Attacks by Hostile Powers section. It has been widely suggested by commentators, for example, that there was a reluctance to be forced to respond to an attack by a foreign power. It probably doesn't make sense however to promulgate speculations of this nature on Wikipedia at all.

Psychogenic illness, and stress PTSD should also be listed as separate causes. The effects of stress and PTSD manifest as physical effects, rather than just psychological effects/delusions. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias and the some. This what happens when no qualified person is ever contacted to diagnose a common issue caused by retrofitting air-conditioning systems without benefit of a qualified engineer. See for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258400137_Noise_and_Health_-_Effects_of_Low_Frequency_Noise_and_Vibrations_Environmental_and_Occupational_Perspectives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Microwave transmission

Microwave transmission is commonly used in civilian communications. Wave interference from two or more transmitters, or just reflections from buildings, can give rise to large changes in intensity over small areas. There is also this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26556835/92.24.225.104 which mentions something similar in the 1970s. (talk) 92.24.225.104 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and all that information about EM radiation was considered by the various studies that focused on H.S. And the results of those H.S. studies are already mentioned in this article. Noleander (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd sentence in summar

Whenever I red a sentence like this it is always a tell - this article is biased to convince people no foreign actor is involved.

“Some studies indicated that foreign actors were not responsible for most cases.”

“Numerous studies and investigations have been unable to determine a cause” would be a much more descriptive sentence. Allaheadfull (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed this sentence, as the intelligence report and associated studies are covered in the third paragraph. FailedMusician (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Pesticides

I read the Dalhousie study that proposed pesticides as a cause. I'm curious why that was removed per WP:OR - I reverted but am open to discussion if there's subsequent information I'm not privy to. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Geez I didn't see the URL. I'll see if I can dig up the dal study again. Will self-revert in the meantime. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I found this URL via Archive.org - it looks like the original was pulled down subsequent to me reading it.

[10] Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Was that ever published in a journal? Looks like only preprints exist. KoA (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I had thought it was. But it may be I was mistaken as I can now only find preprints. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Half of this article is a violation of WP:MEDRS and should be deleted as no appropriate sources exist yet given the early research on this topic. We cannot make any biomedical claims WP:BMI by sourcing it to newspapers and WP:PRIMARY sources/studies.

For example this reversion by @Simonm223 reintroduces some of those claims. All of the sources in those paragraphs are not WP:MEDRS compliant:

• "In March 2024, the National Institutes of Health published two medical studies evaluating people reporting Havana syndrome symptoms, and found no evidence of brain injury, irregular blood biomarkers, or vocational impairment." this is WP:BMI and Source 1 and Source 2 are newspapers reporting on WP:PRIMARY studies
• "But according to David Relman, these findings do not exclude that a weapon could have injured the government workers, as "the most sophisticated brain scans can miss a subtle brain injury, especially if the brain has had time to heal"." this is WP:BMI and Source 1 is a newspaper reporting on a WP:PRIMARY source Source 2

What should we do? Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ok but it is pretty clear these Havana Syndrome "sufferers" are not having weapons fired next to their ears. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not necessarily so if a certain weapon can exist in theory, just like how not every hypothesis in astronomy is immediately dismissed as science fiction for example. Also, don't forget the possibility of sonic weapons. Machinarium (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources backing up those claims they do not merit inclusion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Especially when some users wish to interpret them in a way contrary to their findings. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

For such WP:BMI claims we can't rely on single WP:primary studies. Those are also just exploratory studies! What if they missed damage to the brain because they selected the wrong cases? Or what if the damage is not to the brain but to the ears? Or it is not visible through an MRI? Or after too much time? The list goes on of potential problems. That is why WP:MEDRS exists. Until the science is settled in a medical review we cannot make biomedical claims WP:BMI. We can say that the cause of the symptoms in unknown and that it is being investigated and that it is currently still unclear if the condition is cased by a mass hallucination and that some scientists have proposed that theory (as reported by WP:RS). Nothing more than that though. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Whatever standard we apply to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_chemical_sensitivity should apply here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It has a tag for too many primary sources, needs improvement. Lol. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as it discusses medial complaints. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Of course! WP:MEDRS applies to the entire encyclopaedia but only for WP:BMI claims and not for WP:NOTBMI. We can't choose to apply it on a per article basis. It is a question of what each specific claim is within every article on the encyclopaedia. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs updates on scientific assessments on the plausibility of directed energy attacks

Some updates are warranted to better reflect the current scientific assessments on the plausibility of directed energy. Currently, for example, in the section "2018 Jama Report", there is the following text,

"As early as 2018, some scientists, including physicist Peter Zimmerman, bioengineers Kenneth R. Foster, and Andrei G. Pakhomov, and UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh, said that the microwave hypothesis was implausible; Baloh called the National Academies conclusion "science fiction"."

It seems this is based on a comment Kenneth made in a 2018 Washington Post article. However, he has since then changed his position. He published two commentary articles, one in 2021 in response to the publication by Lin proposing the microwave auditory effect as a plausible explanation , and one in 2023 proposing IR radiation as an alternative hypothesis.

Kenneth concludes in 2021,

"We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined."

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.788613/full

And in 2023,

"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."

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118762/full

This is quite significant, as his past and now defunct comments were quite influential to the development of the overall narrative pushed on the page in its current form.2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We would need good WP:MEDRS, not commentary pieces in dodgy or non-pertinent journals. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly the comments from Kenneth Foster in the Washing Post shouldn't be included if you can't include his later comments. As is, the page misrepresents the position of this particular expert. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is stuffed full of crap, yes. Anything insufficiency sourced needs the chop. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's probably not going to happen. Kenneth is one of the foremost experts on the topic that has weighed in. Frontiers in Public Health is not particularly dodgy. It has a pretty high impact factor. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's going to happen. All Frontiers journals are a bit dodgy, but in any case WP:MEDRS still applies; PMID:36699929 is just a 'comment'. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's an awful lot of news reports. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Undue weight is being given to the 60 minutes report currently - it strikes of wp:RECENTISM Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agree with @FailedMusician. Not all of the content is medical. But we should remove badly sourced WP:BMI. Also in this case the statements by Foster appear obsolete and misleading and I agree it should be removed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to be held to a single standard. If we decide that WP:MEDRS is that standard then, no, the whole article must be held to that standard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, not just "some bloke I can't name told me so"".Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

WP:PRIMARY medical studies should not be included and certainly should not be used to make definitive biomedical claims WP:BMI of any kind. All we can say is that "the research is ongoing" and what some of the hypotheses are. But nothing more than that at this point and nothing definitive. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Disagree. Its very due, as an allegation, given the number of reliable sources that reported on it. FailedMusician (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is, again, trying to cite BMI to journalists. They are not reliable for it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of cases

The German news-website Tagesschau states that about 1,500 cases where reviewed ("Die Ermittler prüften rund 1500 Fälle in 96 Ländern."), why does the article talk about exactly 1,000 cases? Is there a more precise number? Bigbossfarin (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Given no one even knows what it is, no, there are numerous claims that people were affected by it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to Stubify?

We have a pretty significant problem with a purported medical condition for which WP:MEDRS compliant sources appear not to exist. As a result there's been a lot of pressure to include the science-fictional speculation of journalists who want this to be a James Bond story. I am increasingly of the feeling that the best course of action would be to cut this article down to the bare minimum - note that claims exist and that at this time there is no known medical cause. Call it a day and leave out all the hand-wringing over whether the Russians secretly have weapon technologies entirely unknown to the rest of the world. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK so how do we structure the RFC? Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Given disputes as to the scope and inclusion criteria of this article should we Stubify? and start from scratch?

Is one possible. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

But OK

Try

Is this article about the alleged medical condition or accusations of an alleged attack?

Is that specific enough? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

My preferred language would be "Should the article about the alleged condition adhere strictly to WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements?" Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Then go for it, I can't tell you what you think or want. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't want a malformed RFC - I do actually want your feedback. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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 draft Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Draft is missing some of the timeline. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

This is incorrect on several levels.

1. Not all statements need WP:MEDRS but only WP:BMI
2. There is nothing wrong with "news media". Most of the sources you cited are WP:RS and included in the list of perennial sources WP:RSPS

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

That is exactly how it works. Medical claims require a different standard of proof than all other claims on Wikipedia. See WP:WHYMEDRS {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

But those other claims should be framed as speculative fiction at minimum, and are potentially not WP:DUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Other claims should be framed as WP:RS frame them. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• For the love of all that's Holy, let's not do a re-run of the car-crash RfC[11] 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)

  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)

  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)

Reminder of WP:3RR

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:

Reinstating removed content: 1,2

Other edits/reversions: 3, 4

Rather than address this at WP:ANI I think it would be more productive for ALL editors here to refresh themselves on the 3RR. Cheers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please all slow down. I think everybody should familiarise themselves better with WP:MEDRS and when it does and does not apply before editing further. Some comments in the discussions above by some of the editors in this thread show some pretty egregious misunderstandings that will cause them to potentially complicate editing this article even further. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you are thinking that both can't be true - familiarize and understand 3RR and MEDRS. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I just think the reversions wouldn't be happening if WP:MEDRS was better understood by all. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto please advise under what logic causal claims of specific weapons are not BMI????? Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 what "causal claims of specific weapons" are you referring to exactly? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Non-lethal acoustic weapons" - come on let's not be coy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Indeed, this is the kind of WP:WL which has got users blocked in the past. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

We need to abide by WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. If there are no decent sources to contextualize fringe claims, they need to be omitted. Bon courage (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTBMI. It is an hypothesis just like the hypothesis that this could be caused by massive psychogenic effects.

We cover both because they are prominent within WP:RS.

No biomedical claim should be made as no appropriate sources are available yet per WP:MEDRS {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Time for RfC(s)?

It seems like there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved, and outside help could be beneficial:

1. 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?
2. 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 .... " )
3. Should the article include historical information such as a chronology of older medical studies & speculations, some of which have perhaps been superseded?
4. Should 2024 NIH/JAMA reports (possibly including references thereto from major RS media) be included in the article?
5. Should the 2024 60 Minutes/Insider report be included in the article?

Five Four RfCs may be a lot, but maybe we could have one RfC with a few queries in it? Noleander (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The underlying claims in the 60 Minutes report do not have any grounded medical backing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to have the debate in this section of Talk page: this section is only asking if an RfC would be useful. Noleander (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair, I agree that it would be. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC would be useful. The problem here is something else. FailedMusician (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Bold to claim consensus without an RfC. I think the more users that look at this, the better. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@FailedMusician: I don't understand what you are saying. Why wouldn't 3rd party input via RfC help? Noleander (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Because there was already a firm consensus for inclusion of the Insider investigation. I posted a discussion to RSN. FailedMusician (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That really is not the right form to answer these questions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's been quite disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I think for #2 this is actually a proposal to modify core WP:PAGs, WP:V and WP:MEDRS, so would need to be held elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The danger is WP:LOCALCON. If an RfC is trying to override policy, it needs to be a bigger deal than something on an article Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

What 'exceptions listed'? So far as I'm aware the only attempt to 'list' such exceptions is in WP:MEDFAQ in the 'rare cases' for primary sourcing section. Bon courage (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I don't think @Bon courage is suggesting bypassing an RfC, just choosing a different forum than this talk page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to propose waiving MEDRS, at least WT:MED and the village pump will need to be notified. Bon courage (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is no such thing as a 'MEDRS article'. Bon courage (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A RfC that "comes to the conclusion that this is not a MEDRS article" would be ignored per WP:LOCALCON. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have strong consensus in the discussions above for some of those points. E.g. inclusion of the 60 minutes investigation has overwhelming support Talk:Havana syndrome#Adding the new investigative report?. Editors ignoring that consensus are being disruptive at this point.

Questions 2/3/4 are already answered by well established policies such as WP:MEDRS so an RfC would be useless.

Question 1 is obvious in my view. We should clearly cover the topic comprehensively following all available WP:RS {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 05:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

The onus is then on those removing the text to change it. FailedMusician (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• This is a removal of long-standing content from the page. So, yes, please start an RfC if someone strongly feels about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

Yes, but this page should be reverted to a stable version prior to starting the RfC. This is definitely not the version we have at this moment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps timezones are an issue, but that would seem to be in the middle of the first few warring edits. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Which text, as I see a lot of reverts. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Editors should edit to improve the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

and this is not about me, and wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

last stable version

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough, Slatersteven! BootsED (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

IS the full diff [[12]] 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)

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)

PP now asked for, and for an uninvolved admin to decide when the last stable version was. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure we can find a stable version. We might need to simply re-add content from the current version. BootsED (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What level PP? ECF I assume? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

All of that will be up to them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible compromise. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)