Talk:Havana syndrome

Proposed text
I propose we start from this since it's the extent we actually all pretty much agree with. And then we can build from there if sources that can be presented that suggest relevance.

On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's some text taken from a previous revision of the article. In my opinion, the proposed sentence should be augmented with some variant of this information:
 * On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting allegations that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. The investigation, which primarily consisted of interviews with former U.S. government officials, claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155 received awards and promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that coincidentally, members of the unit were geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents.  The Kremlin dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely." The Insider report has caused multiple U.S. Senators to call for further investigations. ChaseK (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The investigation, which primarily consisted of interviews with former U.S. government officials, claimed that senior members of the GRU Unit 29155 received awards and promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that coincidentally, members of the unit were geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents. is speaking to causes and we should not be using this piece to slip in a finger on the scale about possible causes.
 * This part The Kremlin dismissed the report, with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying it was "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In a White House response to the report, a spokesperson maintained the U.S. government stance according to the March 1 NIC report, that a cause from an enemy weapon was "very unlikely." is effectively boilerplate and I don't think it's really WP:DUE.
 * This part The Insider report has caused multiple U.S. Senators to call for further investigations. I don't have any objection to in principle but it should be more specific - it should indicate who the senators are who led the call for further investigation and what steps they took. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) The proposed text does not speak to causes in wikivoice, it simply reports what the report claims as a "claim".
 * (2) I agree it's boilerplate but it seems appropriate to contextualize the claims of the report with the existing government consensus about those claims - in particular that this report did not change the existing government consensus.
 * (3) Would you like to propose a wording with the details you believe should be added? ChaseK (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I think that presents the risk of seeming like that claimed cause has additional authority beyond what is in MEDRS compliant sources.
 * 2) That's fine, I guess, I just don't know that a blanket reporting of the two government's boilerplate communicates that the report didn't change those responses. This is the one I'm kind of on the fence enough. It seems harmless enough to include - but I just don't know it really adds anything of value to the article.
 * 3) I would like to but I couldn't find any mention of the senators who called for further investigations in the linked source. unless I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The 60 Minutes and co report spoke to causes, since they originally obtained a document outlining the Russian government recent funding of "non lethal acoustic" weapons. Why shouldn't we include this even if it puts a "finger on the scale" of causes? That's literally what weighing evidence is. It sounds like you don't want the case that a DEW is being used to be strengthened in any way. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not constructive. Its clear that this dispute his highly personalised and there won't be any agreement on anything. While I opposed the need for an RFC, since there is already consensus to cover the 60 minutes report, I think the page protection gives us the time to draft with one with three lengths of text and let it run its course for a month. FailedMusician (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I don't quite understand what you mean by with one with three lengths of text and let it run its course for a month. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well then if we can't get agreement this will not be added. Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be made more clear this is speculation. One line is all it needs. Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with re-adding the text above. I think it gives a clearer picture of the context of the claims. No more than a few sentences is needed here. BootsED (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is speculation? That is inaccurate. There is zero speculation being done here. Evidence is being gathered that uniformly points in one direction. There has yet to be any pieces of evidence of mass psychogenic illness, your preferred explanation. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text versions
Text #1 as first added by @User:Thornfield Hall and expanded by me with reactions of Russian and US governments :

Text #2: is based on a "trim of by @User:Simonm223 of Text #1, omitting all contents of the report.

Text #3: I propose here, with a few clarifications, emphasised in bold.

Please feel free to post the RFC with these versions or create a new one. FailedMusician (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Text #3.1 My take on improving the texts #1 and #3
 * The key differences, IMO, are changing the "reigniting allegations" to emotionally neutral wording, shrinking the press secretaries' boilerplate statements, adding the correct source for those senators' call, and removing the incorrect part about it being open-source (flight and phone data is easily illegally bought in Russia, but that is still not open-source, and the documents related to the development of the weapons are essentially closed-source). Though in this version of the text, I am not sure where (if at all) to add the part about the statements by victims and people related to the government investigation present in the report.
 * TinyClayMan (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support #3.1 if you nix the last sentence, unless the letter leads to something I don't think it's due. I'm not entirely sure of the wording of the last sentence in the first paragraph, but that could always be tweaked if necessary. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean this with all due respect, but "The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." is an incredibly poorly written sentence. Additionally, so I don't forget, support text #2 as the other two proposals push fringe content, like non-lethal acoustic weapons that don't have any scientific evidence supporting them and go against the consensus of the intelligence community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like Draken Bowser said, the text can be tweaked, for better English I presume. We don't need to go off on people for their writing skills here. I think '''3.1' is making some progress. FailedMusician (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is some better wording, which I VERY weakly support after #2:
 * On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting claims that Havana Syndrome was the result of hostile Russian action.
 * The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."
 * Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your watered down version amounts to the same thing as #2. It mentions absolutely nothing of what this investigative report actually says, as if we are protecting our readers from some forbidden knowledge. FailedMusician (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually states that the report discusses "claims that Havana Syndrome was the result of hostile Russian action." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And why leave out details about what the alleged Russian action was and which unit of the Russian army was given the order? Why leave out the alleged pulsed microwave radiation and/or accouistic sound weapon that this widely covered investigative report talks about, and is mentioned in some form or another all over our article? FailedMusician (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why exactly are you going around on this page trying desperately to downplay the evidence of HS being an attack by Russia? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The specificity is a notable part of this report. ChaseK (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This incorporates the stuff about the senators I was thinking about putting in. I'd endorse it over my original proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So we can put it as version #2.1 in an RFC instead of the original #2. FailedMusician (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrasing "igniting claims" doesn't really make sense. The claims aren't what was "ignited". It should probably say "published an investigative report claiming that"... ChaseK (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At best text 2, but change it to re-ignighting speculation, as this is all it is. Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-igniting speculation? That is 100% false. There have been 3 expert panels that have studied Havana Syndrome as a whole, and 2/3 say that the most plausible cause is pulsed microwaves and that mass psychogenic illness is not a plausible cause. We are not speculating we are in the stage of weighing significant evidence, and it currently leans towards HS being an attack by a DEW, since you know, 2 > 1. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-igniting speculation? That is 100% false. There have been 3 expert panels that have studied Havana Syndrome as a whole, and 2/3 say that the most plausible cause is pulsed microwaves and that mass psychogenic illness is not a plausible cause. We are not speculating we are in the stage of weighing significant evidence, and it currently leans towards HS being an attack by a DEW, since you know, 2 > 1. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I support 3.1, if this sentence was taken out, " The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." I don't think it is necessary. Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Why dont you think it's necessary? It's a key finding that provides further circumstantial evidence. It's like saying "we flipped a million fair coins simultaneously across the globe and they all came up heads. Nothing to see here though. Just probability at work!" Coreyman317 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Text 2.1

Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure I support this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

 * as the content dispute appears to be resolved, I've reduced the protection and you should be able to make the change directly now. — xaosflux  Talk 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.

Version 2.1:

Version 3.1:

Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)).


 * Support version 3.1 as it provides a detailed, neutral account of the widely reported investigative report, describing the alleged involvement of GRU Unit 29155 and reactions from the Russian and U.S. governments. This version also uses a wider array of reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the story. FailedMusician (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose version 3.1, no opinion on version 2.1 -- I could probably be persuaded to something like 3.1, but "claimed" is too strong for me when it comes to the sources provided. In essence, the articles read to me as saying "there's a lot of smoke here," but as currently phrased, 3.1 strikes me as going beyond that.  I would expect, for instance, some certainty of the exact method used, which does not appear to me to be in evidence.  In essence I see quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, but not what I would call a claim.  As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How is geolocation data of officers of a special GRU assassination unit matching time and place of attacks on US personnel just mere smoke? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3.1, or some version between the two. It simply provides more context and information. Version 2.1 is so vague that it's not clear to the reader what the fuss is about. And it is actually misleading: By removing all specifics and evidence summary, then following that with a bunch of pooh-poohing, WP strongly takes the dismissive side and gives the incorrect impression that The Insider had no evidence and was simply making stuff up. So, that's obviously a WP:NPOV failure. Also a form of WP:OR, in manipulating the nature of the source material to give an impression that it is much weaker than it really is. However, 3.1 might be compressable a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support 3.1 It provides more useful information on the report and I find the inclusion of "reigniting speculation" in 2.1 to be speculative itself. I'll also note that I see little risk that the article will give readers an undue impression that Havana Syndrome really was caused by an energy weapon. The introduction and preceding material are sufficiently clear that such claims would be dubious. Groceryheist (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is your goal to minimize acceptance of the microwave explanation, given it has the most evidence in favor of it? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1. Clearly and neutrally defines the topic at hand and provides necessary context. BootsED (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

*Oppose both, this warents at most the briefest of mentions. What we currently have gives it all the coverage it needs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2.1 but with a note that I was, as the editor who compiled 2.1, still workshopping it. Would be open to discussion of further revision and I think the RFC was premature. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I took the workshopped version 2.0 from LegalSmeagolian . The main difference between the two versions is that one describes the allegations and one doesn't. FailedMusician (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just saying that I still viewed 2.1 as very much a work in progress and it seems that the initiation of this RFC was somewhat rushed. That being said, I still say it's much better than the other RFC in that it is, at least, framed neutrally and nothing stops people from further amending the text after the closure of the RFC assuming 2.1 is selected. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support version 3.1 or something similar because it says something about the contents of the report, as opposed to 2.1, which states that there was a report, but nothing about the contents or what differentiates it from previous speculations. ChaseK (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Version 3.2: A synthesis of my preferred parts of 2.1 and 3.1
 * ChaseK (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose version 3.1, support 2.1 for reasons enumerated by @Dumuzid. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support 3.1, if this sentence was taken out, " The report also alleged that government workers with strong expertise on Russia or stationed in strategically significant regions take the biggest part of the affected people." I don't think it is necessary or adds anything. Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean it's very necessary and explicitly adds something, by noting that the affected US personnel all had a nexus to Russia. How isnt that obvious? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 2.1 (formatted correctly as originally suggested in the previous discussion). I don't think going into detail about the allegations is WP:DUE. I'm open to some other wording but I don't think we should give significantly more detail for the allegations than the denials. Loki (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose Support 2.1, per Dumuzid, though I think this RFC is premature and a better option might present itself if discussion continues. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1 as it succinctly and neutrally describes the key points of the report and the reaction to it. As a compromise between 2.1 and 3.1 I can support 3.2, but I still think the wording there (as in 2.1) is not in neutral tone. And I completely oppose 2.1, because in addition to that wording it unduly withholds the basic information about the report from the reader. TinyClayMan (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Omit entirely or Support 2.1. This is a recent event with minimal long-term coverage that contradicts higher-quality sources; putting excessive weight on single studies is something we're specifically warned against in WP:RS, nor is the relatively brief and non-WP:SUSTAINED coverage sufficient to change that. While one editor has repeatedly argued that there is a clear consensus to include I cannot see it in the meandering discussions above, which were mostly dominated by a few voices, and it therefore doesn't make sense to omit exclusion from this RFC. If it doesn't get omitted entirely, something based on 2.1 would be acceptable, and in particular something no larger than it lengthwise, with no more nitty-gritty details from the report than it gives. 3.1 gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single report and suffers from a WP:RECENTISM fixation on a few relatively recent bits of coverage. One person argued that 3.1 helps show what all the fuss is about... but there wasn't much fuss; it was a blip and coverage has already mostly faded. Beyond that, I'd oppose the current wording of 3.1 in strongest possible terms because it flatly misrepresents the sources - the sources do not "[claim] that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence." They argue that it is a possibility, but do not claim it to be established fact. See the Reuters source, report that Russian military intelligence may be behind the mysterious and the BBC source, They may have been targeted by Russian sonic weaponry, according to a joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS's 60 Minutes. (Emphasis mine in each case.) The "may" in each of those is unambiguous and turning it into an overt "claimed" is flatly misusing them as sources. All other objections aside, no version is acceptable that words it as any stronger than may or claimed it is possible or something along those lines. --Aquillion (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * easier to say Oppose all until I say otherwise, again we need one line, what we have is fine. Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to leave out any description of the contents of the report? Just mentioning that the report exists is nigh useless to the reader. ChaseK (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I am unsure it should even be here, thus is is a compromise. It is (in effect) one report, thus (as I have argued more than once) inclusion violates wp:undue to give this any coverage, thus one line is all i can support. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's one report with 3 sources, reading through this talk page that part seems to get lost. If this report was just 60 minutes, I would agree this report shouldn't be included. 2.1 is gives zero context or any information about the report and just seems like an effort to squash this report from being included and drag the process out. We have 19 vs 7 people who want some form of this report being included. That to me looks like a consensus. Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)t here.
 * But I am not required to agree with it, just to obey it, thus I am entitled to put my point of view, which is all I have done. And an RFC is not an vote, a close only has to take into account policy-based arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of my concern with the vote-counting going on at this talk page is that I think it's being a bit selective. How many of those 19 people are supporting inclusion per 2.1? Because I know I've been counted several times as supporting inclusion in the same breath that the form of inclusion I prefer is decried. Regardless Slatersteven is entirely correct that there is no requirement for them to support 3.1 or 2.1 (or even the recently added option referred to as 3.2) within the perspective of their !vote. They have said they feel 2.1 gives undue space to the 60 minutes report. They are entitled to hold that view. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can just tag them all here to find out. All editors from all relevant discussions. FailedMusician (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not? They deserve to know this has gone to an RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I, for one, dislike being pinged over and over again. Furthermore many of them have already commented on the RfC. Also the RfC is going to remain open for some time. If they are interested they will have plenty of time to see it. It really does feel like you are trying to rush this process. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1 or close to it per my arguments raised earlier on this page. Just want to point out again their new evidence relates to the trips of Unit 29155 members and eyewitness statements. They say nothing conclusive about how the attacks were committed, and as such do not challenge science. The sources are reliable enough considering their track record on exposing other Russian special operations in Europe. The text mentions their findings as allegations and not as facts, allowing readers to draw their own conclusion. Machinarium (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.2 (or something akin to it, like 3.1, with the understanding that specific wording is not set in stone, and can be improved during the normal course of editing). 3.2 is sensibly and neutrally stated, clear, and well-cited. It avoids definitive unattributed statements, which is best. (Notably, the 60 Minutes report itself provides information without drawing a specific conclusion.) Omitting entirely makes no sense, as this is classically noteworthy: a 60 Minutes investigation that drew responses from the U.S. and Russian governments, as well as substantial follow-up coverage. I also oppose Version 2.1: it is simply vague and elliptic, giving airtime to the government responses than to the report's actual substance, leaving the reader to guess what the report was really about. The wikilink here to GRU Unit 29155 is crucial, since that was the bottom-line point of the report. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree and I also oppose Version 2.1 as simply too vague for no valid reason. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1 or 3.2 as it provides readers with the needed context in an accurate way. I haven't seen any convincing reason for omitting the contents of the report or the reactions. Claiming this was not a significant event when both the US and Russian governments officially released statements within 24 hours is absurd. This was a significant diplomatic event that requires the proper coverage in this article. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A report which two adversarial nations both agree is inaccurate is "a significant diplomatic event"? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the involved adversarial parties are a nation known for concealing the other nation's criminal actions for diplomatic and reputational reasons and a nation that always denies its international operations. The contents of these responses are totally expected and don't reflect that the report itself is "good" or "bad", the important part is that the statements were made. But this discussion is not for this talk page section, I think. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The US government could also have strategic reasons for denying any foreign adversary involvement, to allay fears of its personnel stationed abroad. Still not a reason to exclude these statements. FailedMusician (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "two adversarial nations both agree" You mean one nation agrees that accusations *against* them are false, and the other nation that says it's unlikely? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I support and prefer version 3.1, but would not oppose previously suggested versions. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1 (first) or 2 (second). Either one, prefer 3.1 -- Green  C  15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3.1, likely just omit mention entirely. My views are summarized in a mix of Aquillion and Slatersteven's comments. 3.1 is WP:UNDUE with recentism issues getting into allegations. 2.1 is better in the relative, but still getting into some due weight issues. I wouldn't have any opposition to leaving 2.1 out either, and as Aquillion mentioned, the RfC is a bit misleading saying to only choose between 2.1 and 3.1. Omitting mention is also an option here, especially with WP:NOTNEWS policy concerns over lack of sustained coverage. With the comments about the RfC being started prematurely while still workshopping 2.1, I'd be cautious about trying to lock something like 2.1 in through RfC. I'd opt more for giving it some breathing room and revisiting in a couple months if there are developments.
 * Logistical side note, but FailedMusician who started the RfC was recently indeffed for use of AI to generate text on-wiki. For anyone more up to speed on text LLM, etc. can anyone check if parts of either proposal was also generated that way? KoA (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Simonm223 says above that they wrote 2.1, and FailedMusician was using that copy. 3.1 might have origin from someone else also. So it looks like 2.1 is not AI, while 3.1 is uncertain. -- Green  C  18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GreenC I would rather pluck out my left eye than use a chat bot to write for me so I can confirm 2.1 did NOT use any "AI. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I didn't expect 2.1 from the context I saw already, but just wanted to be sure on both given the volumes on this talk page. 3.1 is the one I'd be more curious about since I believe that was primarily FailedMuscian's work. KoA (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proto-3.1 was taken from the article's edit history by ChaseK, modified by FailedMusician, modified by me, and then again modified by FailedMusician (see for the initial proto-3.1 version). I don't think this is a meaningful branch of discussion of the proposal's merits or a lack thereof. TinyClayMan (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the content was in part AI-generated, we wouldn't be able to use those parts as-is, which is why I asked about it. KoA (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, GPTZero treats 3.1 as highly unlikely to be a product of ChatGPT. So I think we're probably safe in that regard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to this discussion we have already established consensus for inclusion here Talk:Havana syndrome. We don't need to have that discussion again. Time to move on. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were quite a few declarations of consensus, especially by you at Talk:Havana_syndrome, but that's not how consensus works. I believe you were advised to move on from those declarations. If there is content that gets consensus, that can be implemented, and if not, there's no harm in waiting to see if there is sustained coverage on the subject or better sourcing. The point is that the options are not as binary as presented in the RfC opening as Aquillion has been outlining plenty already.
 * They key thing is that there have been challenges in how to implement the content, so it's not a requirement that something must be said about it if there are WP:PAG-based issues with both options. It can go back to the drawing board or just simply wait until the topic has cooled both on-Wiki and IRL. Usually time makes our jobs as editors much easier because you either get additional (and better sources) to help us out, or it becomes apparent there really wasn't sustained coverage. KoA (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Time has already established that covering the investigation is due. Reliable Sources are still reporting on the investigation months later and the US government has conducted congressional hearings with bipartisan support just last week inviting the 60 minutes sources/investigators to testify officially. (see for example: "Congress hears testimony on Russia’s sonic attacks on US officials in Havana" - The Guardian 8 May 2024) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (5)
The section under "2022" needs to be massively expanded to account for the most comprehensive study to date which is merely recited (incorrectly) in one sentence "On February 1, 2022, a declassified US intelligence report (IC Experts Panel on Anomalous Health Incidents) called pulsed electromagnetic energy and ultrasound plausible causes and said that concealable devices exist that could produce the observed symptoms."

Change "declassified US intelligence report (IC Experts Panel on Anomalous Health Incidents)" to "summary of the IC Experts Panel's Report on Anomalous Heath Incidents". Note that this was not a US intelligence report. Nor was it a declassified product (that was only released in March 2023 after a FOIA request) but a summary of an experts panel's study.

Change "called pulsed electromagnetic energy and ultrasound plausible causes" to "called pulsed electromagnetic energy a plausible cause, found that psychosocial factors cannot explain the core characteristics," Note the report (page vii) claims that ultrasound is only plausible "in close-access scenarios" whereas it says (page vi) "Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist."

All of the following paragraphs should be added under the "2022" section after the paragraph beginning the discussion about this IC Experts Panel report.

Add the following paragraph: A redacted version of the full IC Experts Panel report, dated September 2022, was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act in March 2023. The IC Experts Panel found elevated biomarkers in the blood in some affected individuals indicating neural cell injury: (page 2) "The finding that the elevation in these well-characterized biomarkers in some affected individuals is transient, rather than sustained, is noteworthy. Researchers have shown that these same biomarkers are released from brain cells in response to mild traumatic brain injury and concussion. The time-course of evaluation in some AHI patients matches the time-course after mild traumatic brain injury and concussion."



Add the following paragraph: The Experts Panel found that the combination of the four characteristics associated with AHIs is (page 5) "distinctly unusual" and that "Several aspects of this unique neurosensory syndrome make it unlikely to be caused by functional neurological disorder rather than structural damage." As an example, the Panel states "location dependence and sudden onset and offset of sensations and symptoms" support the notion that the stimulus is "spatially and temporally discrete" and not continuous like a functional neurological disorder. Similarly, "The perception of sound and pain within only one ear suggests the stimulation of its mechanoreceptors" which is inconsistent with functional neurological disorder.

Add the following paragraph: Some studies have indicated electromagnetic energy would necessarily cause bulk heating of tissue that would be detectable by the victim, however the IC Experts Panel (page 22) evaluated five potential pathways of electromagnetic energy, particularly at the radiofrequency level, and distinguished bulk heating from the four others in the frequency-power parameter space, as shown in Figure 7 below.



Add the following paragraph: The IC Experts Panel found that (page 22) "In comparison to radiofrequency signals that are continuous, signals that are pulsed would allow for smaller, more concealable sources and antennas at a given power level, would enhance propagation and tissue penetration, and would reduce the likelihood of detection." Hence, the Panel evaluated each of the above five pathways as pulsed-radiofrequencies. The Panel found that (page 24) bulk heating was not plausible due to the lack of heating effects felt by the victims, but that "Thermo-acoustic effects are a plausible pathway" and that (page 25) "Researchers have suggested mechanical damage can result if the pulse has a sufficiently high-power density and is short compared to the reverberation time in the skull or if the pulse shape is adjusted to optimize biological effects". The IC Panel further suggested (page 25) that the microwave-auditory effect is an implausible pathway on its own due to a lack of possibility of damage but that "under certain conditions, it could appear as a side effect of any of the other four pathways, resulting in the perception of sound in some individuals."



Add the following paragraph: The Panel noted that a damaging pulsed electromagnetic affect could be easily achieved in principle: (page B-5) "A thermo-acoustic (traumatic brain injury-like) biological effect requires only a 1 W generator in principle. This power requirement makes a much smaller transmitting system, perhaps battery operated, more feasible. If the transmitter can produce even shorter pulses, the range might extend from 50 m to 150 m."

Finally add the paragraph: The Panel in their report in an Appendix (page H-1) also reported on significant disagreement with the JASON advisory panel and their 2021 findings. In particular, the two groups' "main disagreement concerns electromagnetic signals as a possible mechanism" but the details on their disagreement were redacted in their entirety." Coreyman317 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then let's form a consensus through discussion and debate here. I think it's fair that we should expand on the largest and most comprehensive study to date (because of this IC Experts Panel's access to information unlike the NASEM report, despite reaching the same conclusions) and explain its findings. I was quite long winded here but I thought it was a good starting place. The Wikipedia page for Havana Syndrome, I think purposefully, only summarizes this landmark report in one sentence without fully elucidating its findings -- like that mass psychogenic illness is ruled out, as seen in Figure 12 provided above. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just a (heavily redacted) document out of US intelligence. Not usable except as covered by reliable secondary sources, and irrelevant when we have recent peer-reviewed science to hand. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This document is not "out of US intelligence" though. It's an expert panel of scientists from inside and outside the government. It's not a US intelligence product. What peer reviewed science do we have on hand, besides the 2018 JAMA imaging studies and the 2024 NIH study? You're saying the largest systematic study to date of Havana Syndrome is "not usable"? Hmm can't imagine why'd you say that and immediately refer to Bartholomew's review articles which you mischaracterize as science. You accused me of pushing a particular POV earlier... Coreyman317 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have review articles conforming to Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS standards (you seem to think reviews are not science, but in Wikipedia research is largely irrelevant). Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't "seem to think reviews are not science" it's literally a fact. Science is defined as forming a hypothesis and gathering new data to test it. Explain how reviews follow this process, especially ones that repeat themselves while not actually analyzing new literate since none exists.
 * The IC Experts Panel report is not published research though is it?. It's a review of the cases and the existing literature surrounding the mainly neurological/physical principles at play. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From Salon, it seems to be one of several contradictory sources floating around in US intelligence circles. Anyway, it's of no use here without decent secondary coverage. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not from Salon. Why are you mischaracterizing the source of this study? Wdym "floating around in US intelligence circles"? We've already established that this is not a US intelligence community product, it's a panel of scientists asked by the IC to study this issue and did.
 * It is itself secondary coverage, I'm not sure what you mean. See here: Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
 * This IC Experts Panel is a systematic review of the literature surrounding the relevant issues (neurology, psychology, biological physics, epidemiology etc) and the cases themselves to determine the most likely cause. There is no original research here they didn't conduct experiments and collect data. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's a systematic review now is it? How is that? Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How isn't it? It's a "scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic."
 * It's panel of scientists who review the literature on the relevant topics pertaining to Havana Syndrome (a scholarly synthesis) using critical methods such a statistics, parameter space exclusion, and categorizing research as being supportive or not of different hypotheses (critical methods to identify, define, and assess research). Coreyman317 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point WP:CIR, if you think an IC report is a systematic review! Bon courage (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What IC report? There is no IC report being discussed here. Why do you keep playing word games and essentially lying? I just showed how this IC Experts Panel report is a systematic review and you responded with ad hominem lol.
 * You keep desperately trying to portray this report as an intelligence community product. How come? Coreyman317 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the "declassified report prepared for the director of national intelligence" that Salon refers to. It's not a systematic review, obviously (if you want to confirm that ask at WT:MED but at that point you might risk getting blocked for trolling). Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes this report was made for the US intelligence community, as are plenty of pieces of research funded by IARPA, for example. That does not make them intelligence community products, right?
 * Salon has almost nothing to do with this source yet you keep associating them with it, why? They FOIA'd the report. Got it. That's it.
 * Why isn't it a systematic review? I went to the page you suggested and copy and pasted the definition of systematic review and showed how this IC Experts Panel Report meets all requirements in the definition, lol. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you really don't know systematic review are invariably entitled "systematic review" and are "systematic" in having a formal stated mechanism for identifying, sifting and assessing existing literature. A panel "report" that considers questions based on primary data in the light of the views of its authors, is not a systematic review. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean I do actually do science for a living, particularly mathematical physics, but sure.
 * Anyways, every characterization you just made of the IC Experts Panel report is wrong. They assess patient level data provided to them through imaging studies, etc and patient history. They are not gathering data themselves, so that makes their consideration of these sources "secondary".
 * You say "in the light of the views of its authors" is wrong. They systematically review the literature on each possible causative factor: electromagnetic sources, psychological sources, environmental sources, viral sources, etc.
 * There is no formal mechanism ever in systematic reviews. They hodge-podge together a list of the literature, usually through online search, and manually/semi manually comb out false positives, irrelevant studies, or poor ones. This is anything but formal but very very subjective. Ha Coreyman317 (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What does the 'IC' in 'IC Experts Panel' stand for again? MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're saying if the Intelligence Community calls on a panel of inside government and outside experts to examine an issue, it's a US intelligence product instead of that expert panel's product?
 * The fact that this study contradicts the current stated IC/CIA conclusion on this matter weighs further against this being a document out of "US intelligence." Coreyman317 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're saying IC stands for 'Intelligence Community' but it's not a product of the Intelligence Community? How confusing. MrOllie (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What's confusing about it? So interesting what you're doing here...!
 * Are you asserting that the IC Experts Panel is a product of the intelligence community because the intelligence community called on the panel to be formed and study this matter?
 * Once again, the intelligence community itself publicly contradicts this Experts Panel, which you are implying is an intelligence community product. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When it comes to this level of speculation I don't think it is DUE to add more detail than is there.
 * Does the report mention anything about the victims experiencing any heat? The part I read mentioned a thermo-electric effect, but that is different than a victim experiencing a sensation of heat while being bombarded with EM radiation. So much here is built on the misconception that microwaves heat from the inside out. They don't. If none of the victims felt heat, it would be hard to explain how enough energy got into their brain to do any damage. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

New source
Not much new, but good on symptoms. As regard cause, it could be a lot of things (says the source) e.g. Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems like a pretty good WP:MEDRS review. Definitely can be used to strengthen the causes and symptoms sections. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you share this article? TinyClayMan (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I could mail you the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's available through the WP:WL. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TinyClayMan I think BC meant the WP:Wikipedia Library where you can access the full report for free. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To summarise the main conclusions (quotes from the abstract):
 * Symptoms: "a sound at the onset of symptoms, a mix of neurologic and otologic symptoms, and persistent symptoms that lasted for months."
 * Cause: "Theories of the cause of Havana Syndrome have led to no conclusive answer." and "the cause of Havana Syndrome [is] still unknown"
 * We might also use this source for a new "Controversy" section as it discusses the various positions and the debate within the academic community. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The cause is, according to all the reviews, still unknown. Shouldn't the first sentence in the "causes"-section state this clearly, before delving into possible and/or plausible causes? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Draken Bowser That would be appreciated, thanks. (Unfortunately, I don't have access to WP:LIBRARY yet) TinyClayMan (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Separation of sections' content (formatting discussion)
I propose to move the content currently placed under the section "Locations associated with Havana syndrome claims" in subsections "Impact on American diplomats", "Impact on Canadian diplomats" and "Cuban government reactions" to other sections, leaving there only the content related to the section's name. The first two subsections can be moved to another section with a possible name "Diplomatic impact" and the last one can go to a section with a possible name "International reactions". Both should probably be placed somewhere below the chronology section and next to the "Legislative responses" section. TinyClayMan (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we need to simplify the article structure significantly. Fewer subsections and more condensed content. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, fewer (sub)-sections would be beneficial to rein in the the bloat and return to summary style. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)