Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024
In the "External links" section, please italicize "Havana Syndrome" in the  link, per MOS:MAJORWORK, under the "Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials" clause. I.e., change to  (leaving the remained of the line alone). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

NIH reports deleted?
Why was all the info about the March 2024 NIH reports funded by the US gov't (and published in JAMA) deleted from this article? This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats. Rp2006 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The information was removed due to a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines as they relate to this topic. I support restoring the content, citing any of the credible sources mentioned below, with clear attribution of all claims to these sources.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/havana-syndrome-brain-studies-nih.html
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/no-evidence-of-brain-injury-in-people-suffering-havana-syndrome-us-study
 * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-study-finds-no-brain-injuries-among-havana-syndrome-patients
 * https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/18/1239087164/nih-studies-no-pattern-harm-havana-syndrome-patients-brains
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/health/havana-syndrome-studies/index.html
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/18/nih-havana-syndrome-mri-scans/
 * https://apnews.com/article/havana-syndrome-diplomat-health-brain-ea64e5c59d57e44a19aab40ac1b91e0d
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/havana-syndrome-study-government-officials
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-study-finds-no-evidence-havana-syndrome-brain-injury-2024-03-18/ FailedMusician (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is historically important info &larr; have you got a source saying that? Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor expressed their view on the historical significance of the NIH study, a perspective I share. This viewpoint doesn't require a source for our discussion since it wasn't suggested to be directly included in the article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. I apply Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage Please note that talk page guidelines prohibit the behaviour you're displaying here. The editor didn't propose adding their personal opinion to the article in relation to the historically importance of the NIH study, and your comments here lack a policy-based rationale for including or excluding the content in question, much like in discussions above. Continued actions of this nature, and any further veiled threats, will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum so personal views have no place here, unless to inform article content. In which case they need to be evidenced. Evidence that something was "historically significant" would be coverage from a history RS, or a statement in RS to that effect. Bon courage (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear that @Rp2006 expressed an opinion on the NIH study's historical significance to support its inclusion in the article. Yet, you have not offered your opinion on the matter or the sources I've provided above. FailedMusician (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the WP:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so that I understand your argument, for the wording of an RFC, are you saying that news sources, even when there are ten of them, can't be used for attributed claims? FailedMusician (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not about biomedical information, no. This is pretty basic sourcing stuff. I would suggest you seek clarification about this at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN before wasting community time with an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of consensus among editors on distinguishing between biomedical information and the inclusion of news sources for the subject's political aspects, an RFC could determine the article's content scope and sourcing standards. Indeed we can post the RFC to WP:RSN to draw in more editors. FailedMusician (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BMI requires WP:MEDRS sources. Always.
 * Since we are talking about WP:PRIMARY medical studies it is unlikely that they could be used to support any kind of statement on Wikipedia.
 * As far as the encyclopedia is concerned they are useless as they are not reliable. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you include political comments made by non-experts in news reports that are associated with the potential causes, you could just as well include comments made that the IC's recent conclusion that a foreign adversary attack is unlikely may have been influenced by ulterior motivates.
 * I think neither speculation that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed, nor speculation that the attack hypothesis was downplayed are worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. Other speculations coming from news commentators, such as financial incentives, etc, aren't worthy of including either. Political drama playing out in the news media is polarized, highly speculative, and generally very unreliable. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If this information isn't notable, then neither is 40% of what is on the page right now. The exact same type of RS is being used. So let's put it in or start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. Bon courage (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, so it seems there is a consensus here to reinstate the content. FailedMusician (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus can only be to "start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies". Bon courage (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, your opinion has been noted. FailedMusician (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We should cut all WP:BMI unless sourced with WP:MEDRS and only keep WP:NOTBMI &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be reinstated without being misrepresented. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FailedMusician (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats."
 * Again you're misrepresenting the NIH studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone who opposes inclusion of the 2024 NIH reports (as reported by major RS such as NY Times, BBC, etc) explain the opposition? I read the comments above and I don't grasp the opposition. Are the opposers suggesting that the entire "Chronology of investigations, studies... " section should be deleted? That section seems exceedingly encyclopedic, because H.S. is an evolving situation, and new data is coming out every few months. A chronology of the history seems very encyclopedic. Or is the opposition based on the fact that ALL data from the article related to politics and espionage should be deleted (leaving only medical info)? Even if that were the appproach: the NIH studies were 100% medical. Or is the opposition related to the fact that NIH studies are primary sources? But they were noted by many major media sources. Noleander (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * All these are unreliable sources. Primary research reported on by new organisations is notoriously poor. We have really good sources on this, so why is the barrel being scraped? Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the NIH reports from JAMA are unreliable? Or are you saying the NY Times is unreliable?   What about other studies in years 2018 to 2023 (listed in the Studies section) ... do you have the same opinion of those prior studies?  Do you propose removing the entire "Studies" section?   When you say "we have really good sources" which specific sources are you considering?   I ask all these questions because your point seems a bit irrational, no offense.  Noleander (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's primary research, so unverified. Primary research is often wrong; read WP:WHYMEDRS if you want some background. The NYT is an unreliable sourcer for health content (like all newspapers). This is well established consensus on Wikipedia, for very good reasons. To be clear all the primary research should go: the article needs a major haircut. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The US gov't sponsored the early JAMA reports finding supposed evidence of energy weapon attacks, and it and the media used this result to claim attacks had occurred. And of course this was widely (and sensationally) covered in the media. How is this NOT acceptable to report on here? And then the US gov't sponsored another set of studies - also published in JAMA - which largely contradicted the early JAMA reports. And the media also reported this. And this information also should not be in this article? Rp2006 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because as you can see the primary studies are often contradictory/unreliable. Which one is right? We wait for the matter to be settled through the process of science. That's what Reviews are made for @Rp2006. Those reports are unreliable for WP:BMI &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So then, you are advocating removing refs to the JAMA reports in the section "Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis"? Rp2006 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024 (2)
In the Causes section add links to the relevant articles:

A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon, a functional disorder, or a psychogenic disease.

Also: the source states that "Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" is "The most plausible mechanism" not all three causes and also mentions neurotoxins as one of the causes most favoured in the literature.

A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon. Other likely potential causes identified are a functional disorder, a psychogenic disease or chemicals/neurotoxins.

The second edit fixes an obviously incomplete and imprecise sentence. I'm sure someone would object to it but I'm not sure if that makes it controversial. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ No comments or opposition, so request carried out in full &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @MSGJ &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2024
Because RF is not a commonly known abbreviation, change RF in the final paragraph of the lead section to radio frequency. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2024
First sentence in the lead: "formally" should be changed to "also known as". If either of these terms predates the other, it is HS that came first. Also many current articles prefer AHI, so AHI is not "formally" in any possible sense of the word. ""(formally "anomalous health incidents" )"

DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A formal name does not designate which came first but rather which term is preferred in the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Doh, formally not formerly. I'm embarrassed. But still. I think "also known as" is much more user friendly. Especially since there is nothing formal about AHI. It's not a diagnosis. There have been over a thousand claimed cases and only 24 that seem to remain unaccounted for. Which of those would be AHI? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Or "formally known as"? 196.188.51.242 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That would help. However, I just did a quick search of Wikipedia. "formally called" "formally known as" barely appear in wikipedia. So far I haven't found "formally x" in any lede at all. Contrast that with "informally" which is used much more. I am personally very familiar with "informally" but have never seen "formally" used in a lede. This is an odd bird and needs to be culled. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I added it just to give it the formal name that government agencies refer to it by after reading about it in the Insider article. FailedMusician (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI
This is easier than tryiong to tell each user.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Beyond Cuba" section (formatting only discussion)
I propose that we merge "Elsewhere in Asia" and "Elsewhere" into the two paragraphs at the top. Right now its a bit of a mess... Currently we spread non-China Asia stuff among the three sections, for example you won't find Taiwan in "Elsewhere in Asia" but you will find it at the top and in elsewhere. No content would be added or dropped, the existing paragraphs/sentences would just be integrated together. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you throw up what that would look like in talk? It sounds non-controversial but would like to see. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have done so, to me this looks a lot cleaner and the groupings make more sense. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this, but I have a few questions.
 * Could we stack notes 12-18 in one efn/ref? Could we remove the NYT's speculative quote? Also: "While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal." - the phrasing is a bit tendentious, could we just state plainly (for context) that these talks were ongoing at the time? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We likely could, but those sorts of changes are not within the scope of this discussion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah right, the first one is though. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as well &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid trying to list every claimed incident. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree but this discussion is only to change the format of the extant text on the page. And within the bounds of this discussion I like the suggestion. We can discuss trimming content at a later date - preferably after we've calmed down the sturm und drang over 60 minutes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Beyond Cuba (proposed)
Beginning in late 2017, suspected attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported in an expanding set of locations around the world, including Moscow, Russia; Tbilisi, Georgia; Poland; Taiwan; and Australia. Other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria, among other countries. One of the CIA officials with symptoms in Australia and Taiwan was one of the agency's top five officials. The Russian embassy in Australia dismissed reports of Russian operatives targeting CIA personnel in Australia.

The U.S. government has not released the number of affected persons, but media reporting indicated a total of 130 possible cases by the end of May 2021, rising to more than 200 by mid-September 2021. The cases variously affected CIA, U.S. military, and State Department personnel and their family members. Some reports, after investigation, were determined to be possibly related to Havana syndrome, while others were determined to be unrelated; BBC News reported in 2021 that "One former official reckons around half the cases reported by US officials are possibly linked to attacks by an adversary."

In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam, after incidents of Havana syndrome were reported. These reported cases also delayed Vice President Kamala Harris's visit to Vietnam. In September 2021, an aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome on a diplomatic visit to India. In October 2021, it was reported that U.S. embassy personnel and their families in Bogota, Colombia, had developed symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome.

China
Starting in early 2018, U.S. diplomats in China began reporting symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome. The first such incident was reported by an American diplomat in China in April 2018 at the Guangzhou consulate, the largest U.S. consulate in China. The employee reported that he had been experiencing symptoms since late 2017. Several individuals were taken to the U.S. for medical examination. A USAID employee at the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, reported a different incident in September 2017; the employee's report was discounted by the U.S. State Department.

Answering questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified that U.S. diplomatic staff in Guangzhou had reported symptoms "very similar" to, and "entirely consistent" with, those reported from Cuba. On June 6, 2018, The New York Times reported that at least two additional U.S. diplomats stationed at the Guangzhou consulate had been evacuated from China and reported that "it remains unclear whether the illnesses are the result of attacks at all. Other theories have included toxins, listening devices that accidentally emitted harmful sounds, or even mass hysteria." In June 2018, the State Department announced that a task force had been assembled to investigate the reports and expanded their health warning to all of mainland China amid reports some US diplomats outside of Guangzhou had experienced the same symptoms resembling a brain injury. The warning told anyone who experienced "unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises" to "not attempt to locate their source".

Washington, D.C., area
In 2019, a White House official reported experiencing debilitating symptoms while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb of Washington; the incident was publicly reported in 2020. In November 2020, a similar incident was reported on The Ellipse, a lawn adjacent to the south side of the White House. Both incidents were similar to those that were reported to have struck dozens of U.S. personnel overseas, including CIA and State Department personnel. Federal agencies investigated the incident at The Ellipse, and Defense Department officials briefed members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee in April 2021. Investigators told members of Congress that they had not been able to determine the cause of the events or who was responsible.

Europe
In 2021, dozens of U.S. personnel stationed in Vienna, including diplomats, intelligence officials, and some children of U.S. employees, had Havana syndrome-like symptoms. The State Department confirmed in July 2021 that it was investigating the reports. The Austrian foreign ministry stated it was collaborating with American investigators. Aside from Havana, Vienna has reported the most incidents. While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal. In September 2021, the CIA station chief in Vienna (the top U.S. intelligence officer in the country) was recalled over concerns over his management; he had been criticized for not taking quicker action in response to the Havana syndrome cases at his post.

In the months preceding August 2021, cases of Havana syndrome were reported at the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Germany, including from two U.S. officials who sought medical treatment. Several new cases were reported at the embassy in October 2021.

In 2021, the CIA evacuated an intelligence officer serving in Serbia suspected of being a victim of the neurological attack.

Three White House staffers reported symptoms at the InterContinental London Park Lane in late May 2019.

Quality sources
This is a review article in an Index medicus journal; a strong WP:MEDRS: It gives a round-up of the literature base and runs through the various hypotheses. Here is another (same quality) review – which we already cite – but very recent: This concludes HS is just "moral panic".I think, at least for WP:Biomedical information, all the primary/old non-WP:MEDRS sources can be removed from the article, and these can do all the heavy lifting for those aspects. We would follow the usual approach of saying "Review X said this, review Y said that", Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The Asadi-Pooya review looks pretty solid. The Bartholomew article is a "Brief Report", which is apparently supposed to provide a "brief account of innovative work in the field", and it reads somewhat more like a commentary piece rather than a review article, so I'd be less inclined to give that a lot of weight. Don't currently have a view on to what extent other sources should be removed from the article. Tristario (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's categorized by the publisher/Pubmed as a "review" and the journal is solid. Using unreliable sources is bad. Using them when reliable sources are available is double bad. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here they group Brief Reports together with editorials, it seems to me it may not quite be on the same level as a typical review article, and it doesn't look like a typical one. It's probably usable, I just wouldn't give it a lot of weight. I think you're right that in parts the sourcing on this article isn't great, although there are questions about what does and doesn't count as Biomedical Information, and some of these reports by eg. NASEM and the CIA seem like they should be included. Tristario (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not a lot of weight. This is the kind of discussion we should be having, weighing high quality sources. When the article is re-based on those it may be an idea to consider the weaker ones. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree the second source doesn’t look at the “same level as a typical review article” like the first one. I also wouldn't give it a lot of weight and wouldn’t make any final conclusions based off of it. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Before removing any sources from the article, editors need to establish a consensus on which claims are biomedical and require a higher standard of medical sourcing, and which can be considered as non-biomedical information (WP:NOTBMI), thus allowing the use of standard news sources. Discussions both here and on the fringe noticeboard  indicate a consensus that as long as they are correctly attributed, MEDRS may not apply as a restriction of the article's scope. Asadi-Pooya concludes only that Havana syndrome as a neurological disorder with unknown causes, acknowledging the study's own limitations, and calling for further investigation. FailedMusician (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And that is the current state of knowledge, based on a comprehensive literature review in a peer-reviewed review article in a reputable journal. We can't swap in editors' takes on the matter. This is Wikipedia 101. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the current state of knowledge in medicine, but the article subject isn't limited to medical aspects, so I would oppose deleting other content and their supporting sources. FailedMusician (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. For content that doesn't have a biomedical aspect different sourcing standard apply. But the basis should still be secondary. Is there any actual WP:SCHOLARSHIP on this? To best achieve NPOV, the WP:BESTSOURCES need to be the article foundation. Bon courage (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When the top MEDRS, like the one you provided above acknowledges its own limitations, then MEDRS isn't better than regular RS. FailedMusician (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether to an extent a solution to this is to have a section which sticks to more WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which we present as focusing on the more "medical" side of things, and then have a number of these other non-MEDRS sources, those that aren't outright excluded, in another section(s) which we present as more focused on the social, political and event focused side of things. So then we can include this other pertinent information, but not present it as being medical content.
 * That would be tricky to do. But to give something more concrete, I wouldn't mind if we deleted most of the "Possible causes of Havana syndrome" section, moved some parts of it to chronology, and then just used that section for MEDRS compliant content. Tristario (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The challenge lies in differentiating the parts of this subject that are clearly biomedical, such as symptoms and treatments, from those that are not, such as the cause. If the alleged cause of some cases was a weapon, as reported by some sources like the recent investigative report by The Insider, then that isn't strictly biomedical. The review article above acknowledging its own limitations in respect to agencies not sharing data, so there may never be MEDRS with definitive conclusions on this topic. FailedMusician (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you state or imply something "caused" a biomedical effect, that's WP:BMI (to state the obvious). But I don't see what the issue is anyway; we have a recent strong WP:MEDRS giving a comprehensive survey of the various hypotheses. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, if they say it happened they are saying the syndrome is real, that is a medical diagnosis. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Death is considered a biomedical condition. Should your view of WP:BMI then apply to all "Death" sections on the WP? A death can be caused by a bullet. Does that mean an article such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? That sounds like a rather WP:WL way of interpreting the guidelines.
 * Those parts of the article that trully discuss the biomedical information (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc) are WP:BMI and should use WP:MEDRS, no one on this talk page seems to disagree with that. But the logic that "if part of the article discusses WP:BMI, then all of the article is WP:BMI" is faulty. This article clearly describes a complex subject, which has biomedical, diplomatic and political sides to it. The word "Syndrome" in its colloquial name is not a reason to strictly reduce the whole discussion/encyclopedic description of a discussion to a biomedical aspect.
 * Maybe a good idea would be to rework/reword this article to be an article about an event. That looks like a better alternative to this never-ending debate of WP:BMI/WP:NOTBMI and whether the syndrome exists, doesn't exist or is not a medical condition. And it is definitely never-ending because there is no reason to expect that we can get several papers from WP:MEDRS reaching a consensus and a definitive result in the foreseeable future. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How does a comment on the applicability of WP:BMI/WP:MEDRS and the potential rework of the article fall under WP:NOTFORUM? TinyClayMan (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody has died of Havana Syndrome. Your speculation of whether death should be treated per WP:MEDRS broadly is not apropos to anything on this article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that someone has. As for the broad implementation of WP:BMI, then that is exactly what I tried to say in relation to the comment by @Bon courage, to which I replied to. I am surprised there is a need to explain the reason for indentation in front of the talk page messages. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'm surprised I have to explain that bringing up matters entirely unrelated to article content on an article talk page is WP:NOTFORUM territory. Yet here we are. So let's just close this unproductive line of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that mean an article such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? &larr; it is a common misconception that WP:MEDRS (like WP:BLP) applies at the article level. It applies to content in any article which is WP:BMI (same as WP:BLP applies to any content anywhere about living people). Obviously within the realm of WP:BMI different claims can have different sourcing (read MEDRS, and pay attention to the spinning plate). A claim that blowing your brains out with a gun is fatal does not require strong sourcing; a claim that drug X can prevent colon cancer would require super-strength MEDRS sourcing. WP:ECREE in fact applies everywhere. Any claim about energy weapons and their effects would require strong sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great job.
 * “In conclusion, Havana syndrome is a nonspecific neurological illness with an unidentified causative factor(s), an acute phase of auditory-vestibular symptoms and a chronic phase of nonspecific neurobehavioral symptoms. This syndrome should be considered and investigated as a health concern, and not as a political issue.”
 * from the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review seems pretty solid as a starting point for the medical section of the article. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is the proper place to start the medical section of the article:
 * "Using advanced imaging techniques and in-depth clinical assessments, a research team at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found no significant evidence of MRI-detectable brain injury, nor differences in most clinical measures compared to controls, among a group of federal employees who experienced anomalous health incidents (AHIs)."
 * From NIH DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As already discussed ad nauseam: that’s from a WP:PRIMARY study and can’t be used for WP:BMI according to WP:MEDRS. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The JAMA, JASON and NASEM studies are of the exact same quality. Do you support cutting them from the article? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on if they're primary or secondary sources. The NASEM one is a review, not a primary study, but the JAMA one is a primary study. Maybe we can include some primary studies according to WP:MEDPRI, I'm not sure, but starting the medical section with a primary study would definitely be a no go according to WP:MEDRS Tristario (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with your reading of MEDRS, but this article is also FRINGE and PARITY comes into play. The idea that HS is even a single thing is predicated on dodgy fMRI PRIMARY studies. So once you let the sketchy claim in the door in violation of MEDRS, you can't then change the standards to keep legitimate SECONDARY domain expert RS refutations of that claim off the page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of Bartholomew RE, Baloh RW Article
Since Bon courage still disagrees let's hear what others think. @DolyaIskrina@Simonm223@Slatersteven@TinyClayMan, and others of course, invited to comment below. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

'''Is Bartholomew of the same quality as Asadi-Pooya ? Is Bartholomew a "review"?''' (edited for clarity) &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Not a proper review, I believe @Tristario, @FailedMusician (please confirm below) and me have already expressed our views that the second source reads more like an editorial/commentary rather than a proper review and that it should be given less WP:WEIGHT. I don't believe it can be placed on the same level as the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2024 Bartholomew review should be given less weight than the other review for reasons I mentioned above. But it should still be included, I think, given the paucity of MEDRS sources we have on this. I'd prefer it if anything that is particularly clearly an opinion was attributed to the authors in some way eg. Bartholomew and Baloh wrote that... --Tristario (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Use both reviews. Relatively equal weighting. The Bartholomew review may be shorter but it is also more recent and I don't think it should be under-weighted. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 months of difference is nothing for reviews. They are contemporary. The fact they reach such different conclusions despite being contemporary is problematic. Since most seem to agree Bartholomew et al is not a proper review we should be even more cautious and give it proper WP:WEIGHT. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bartholomew et al is usable, but as I and others have noted, it does not resemble a proper review article, let alone a systematic one. Although more recent than the Asadi-Pooya review article, we cannot rely on Bartholomew et al to represent a scientific consensus in support of the MPI hypothesis, despite the authors' intentions. Establishing such a consensus requires multiple review articles that convey more definitive conclusions. FailedMusician (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet you base the claim that the brain RF wave acause can solely be supported by one article, the Asadi-Pooya article. Just so my vote gets counted, I support the inclusion of both articles, on the condition that the Asadi-Pooya is properly noted to be old and overall debunked by new evidence. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are good sources per MEDRS. Also, some people might be mistaken about the "governmental agencies". Please check Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine): Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies, the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. "Statements and information". Meaning that something like this would be a good sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a press release about a primary study (NIH does a lot of press releases like that for studies it does or funds), that MEDRS section is talking more about things like "Guidelines and position statements". A press release like this isn't anything like an official position of the NIH, or official guidance from the NIH. Whether we'd include that study would be according to the guidance at WP:MEDPRI Tristario (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a press release is worse even as a source than the primary source itself. Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Unlike the cited primary studies, this is obviously a WP:SECONDARY, and it is issued by NIH as an organization, even as a news report. Hence, I believe it satisfies the letter of WP:MEDRS. I agree it is less reliable than an official CDC guideline, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please focus the discussion about the NIH studies in the section above . It seems unlikely that there will be consensus to include them in the 'Possible Causes' section until they are covered by review articles. For now, we should focus on discussing specific edits, including whether Relman's quote can be incorporated in accordance with WP:BALASP. This aligns with the ongoing RFC below, which addresses scenarios like when the primary source is widely reported in major media. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also remember that something like PTSD is a perfectly legitimate medical diagnosis/condition. If this is "merely" a psychiatry problem (no brain damage found), it does not disprove the existence of the "syndrome" as the actual medical condition, at least in theory. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, citing this NIH report, it says: Forty-one percent of participants in the AHI group, from nearly every geographic area, met the criteria for functional neurological disorders (FNDs), a group of common neurological movement disorders caused by an abnormality in how the brain functions, or had significant somatic symptoms. FNDs can be associated with depression and anxiety, and high stress. Most of the AHI group with FND met specific criteria to enable the diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, also known as PPPD. OK. This is one of several possible explanations to be mentioned on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Both are good sources. There is too much cherry picking going on here in Talk. There is no policy that says you can go "this reads to me like blah-blah-blah". We don't do vibe checks. If it's a relevant expert in the field published in RS it's MEDRS and SECONDARY.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:MEDRS works though. From the "nutshell": Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.. We don't include whatever "experts" say if it is WP:BMI as their opinions are not reliable. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't get to demote a source because we think it, in your words, "reads more like an editorial/commentary". That's your judgement, but not POLICY. Baloh is in RS. It's a review. He's an expert. It counts as MEDRS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course we can demote sources. That's the role of editors here. And several editors have challenged that it is a review. They journal itself does not seem to label it as such. The only mention of a "review" is the one line in the methodology section written by the author saying "Method: A review of the literature." That's it. No other details are offered. That is unacceptable and not how reviews work. If you compare to the other source you can see it clearly presents its methodology in detail including study selection method, sources list, guidelines for inclusion etc. Also: it is labeled as a Review in the title and is published on a Journal that focuses exclusively on review articles. The differences are quite evident. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's rephrase: the argument for why to demote this source is insufficient as it mostly hinges on artifacts of the article's brevity. I don't find that a compelling reason to treat it as non-RS. I will concur that, ideally, secondary sources ahould be conducted by people who didn't execute the primary sources but, with only two reviews to draw from, I fear that the impact to neutrality would be far greater excluding this source than if we were to include it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This definitely goes beyond the "article's brevity". This is simply not a review and the journal does not call it as such. The authors mostly cite their own studies and simply appear to support their own conclusions without discussing other viewpoints. Also: they include significantly less sources than the other review despite being published later (32 sources cited in the first review vs. 20 sources cited in this article). Why did they discard the other evidence? They didn't provide any reasoning for it since no methodology is indicated. Those are major red flags that force us to conclude that this article is of lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Very weak yes. (tl;dr: Asadi-Pooya, 2022 should get more WP:WEIGHT than Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023) The Asadi-Pooya, 2022 report is indeed a neutral review article that summarizes the existing research, with careful formulation of the parts that are not part of an established consensus by the scientific community. Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 is different: its general tone is polemic and it obviously works towards reinforcing its' authors previous claims/opinions (from their previous publications) – for one, the "Aims" section from the publication already contains the expected conclusion. The two also differ in the choice of articles for the review: the Asadi-Pooya "Methods" section clearly describes why the studies were chosen (basically, all existing medical studies which were relevant and were found based on searched words). In comparison, the Bartholomew & Baloh review's choice of sources is unclear and unexhaustive. Their review generally follows a formula "Cite a single claim from a source and then debunk it with another single claim" with the debunking claim sometimes coming from the authors, and not another source (even when the claim lies outside the area of expertise for Bartholomew, i.e. medical sociology, and Baloh, i.e. neurology). In addition to studies it also cites a combination of press statements, media publications and a single authors' personal communication source, which are mostly used by the authors to address common misperceptions about MPI – and that part of the publication is not a review of primary medical sources at all.
 * While parts of B&B, 2023 do fit the WP:MEDDEF for being a WP:SECONDARY, it also contains the authors' personal opinion and theorisation on the subject which should be carefully cited taking in account WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and the authors' area of expertise. So I think that Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 can be used on the article, but it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agree, great rundown. I think your "very weak yes" equals my view when I say "Not a proper review". The conclusion is the same: "it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022". Maybe you should clear that up so as to make it explicit where you stand to someone reading this quickly. I think we have a pretty strong consensus at this point. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added in bold in front.TinyClayMan (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no strong consensus here. TinyClayMan is literally tone policing. We don't get to do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TinyClayMan correctly checked the sources cited by the paper. And found them lacking. Which is pretty clear if one compares it to the other proper review. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Asadi-Pooya article relies on sources that have since been debunked/superceded, such as the NIH report saying it was likely RF wave weapons, which they have rolled back on saying there is no damage to syndrome "sufferers" brains, and goes against the consensus of the entire intelligence community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * “Five of the agencies said foreign involvement was “very unlikely”, one found it “unlikely”, and the seventh declined to offer an opinion. But most noted their assessments were moderate to low confidence given the available evidence.” https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/havana-syndrome-linked-to-russian-unit-media-investigation-suggests
 * The US intelligence community doesn’t really know much yet and new information is emerging. So not enough to discard such a strong WP:MEDRS review IMHO. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a strong MEDRS review as the claim that Radio Frequency was the cause comes SOLELY from a single citation to a NASEM report to a Senate standing committee, which at this point is four years old. And yes, the consensus of the intelligence community, as you just stated, is that it is very unlikely. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with that review you can publish your own review in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can cite it. Until then you are doing original research WP:OR which is not allowed on Wikipedia. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not the one advocating for inclusion, also see WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDDATE. I am not adding OR to articles, therefore it is not WP:OR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately consensus is against you so give it a rest. You are the only one proposing to ignore the Asadi-Pooya review. There is no doubt that it is a review of high quality that conforms to WP:MEDRS and it is included in the article. The only "review" in doubt is the Bartholomew review which most editors in this discussion believe is of lesser quality. Express your view on that if you wish in your own comment articulating your thoughts but let's reduce the non constructive discussions or this talk page will explode. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its already mentioned in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah idk why the user is so pressed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the point of this discussion is what weight to give to the Bartholomew's article and if it is a proper "review". I'll maybe clarify the question above. Let's keep the discussion orderly. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just noticed that Bartholomew is clearly marked as a "Brief Report" by the publishing journal . Here is their description of what Brief Reports are: . I think that is a clear and incontrovertible indication it should not be treated as a review and definitely not given the same weight as Asadi-Pooya. Case closed? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is still a review of the literature, even if it is 'brief'. That's not a 'clear and incontrovertible indication' of anything. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is getting a little bit tedious. Reviews aren't reviews if they don't support specific POVs seems to be the gist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The journal states clearly it is a "Brief report". If it were a literature review it would have an appropriate structure and it would be marked as a "Review article" such as here. Brief reports are absolutely not literature reviews (it absolutely does not mean "brief review") and are at the bottom of WP:MEDASSESS scale with "Case-Controlled Studies/Case Series/Reports" instead of a the top. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have literally already discussed this, see LITERALLY the first response to bon courage in this very thread. There is no way you JUST noticed this as you participated in this thread. You are just WP:BLUDGEONing by posting this again. We get it, you don't think it counts. Others think the Bartholomew review is still a review of the literature on the topic, albeit brief, yet it is still a review. Yet you conclusively say "case closed' - the article is also subjected to a double blind peer review so I am only more confident that it should be included as a reliable source. What levels of peer review were the Asadi-Pooya article subjected to?
 * This is getting exhausting. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A 'Brief report' is not mutually exclusive with being a literature review. One way we can tell this is a literature review is by this text, quoted from the source at issue: Method: A review of the literature. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems I missed a similar comment above. Even more surprised we are still discussing about this. According to the publisher: Editorials and Brief Reports. Editorials are generally invited by the Editor and reflect on topics of current controversy or to serve as introductions to themed editions of the journal. Brief reports will be up to 1,000 words in length and provide a brief account of innovative work in the field. and they are clearly separate from Review Articles will, in a scholarly fashion, summarise an important area of the literature. . This discussion should have been over a long time ago. Calling this article a review is demonstrably false. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We're concerned with what sources actually are (in this case as demonstrated by a direct quotation), not with categories that do not actually mean what you seem to think they mean. Publisher categories don't actually have any bearing on Wikipedia or its policy requirements. Also, please stop trying to shut down discussions - we get that you disagree, but that you disagree does not mean that discussions will simply end and endorse your personal view of the matter. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They have a bearing if their status as a review article is being challenged. This is clearly not a normal review article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It reviews and summarizes academic literature - it is a review article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It calls itself a review, but otherwise it is disputed if we can call it that. FailedMusician (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh do you think the article doesn't review and summarize academic literature? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. And several (most?) other editors agree. Per WP:ONUS there needs to be stronger consensus to keep this in the article while contradicting a strong WP:MEDRS source. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of publications by James C. Lin
In the talk page section primary works by James C. Lin describing the effects caused by exposure to microwave and RF radiation were brought up earlier this month (and were subsequently forgotten in the following discussions). His statement, given to Guardian, is also cited on the article page.

There is a review article by him on the related subject and also a monograph, part of which discusses Havana syndrome directly (in the section 10.2) The author's level of expertise on the subject is clear from the "About the author" section on the monograph's page. There is a problem with accessing these sources as they are behind a paywall (leaving only the chapters' and the article's abstracts), but they might be available through WP:LIBRARY (definitely available through shadow libraries). I think that these sources can be used for the section of the article devoted to potential causes. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. He is a top expert on the subject. Are they accessible via Wikipedia library? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. I could get electronic copies from the uni library though, but are we sure they are the first one is even due for this article? Wouldn't they it need to mention Havana syndrome directly (which the first one couldn't possibly) ? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree only the second one is relevant here. I managed to read some of it through google books using the search and preview feature. Here are some selected quotes: "Many have come to believe that the microwave auditory effect — induced by a targeted beam of high peak-power pulsed microwave radiation — may be the most likely scientific explanation for the sonic attack [Best, 2017; Hambling, 2017; Hignett, 2017; Broad, 2018; Deng, 2018]. Of course, until the truth is revealed, this specific matter will remain somewhat of a mystery." and "It is not clear whether a weapon that covertly uses sonic energy to injure people exists today." "...the required technology is mature and for the most part, commercially available or readily adaptable from existing microwave radar systems." &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think we should use this source. Something published by Springer and written by an expert (formerly a professor in "bioengineering" as well as "physiology and biophysics") has to meet the threshold for inclusion, and feel free to reach out if you want a pdf-copy. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We still need to stick to MEDRS even for experts. @Gtoffoletto did you mention a secondary source among those? Could you highlight that one? Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * according to WP:MEDRS:Ideal sources for biomedical information include: … academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; so this is a very strong source. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. If Lin is MEDRS in your book than so too is Repacholi.
 * "Factors that decrease the likelihood that the sounds perceived by embassy staff were due microwave hearing include: * Huge peak and average microwave power densities would be needed to elicit the sensation of "a loud sound". This would require large microwave generating equipment, such as military radars used close to the target. * Embassy staff did not report any thermal sensation or feeling of warmth that results from exposure to high power microwaves. * There were no reports of electromagnetic interference that would certainly result from exposure to high power microwaves. * The reported directional nature of the sound does not fit the description of the microwave hearing effect. Finally it would be technically challenging to produce RF equipment that could produce loud sounds. The committee produced no convincing evidence that pulsed RF at high or low power can produce the symptoms reported by US embassy personnel in Havana and China. Mass psychogenic illness and related psychological mechanisms remain a plausible explanation for the symptoms."https://www.jeic-emf.jp/english/assets/files/pdf/whats_new/20201220RRG_Public(ENG).pdf

And Foster, Garrett, and Ziskin: "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. There are easier ways to harass or harm an adversary and using directed energy weapons against people might be ill-advised for a variety of other reasons as well."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733248/

DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Those are WP:PRIMARY studies. Not academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers. So no, those are not good WP:MEDRS sources. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In what respect would they be primary? I'm not following here. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This source is a “non-evidence-based expert opinion” which WP:MEDRS explicitly indicates as a primary source of “lower” level.
 * This source is a reply to a Consensus Study Report by the NASEM (a strong WP:MEDRS source) that was not published in a peer review journal?  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 April 2024
per MOS:ORDER. Thanks, Queen of &#x2661;  &#124;  speak  02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Short description
@Slatersteven "Anomalous health incidents" does not give any more information than the title, and I don't see any problem in my preferred version. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But this is what they were. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And what I wrote is what it is, with the added benefit of disambiguation, a primary purpose for short descriptions. When an average reader searches and sees the short description "Anomalous health incidents", they're not going to know that it was a former name or anything about the syndrome other than the fact that it is related to health (duh). Being a former name is not a criterion for short descriptions, and I don't see why it should be. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article, not all the incidents were over seas (for a start). Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is problematic for the reason that families of officials have also claimed symptoms. Also, people in the United States, including at the White House, have claimed symptoms. Rp2006 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, wouldn't adding a "mostly" solve that? Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The current SD is too long. Does anyone have objections to changing the first half-sentence to "Illness"? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as they are only symptoms, we do not know its even real. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An illness is the occurrence of a set of symptoms. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but if caused by a weapon would be an injury. Also symptoms having symptoms does not mean they were ill, as they may not even really had them. We can't word anything to imply we know what this was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Having symptoms is experiencing illness by definition, and I don't see how this implies that we know the origin. We don't need to include every detail in the short description. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because we would be saying they were ill, and they may not have been (as stated already). Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Having symptoms IS being ill. Thinking that you have symptoms while you don't is still being ill. The current SD does not take a side on this point either, and I don't see why we have to include this facet in a summarizing and distinguishing short description.Pinging @Bon courage for a fresh pair of eyes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the illness is entirely psychological in character and brought about by a straightforward stress response that still constitutes illness. The question is not whether people who claim Havana Syndrome are sick - it's what they're sick with. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Citing Bartholomew & Raloh, 2023, MPI is a collective stress reaction that is based on a belief and is commonly found in normal populations and anyone can exhibit psychogenic symptoms and they are as real as any other symptoms. Basically, every theory mentioned on this article (including crickets, RF effects, MPI) treats it as "real", except for the "feigning for insurance" theory – and the general consensus seems to be that this theory is highly unlikely. TinyClayMan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So do you think we should change it to illness, or keep it as symptoms? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, it is a "medical condition", followed by a mention of main symptoms in the next sentence, which looks fine to me. I don't think any other term from Disease is needed, "medical condition" and "syndrome" seem to be the most fitting. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Medical condition seems fine given the uncertainties surrounding this diagnosis. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @TinyClayMan We're talking about the short description, not the first sentence. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So what new short description is being suggested? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Right now its

A, "Medical symptoms of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers"

As far as I can tell the alternative are

B, "Illness reported primarily by overseas government workers"

C, "Medical condition of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers" ( think)

Or

D, "medical condition, reported primarily by overseas government workers" (which may be what is meant)

Which is the preferred option? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * C Draken Bowser (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to put the unknown nature in the short description? Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is idiopathic, I won't oppose D though (brevity is a virtue). Draken Bowser (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. It's necessary to put the unknown nature in the short description because it has an unknown nature? Why do you support D but oppose B? Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is widely associated with radiofrequency weapons, but that is only a proposed cause of this idiopathic condition. I oppose B because it contains the word "illness". Draken Bowser (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the word "illness"? It's much more concise and means the same thing as "medical condition". If anything, the latter only makes it sound a bit more real. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is a broken arm an illness? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not, which is yet another reason we should use "illness" as this does not involve broken arms. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why we can't, as an injury caused by a weapon is not an illness, it is an injury. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-physical "injuries" are still illnesses. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources? such as this https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35463644.pdf talks about psychiatric injuries https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-orders/compensation/2-suggested-starting-points-for-physical-and-mental-injuries/ https://www.gordondeansolicitors.co.uk/emotional-distress/ No not all non physical injuries are illnesses. With that I will not respond to you again until you provide an RS supporting your contention. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources only state that non-physical injuries are injuries. In fact, one of the sources you've provided includes mental illness inflictions under non-physical injuries and calls it "Disabling mental illness".My source is any competent dictionary. Merriam-Webster for example defines "illness" as "an unhealthy condition of body or mind", which this falls under. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not going to find consensus for that particular word, so it is time to start looking at the thesaurus. I'll start: How about 'affliction'? MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support affliction! Just to be clear, I think this is simply about preference, and I prefer C (or D). Draken Bowser (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support either "illness" or "affliction" over all other options listed for conciseness. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer we go back to "Anomalous health incidents". Short and accurate, and it's enough to disambiguate from similarly named topics (of which there are none, AFAIK). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. SDs are supposed to also offer a concise explanation of the scope of the page, which that fails to do. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The part "reported primarily by overseas government workers" needs to indicate the "U.S. government" (remember WP:GLOBAL). TinyClayMan (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully we all agree on changing "government" to "US government". Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request, hopefully
I feel like we have a rough consensus above to change the short description to Medical affliction reported primarily by overseas US government workers. FFF seems like the only editor who may disagree, but they haven't responded and is one among four. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing opposition below, I've removed the edit request while I read. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about Affliction reported mostly by US officials abroad, 49 chars? Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per below, Affliction affecting US officials abroad, 40 chars. Also credit to  for the idea to remove "medical" to provide a bit of an idea that it's not medically proven.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would oppose that description without some qualifier -- "purported" or (as current) "disputed" or the like. Whatever one's personal take, it seems to me there is still a lot of uncertainty in the reliable sources.  Not sure if that changes the consensus calculation, but thought I would add my $.02.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto to this dispute, needs a qualifier. other options would be "contentious" "possible" but I think "purported" is best. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not add a qualifier, for two reasons. Number one is that a syndrome is just a collection of symptoms, and nobody disputes the symptoms are real. Number two is MOS:CLAIM. Loki (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think CLAIM applies as RSes also doubt that it's more than psychological, I agree with Loki here. Besides succinctness, "affliction" doesn't mean it has to be actually physical. An affliction is a state of pain, suffering, distress or agony, and self-induced psychological suffering is still an affliction. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt that you are correct in a strictly definitional sense, Wikipedia is aimed at a general readership, and I believe referring to the subject as an unqualified medical affliction is likely to be misunderstood by at least a large fraction of readers. Perhaps it is just me, but if I were to see that sentence, my instinct would be that it was a problem whose mechanics and etiology were known.  As ever though, happy to go wherever consensus leads.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At 71 characters, it's way longer than the recommended 40-word limit. On the Wikipedia app search it would show up as something like "Medical affliction reported primarily by o...", and Vector 2022 desktop search would show something like "Medical affliction reported primarily by overseas US ...". The status quo has similar issues.
 * I would be fine with "Medical affliction", or any of the modified "Purported/Disputed/Contentious/Possible medical affliction". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best solution would be to leave out "medical"? I think that would actually remedy my concern above.  So simply it is "...an affliction reported primarily by...."  Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I like that! Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My original suggestion was "Sickness experienced by officials abroad", later changed to "Sickness experienced mostly by US officials abroad", 50 characters. Slatersteven vehemently opposed this for some reason. And the current one is much longer. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I said why. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I did not understand your reasoning or why the "unknown origin" part seemed so important to you. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How about Reported medical condition primarily affecting US government officials stationed overseas. FailedMusician (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's 89 characters. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about Reported medical condition of unknown etiology? FailedMusician (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not know what "etiology" means, so most people probably don't know either, and the US officials abroad part seems much more important to mention. Plus, I prefer "affliction" or any sufficient one-worder over "reported medical condition". Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Affliction sounds too Biblical. I think this will be too hard to get into the recommended 40 chars. Here is my last crack at it: Reported medical condition affecting US government officials. FailedMusician (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It did not only affect Americans, or only government officials, that is (at best) misleading. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's do "US officials" then. It's impossible to achieve conciseness without sacrificing preciseness. Something that "affected mostly US officials" in fact "affected US officials", that it didn't affect only US officials doesn't make the statement untrue. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't think anyone else here thinks affliction sounds "biblical". 2. We also have alternative words, such as illness, ailment, disease, sickness, etc. 3. I think we have a consensus so far to add something like "primarily" or "mostly". Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, you may be right. It was just my personal impression of the term. FailedMusician (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request, hopefully hopefully
I feel like we now have a rough consensus to change the SD to Affliction affecting US officials abroad. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in this discussion, so it's hard to assess rough consensus, but I'm not sure I'm seeing it. I would be fine with this suggestion. Maybe you could ping prior participants to be sure? I can tell you that admins responding to full protection edit requests like the consensus to be pretty clear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps easily guessed, but as a fairly minor participant, I definitely support the proposed wording. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. pls suprt  Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this. Loki (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this wording. Plus, I like the alliteration here. TinyClayMan (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Affliction affecting American agents abroad? Loki (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding the new investigative report?
I am not an editor, nor do I have any experience editing or adding articles. Nevertheless, this article seems pertinent to this case, it may even have cracked it wide open.

Unraveling Havana Syndrome: New evidence links the GRU's assassination Unit 29155 to mysterious attacks on Americans, at home and abroad (theins.press)

If anyone wants to pick it up, please be my guest. If not, in a few days, I might add this somewhere, after I read some rules and howto on editing. Thanks P.s: I think 60 minutes also has a documentary, recently released, about this ValmirM1986 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is now widely reported:
 * https://theins.ru/en/politics/270425
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNRpw6DWN0M
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/havana-syndrome-culprit-investigation-new-evidence-60-minutes-transcript/
 * https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/havana-syndrome-evidence-investigation-russia-60-minutes FailedMusician (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:MEDRS article. None of these are WP:MEDRS-quality sources. Loki (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so. Clearly not all of the material in this article is biomedical information about the supposed disease, and discussions about Russia's GRU Unit 29155 would be included in that. Endwise (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it really a WP:MEDRS article though? Or is it an espionage article? &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. An entire article cannot be “MEDRS”. MEDRS only relates to WP:BMI. Other pieces of information such as the “espionage” part of the story are not covered by MEDRS and regular sourcing is sufficient. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Object to inclusion. This is just weak newsy junk. Would need some decent/respectable WP:SECONDARY coverage to be due, especially given the fringe/science aspect to this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The passage you keep reverting includes several reliable sources (all present in WP:RSP)
 * Here is one more.
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68706317.amp
 * your opinion does not give you the right to revert all other editors as you please.
 * I’ll let you self revert @Bon courage. Then we can add the BBC source if you need more. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is CBS not a respectable perennial source? What's fringe about it? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not the issues, NPOV is. What makes this stuff due? Show me some WP:SECONDARY coverage, not just primary reportage. Bon courage (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a MEDRS article as it talks about medical conditions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And a WP:FRINGE one too. When RS says this "syndrome" probably doesn't exist we really should not be giving rolling coverage to whatever latest credulous clickbait silliness is in the news. It's like reporting Bigfoot sightings. Wikipedia needs to be a bit better than that. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ray Cats don't exist and yet I was greeted with them on the DYK section when I opened up the homepage. Are they or Patterson-Gimlin film not more fringe than the credible Havana information I added? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 03:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its clear that Ray Cats aren't real in the article and in the DYK (which was an april fools DYK) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The investigation in question is not WP:MEDRS. ChaseK (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of this 60 minutes information. Very sensational, and not a great source.  In light of the history of the syndrome (where there's lots of concrete medical studies) this sort of speculative ramblings by a for-profit media organization doesn't belong in the article. Noleander (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first mention of this joint investigation on the page used The Insider as the source (for some reason it was completely rewritten and removed by @Thornfield Hall), which is known for its investigations of various Russian government's operations (see Poisoning of Alexei Navalny as the prime example). If that is still not sufficient (the presence of the source in WP:RSP being taken as one and only mark of credibility for a media outlet), a link to Der Spiegel can be used – although I have no subscription to it, so I can't check what is written inside. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Err, that's the piece the opens "He was tall, certainly taller than Joy’s neighbors ...". Can we have some serious suggestions for sources please? Bon courage (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Insider has worked with Bellingcat, which has been cited as valuable by the United States Intelligence Community. You are an absolute nobody to call it 'unserious', and you had no problem with absolutely worthless sources like 'GeopoliticalEconomy'. Running dog59 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was because we both submitted our edits simultaneously causing that weird edit conflict prompt, and I went with the more detailed of the two. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed sensational. However, given that it is speculation as an attack by hostile power that appears to be gathering widespread attention and has also garnered some official political response, is that worthy of some mention in the wiki article?
 * The passage already in the article: "However, the most recent and detailed studies, published in 2023 and 2024, have not found any evidence of such hostile attacks, and have not discovered any electromagnetic energy that could produce symptoms consistent with symptoms of Havana syndrome." still stands to balance the claims from this latest investigation out well, I think. Edittlealittle (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be worth coverage if some high-quality source takes a overview and analyses the coverage in a WP:FRIND manner. But mostly what we have is WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Let's wait; in a few months or year some decent sourcing may emerge, Bon courage (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And that claim is dead wrong. No studies were even published in 2023 or 2024 studying those issues specifically. The NIH study was a clinical study of brains, not possible causes. There is so much misleading information from the so called skeptics on this page it's incredible to see. Coreyman317 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support including this. It's significant enough of a development that both the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Government have responded. Both of these facts have been reported by WP:RELIABLE. Wikipedia need not describe these the claims as true or false, only quote the relevant claims and responses. ChaseK (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should this website be added to the external links section from the report? Addressing Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs) | Go Forward with Advanced Echelon LLC Indexcard88 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Support covering this investigation in the article. Wikipedia should be based on WP:RELIABLE sources. Nothing else. This investigation was conducted by several high profile investigative journalists (such as Christo Grozev from Bellingcat) who are specialised in Russian investigations. It has been widely reported by WP:SECONDARY sources of the highest quality (all in the WP:RSP perennial list): It is so significant that the Russian Government has officially responded: This is an extremely significant development. Not including this in the article and pretending it never happened makes our coverage of the topic woefully incomplete. Obviously no conclusive statement and no biomedical claim should be made in accordance with WP:MEDRS. We should just say that this investigation exists and what their conclusion is ("Russian involvement is likely"). &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Russian military intelligence unit may be linked to 'Havana syndrome', Insider reports - Reuters
 * Havana syndrome: Report links mystery illness to Russian intelligence unit - BBC
 * ‘Havana syndrome’ linked to Russian unit, media investigation suggests - The Guardian
 * Havana Syndrome investigation links Russia to mysterious brain injuries - The Telegraph
 * Havana Syndrome linked to Russian military agency GRU, investigation indicates - Politico
 * etc. etc.
 * "Kremlin dismisses report Russia behind 'Havana Syndrome'" Reuters


 * It's just news churn. Where are the decent WP:SECONDARY sources you claim exist? Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the sources linked above are WP:SECONDARY and of high quality being all WP:RSP outlets. The WP:PRIMARY sources here are CBS, The Insider (= Christo Grozev) and Der Spiegel who also are of high quality. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Their just re-reporting the news, with none of the in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis that characterize secondary sources. WP:NEWSPRIMARY in other words.More generally, it's evident this article has descended again into being a fringe of FRINGE POV, with a tonne of primary sourcing spliced together by editors here. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N and put some tags in. Let's see if some heavy cutting can get this article back to some encyclopedic and due. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all I think you might be interpreting WP:NEWSPRIMARY incorrectly. Those sources are all secondary in this context. Secondarily, those reliable outlets do not publish anything without "in-depth analysis, expertise, commentary and synthesis". That is what serious reliable outlets such as the BBC, The Guardian, Reuters etc. do before publishing an article and within their coverage. And that's what Wikipedia is built on. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that "analysis" is "According to", 3 media outlets, dismissed by Russia and which the US intelligence community has said is unlikely. In essence "this story exists, we can't verot any of it". Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All those sources believe the report to be credible enough to report on it. That is significant. And even the Kremlin has considered it substantial enough to immediately reply to it officially. That is highly significant. Also: neither Russia nor the US intelligence community are WP:INDEPENDENT sources on this topic. So we should be extremely careful in blindly following their statements. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they think its newsworthy enough, why is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point the page history looks like an edit war between @Bon courage and everyone else, because some sources are not sources enough. While I agree that all those Guardian, Politico, Reuters and the like's retellings of the investigation are on the same level of "sourceness" as the investigation itself (published originally in 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel), I disagree that they are primary sources. In the context of the article (Havana syndrome) they are all secondary, because they do not make an initial report on the event – they are an aftermath analysis and an investigation of it. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources on Wikipedia are described in WP:SECONDARY. They are not not secondary because of editor say-so. We would really need some authoritative, quality overview of this. Not just news churn. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What you're asking for is beyond what the policy requires. We would need an "authoritative, quality overview" to assert that the claims are true or false. We do not need such a source to simply quote the claim, evidence, and responses by the Director of National Intelligence and Russian Government. ChaseK (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Lets look at this another way, If Havana Syndrome is real, and IF RS say it is real...this (to me) is the heart of this issue, for this report to be not wp:undue Havana Syndrome has to be accept as a single, identifiable medical complaint. As (as far as I know) this is not the case, and it has not been proven to be real, thus accusing anyone of it is saying it is real by the back door, which is why I say this fails, MEDERS, as these are not medical sources making (in effect) an indirect medical diagnosis (as if it is not real, buy definition Russia did not do it). Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Surprised this is being debated. Wikipedia doesn’t decide what is important or true, we merely report on what reliable sources state. Multiple reliable sources have reported on this issue. To not include their commentary is itself biased. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree, but let's not sensationalize it to read as if the 60 Minutes report is conclusive proof and now represents the mainstream POV on the topic. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly... no one was arguing for that. ChaseK (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So what is the suggested text? Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. Suggested text:
 * In April 2024, 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider published a joint investigation which alleges that the Russian GRU Unit 29155 is connected to cases of Havana syndrome. Among the core findings were that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of "non-lethal acoustic weapons"; and that members of the unit have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenC (talk • contribs)

Highly conditional weak support I think it is likely due mentioning a claim was made. But I think any claims must be clearly identified as to source, treated as what they are: claims made by a media company, not medical consensus and, this is the most critical part *must not exceed due coverage* - this is already more WP:RECENTISM than I am comfortable with for one rather unconvincing claim. Please remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that Russia created some invisible energy weapon that seems to defy how rf frequencies affect bodied is most certainly extraordinary - as such it is imperative we do not treat these claims as definitive or even especially evidentiary.Simonm223 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The hyperbole isn't necessary. There is nothing extraordinary about invisible EM radiation, and experts such as James Lin, have claimed that rf frequencies could produce the effects that the victims experienced.
 * Assuming reported accounts are reli-
 * able, the microwave auditory effect
 * provides a scientific explanation for the
 * Havana Syndrome [4], [5]. Pulsed mi-
 * crowaves can create an acoustic wave
 * inside the head [6], [7], [14]. It is plausible
 * that the loud buzzing, burst of sound,
 * or pressure waves could have been co-
 * vertly delivered using a beam of high-
 * power pulsed microwave radiation rather
 * than blasting the subjects with conven-
 * tional sonic sources. Microwave hearing
 * doesn’t go through the ear; it goes di-
 * rectly from the brain tissue to the cochlea.
 * Absorption of short pulses of microwave
 * energy by brain tissues creates a rapid
 * expansion of brain matter and launches
 * an acoustic wave of pressure (sound
 * wave) that travels inside the head to
 * the inner ear cochlea [7], [14]. The short
 * high-power microwave pulses do not
 * generate noticeable amounts of heat in
 * the brain tissues."
 * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ... "The U.S. National Academies of Sciences,
 * Engineering, and Medicine released its
 * report [8] examining the plausible causes
 * of the described illnesses and makes the
 * point that “among the mechanisms the
 * study committee considered, the most
 * plausible mechanism to explain these
 * cases, especially in individuals with dis-
 * tinct early symptoms, appears to be di-
 * rected, pulsed RF (microwave) energy.”
 * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9557212 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "As early as 2018, some scientists, including physicist Peter Zimmerman, bioengineers Kenneth R. Foster, and Andrei G. Pakhomov, and UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh, said that the microwave hypothesis was implausible; Baloh called the National Academies conclusion "science fiction".[114][115][116]" Simonm223 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source above by Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:33D2:D310:85BF:3BD4:18B1:81B6 is more up to date (Nov, 2021), published by the IEEE and written by Professor Emeritus James C. Lin at the University of Illinois Chicago and Life Fellow at the IEEE  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When someone is called "professor" without a field, always google what they are professing in, because it is highly likely that the field is omitted because they are actually not qualified for the statements they are making. And indeed: Lin is an electrical engineer and not qualified for medical subjects. The physicist-bioengineer-neurologist team is preferable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read his bio before writing this? He is "Head for the Bioengineering Department" at the University of Illinois. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37278769800 His research is in "Biomedical instrumentation", "Electromagnetic Engineering for Biology and Medicine" and "Bioelectromagnetics". https://ece.uic.edu/profiles/james-lin-phd/ So he is precisely a "physicist-bioengineer-neurologist" and extremely qualified to comment on this subject. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to mention his publication topics are especially related to the topic.
 * "Publication Topics
 * Power Density,Acoustic Waves,Auditory System,Brain Tissue,High-power Microwave,Inner Ear,Microwave Energy,Microwave Pulses,Peak Power Density,Perception Threshold,Pulse Width,Sound Pressure,Acoustic Pulse,Acoustic Stimuli,Auditory Nerve,Auditory Response,Average Power Density,Background Radiation,Battery Charging,Bone Conduction,Brain Injury,Bursts Of Pulses,Central Auditory System,Cochlea,Computer Simulations"
 * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37278769800 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your portrayal is factually incorrect and biased. It's not your role to decide what scientific assessments are preferable and twist the narrative towards your preference. This is an encyclopedia. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lin is a highly qualified expert on the subject. Editors from the fringe noticeboard should ensure they read the sources before commenting here. This will otherwise look like WP:CANVASS . FailedMusician (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Experts say all kinds of novel things and are sometimes wrong. Wikipedia has sourcing standards for pronouncements in the realm of WP:BMI: see WP:MEDRS. Editors need to abide by them, otherwise the appearance of WP:PROFRINGE is a risk. Bon courage (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just say you want this to be real and not US Federal Employees getting too hangover or high in cocaine. Orocairion (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even Kenneth R. Foster who you cite as having ruled out microwaves has since published commentary espousing the opinion that directed energy is plausible and introduces a new hypothesis based on IR lasers.
 * "We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined."
 * https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.788613/full
 * 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 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:5DEA:63C2:1659:5433 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if we accept this, it is not a large enough part of the article to go in the lede and is not significant enough to be mentioned more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "If we accept this"? There is overwhelming support. We clearly have consensus to include this in the article. If you oppose it write a full oppose comment and lets see if others agree and the consensus changes but please stop reverting the article as you did here, here and here. Multiple editors have already inserted and edited that text and it is extremely basic and factual. I will restore the mention in the body but not in the lead for the moment. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is not equivalent to endorsement. Please keep in mind I support including mention of this report. I don't support undue mention and I don't support treating it as anything more than a claim or accusation. The evidence offered in that document included things like the presence of a member of that espionage unit in a locale seven years prior to the first reported incident. The entire report is highly circumstantial. The question of how we weigh Lin's academic opinion compared to others is a separate matter that should be governed per WP:MEDRS Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean seven years prior to what was previously the first reported incident, as they now report a previously unreported incident. Machinarium (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's indeed not up to us to decide what is correct or not, so let's just lay out all reported evidence and let readers decide for themselves. No need to present anything as conclusive. I personally think this article right now relies too heavily on evidence of absence, even though it is well-documented that medical conditions such as post-concussive syndrome can hardly be diagnosed with modern brain scans. The new findings suggest there is a pattern of Russian secret service presence in some of the reported incident locations, and that all of those that suffered were U.S. government workers who worked on Russian dossiers / members of their household. Russian / Soviet secret services have previously been implicated in innovative poisonings such as with nerve agents, cyanide gas, and polonium. Yet, what kind of weapon could cause 'anomalous health incidents' is undetermined. It would anyway not be something revolutionary as such weapon would be less destructive than poison or a handgun. Machinarium (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, responding to the new reports, the Pentagon has confirmed that there was another 'anomalous health incident' at the 2023 NATO summit. Machinarium (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not actually to us to lay out all reported evidence rather it is up to us to report what is WP:DUE about an issue to ensure a reliably sourced and neutral article. I would also caution you that some of your comments about other, non-Havana Syndrome, things that may have been done by either Russia or the Soviet Union and the problems with diagnosis of other, non Havana Syndrome, conditions borders on WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with @Simonm223. There is an ongoing debate at all levels on this topic (scientific/diplomatic/intelligence). There are some prevailing theories but nothing is settled yet. We must be very cautious and precise in saying who claims what exactly and with due WP:WEIGHT. Nothing seems definitive at the moment. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be Simonm223's stance when he's simply deleting any mention of the new findings. Machinarium (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit log. I have not deleted any "new findings" - the only thing I deleted was a long section of unsourced conspiracy theory regarding covert replacement of embassy staff. I also adjusted some wording to be more neutral. In general I would prefer, if at all possible, to have a light touch here. However I do think there is an evident scientific consensus, based on what is known about the interaction between the human body and RF frequency radiation, that microwave weapons are highly unlikely. Treating it otherwise would require extraordinary evidence governed by WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are focusing on one possible hypothesis on what kind of weapon it could have been even though nobody is conclusive about that. The new documents also mentions it could have been ultrasound for example. This remains a mystery even for them. Machinarium (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This remains a mystery even to them, is precisely why we should cleave to WP:MEDRS - journalists can propose all kinds of wild suggestions and be mystified by them. We should stick to neurologists, physicists, epidemiologists and the like. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just a medical encyclopedia. If there are widely reported security service operations going on that remain part mystery it can still be covered. I also suggest you read about the actual new evidence because it goes way further than just 'wild suggestions'. Machinarium (talk)
 * I did, in fact, read it before I posted a single thing on this page. I found it highly circumstantial, derived from weak correlation, and of low evidentiary value. Wherever possible an encyclopedia should prefer academic sources over media sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Circumstantial evidence can still be evidence. And there's also a proposed clear pattern of the victims all working on Russian dossiers. There are no academic sources on Russian secret service operations, just on attempts to find traces of brain damage which was already known to be a very difficult task when it comes to concussion-like damage. I think we should be similarly careful not to dismiss a murder when a body hasn't been found and no autopsy could be conducted, for example. Machinarium (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. The science (in RS) is pretty settled. That various politicians & pundits are getting excited is not very important. It would be like saying "ooh, politicians have lots of views on climate change; we must respectfully record them!" Bon courage (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Science isn't settled here, and the new findings are not by politicians. Machinarium (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source for the claim that "microwave weapons are highly unlikely" and that it is settled scientific consensus? The sources above seem to directly contradict that claim and come from authoritative sources (e.g. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9759429) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Microwave weapons are an area of active research in the field of directed energy weapons (see for example this U.S. Navy page DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS: HIGH POWER MICROWAVES) so I'm not sure what "settled science" we are referring to here. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether microwave weapons exist but whether they operate in a way consistent with the reported symptoms of Havana Syndrome. Like, if somebody said, "he was shot with a gun and that's why he died of cancer" I'd be suspicious of the claim that a gunshot caused cancer. That doesn't mean guns don't exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure but it definitely doesn't appear to be settled science that Havana Syndrome like symptoms are confirmed not to be related to microwave weapons. Or do you have a sufficiently high level source claiming that and are able to prove that it is "settled science"? The source I linked above explicitly states the contrary The results presented in Tables 1 and 2 showed that high-power microwave pulse exposure can generate substantial acoustic pressures in the brain that may not only produce sound sensations but also have implications for neuropathological consequences such as traumatic brain injury. and concludes: Assuming the reported symptoms and accounts are consistent, the microwave auditory effect provides a scientific explanation for Havana Syndrome. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9759429 &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, per many JAMA and CDC sources, there was no evidence of traumatic brain injury. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also no evidence that these people suffered instead from psychogenic illness, mass hysteria, etc.; conditions that won't show up on modern brain scans either.Machinarium (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a different point though. I don't believe anyone has claimed that it is impossible for microwave weapons to cause injuries and similar symptoms as those described. The fact that some studies (e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2816533) have not been able to find statistically significant symptoms is another issue. And that is not definitive proof of anything and not settled science per WP:MEDRS (Case selection bias is the most obvious potential red flag for those studies). Those studies are WP:PRIMARY and the research is still ongoing. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to be careful not to give too much credence to low-quality sources such as journalistic reports built upon speculation and coincidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That it's just 'coincidence' is just your opinion, others see clear patterns and a motive. Machinarium (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes we need to be very careful about what we say and not say. If anything we should remove most medical claims from this page (e.g. the JAMA studies) as they are not WP:MEDRS sources but based on WP:PRIMARY exploratory studies. Everything is still being researched here. No definitive medical claims can be made until we have WP:MEDRS sources which we currently do not have (Or do we?). On the contrary: the 60 minutes report as far as it relates to non biomedical claims WP:BMI can and should be included. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it is troubling how these scientific studies are being misrepresented by editors seeking to use Wikipedia to promote their favorite theory.
 * The scientific results should be presented as is, without third party conclusions by non-experts inserted. The results should be presented including both what the findings were and what the limitations of the study were. And the research articles themselves should be cited rather than news articles that also misrepresented the results and put a spin on them. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no expectation that damage correlated with the effects of a hypothetical weapon based on pulsed RF energy would show up in the MRI scans. A study was done to see if it were. Indeed, neurological conditions are often very difficult to detect through an MRI, especially new ones that are poorly understood. For example, early Parkinson's disease is difficult to predict accurately from an MRI. Furthermore, with so few subjects, the studies were very under-powered. There is a great deal of misrepresentation of scientific studies going on in this article and throughout the media. It would be preferable for Wikipedia to do better.
 * Challenges in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease'''
 * "Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, and its prevalence has been projected to double over the next generation. Nonetheless, an accurate diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease remains challenging, and identifying the earliest stages of the disease is a major unmet need. Recent developments include the validation of modified clinical diagnostic criteria, the introduction and testing of research criteria for prodromal Parkinson’s disease, and the identification of genetic subtypes and a growing number of genetic variants associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. There has also been significant progress in the development of diagnostic biomarkers, of which genetic and imaging tests are already part of routine work-up protocols in clinical practice, while novel tissue and fluid markers are under investigation. Parkinson’s disease is evolving from a clinical to a biomarker-supported diagnostic entity, in which an earlier identification is possible, different subtypes with diverse prognosis are recognized and novel disease-modifying treatments are in development."
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185633/
 * Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals
 * "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed our understanding of the human brain through well-replicated mapping of abilities to specific structures (for example, lesion studies) and functions1,2,3 (for example, task functional MRI (fMRI)). Mental health research and care have yet to realize similar advances from MRI. A primary challenge has been replicating associations between inter-individual differences in brain structure or function and complex cognitive or mental health phenotypes (brain-wide association studies (BWAS)). Such BWAS have typically relied on sample sizes appropriate for classical brain mapping4 (the median neuroimaging study sample size is about 25), but potentially too small for capturing reproducible brain–behavioural phenotype associations5,6. Here we used three of the largest neuroimaging datasets currently available—with a total sample size of around 50,000 individuals—to quantify BWAS effect sizes and reproducibility as a function of sample size. BWAS associations were smaller than previously thought, resulting in statistically underpowered studies, inflated effect sizes and replication failures at typical sample sizes. As sample sizes grew into the thousands, replication rates began to improve and effect size inflation decreased. More robust BWAS effects were detected for functional MRI (versus structural), cognitive tests (versus mental health questionnaires) and multivariate methods (versus univariate). Smaller than expected brain–phenotype associations and variability across population subsamples can explain widespread BWAS replication failures. In contrast to non-BWAS approaches with larger effects (for example, lesions, interventions and within-person), BWAS reproducibility requires samples with thousands of individuals."
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04492-9 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:64B8:2468:2C84:3EC0 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:lede it is a summery of important parts of OUR article, one line is not important (nor is one paragraph). Also even if everyone agree that WE should say this, they have not all agreed to how we should say it (and the only suggested text is not the one that was added), nor where it was placed (after all this is only a media report, so at best we would have one line, there and nowhere else. So yes we clearly need an RFC, laying out the text that the proposer wants to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:lede it is a summery of important parts of OUR article, one line is not important (nor is one paragraph). Also even if everyone agree that WE should say this, they have not all agreed to how we should say it (and the only suggested text is not the one that was added), nor where it was placed (after all this is only a media report, so at best we would have one line, there and nowhere else. So yes we clearly need an RFC, laying out the text that the proposer wants to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am concerned by an increasing edit war on this page (see page edit history) A reminder, Wikipedia does not decide what is true or false. Wikipedia does not decide what is important or not important. Wikipedia merely reports on what reliable sources on a topic claim. Multiple reliable sources have brought up this report. It doesn’t matter if one disagrees with it. Such information must be added to the page else this is a clear violation and example of editorial bias. This is not a MEDRS article and this claim should not be used to remove content one personally disagrees with. Claims should always state who made the claim, especially for a topic like this one where the facts are classified or unknown. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content not users, please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Removed specific mention of users in my above post. BootsED (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again I'd also ask you to please review the edit summary of the page. I have not, in fact, engaged in edit warring. In fact the only piece I've put more than one revert on I did so by reverting myself in light of talk-page discussion. Please be more careful not just with specific names but with characterization of edits. My concern on the article talk page for WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS has been linked to very careful editing of the source and general recommendations of caution. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No offense intended. I should not have named specific names. However, after looking at the edit history of this page, the outlines of a general edit war are appearing. I do see a potential argument to be made for WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. However, I do believe that this is WP:DUE through the abundance of RS that cover this story. I do not believe WP:FRINGE applies here, and WP:MEDRS definitely does not apply here as described in much better detail in prior posts. BootsED (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are merely expressing that the original claim was made. I've never opposed a mention of the report. I've simply been concerned that it doesn't get bloated beyond, "journalists made claims." Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely agree with you there. There should simply be one or two mentions of this report in the relevant locations within this page that start with, “A March 2024 report by…” followed by “claimed that…”. BootsED (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't actually have any objection to that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We clearly have consensus on this. The article currently includes a similar sentence: "In March 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons." I would close this discussion at this point and let everyone edit the article normally. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven please can you clarify the reason behind your deletion of the investigative report from the Chronological section ? Given the clear consensus for its inclusion in the article, I'm concerned about your decision to delete it from a segment focusing exclusively on 2024 events without any discussion. FailedMusician (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because we do not need it twice, it already is in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Whuich (by the way) I have already stated above, we need only 1 mention of this (at best). Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The chronological section is problematic in general. But I agree with @FailedMusician it would make sense to have it there also. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At least 1 user has said that a mention of this us undue, at least one other has said that giving them too much coverage is undue (and maybe a couple). So make a case as to why this needs mentioning more than onceSlatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of talking about what others think, please provide a rationale of your own, as to why it is undue in that section. I may agree that the Chronological section isn't necessary, but once we have it, with a section on 2024, I fail to see why would we omit this very widely reported investigation. FailedMusician (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did, its wp:undue to mention it more than once. As I have said many times, and not that being reported is not a guarantee of inlcudsion, you have to say what this needs saying more than once, the WP:ONUS is on you to make your case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding it to the chronology. As long as a chronology section exists it should be mentioned there as well or it wouldn't make any sense to have it mentioned in the causes and not in the chronology. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion closure attempt
Most discussions should not be 'closed' at all. They certainly should not be closed by someone involved in the discussion with a closure box restating their opinion, as was just done here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * More than a week had passed since the discussion was active and I don't see a single "oppose" in the discussion above so I applied WP:SNOW. Everyone seems to agree that the report should be included. My assessment of the result of the discussion above is The 60 Minutes investigation should be covered in the article. It is not a WP:MEDRS compliant source so it may not be used to support any biomedical claim WP:BMI. The source should be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT without giving it excessive coverage.. Do you disagree with it? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with out of process discussion closures, yes. That is why I reverted. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we're invited to "ignore all rules", but certainly not in cases where process matters. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW specifically indicates to ignore "process" if it will just result in wasted editor time: use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake. But if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.. Do you actually disagree with my summary as indicated above? Or is this just about "process" (which should be ignored per WP:SNOW)  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing old discussions (and then arguing about it) that have gone inactive and have been superseded by other discussions will also just result in wasted editor time. I also disagree that your closure summarized the discussion, or that WP:SNOW is relevant here. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, again. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. What is wrong in my summary? Or we can just request a formal closure. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Further edit warring
@LegalSmeagolian, your recent reversion of the 60 minutes report, contradicts the established consensus here, and is your fourth revert relating to the content. Moreover, your wholesale revert of my edits also went against consensus on a small change to the lead sentence discussed below, and the title of the Causes section also discussed below. Editors here supporting inclusion of the 60 minutes investigative report linking GRU Unit 29155 to Havana Syndrome include @ValmirM1986 (OP), myself, @Geogene, @Machinarium, @Chase1635321, @TinyClayMan, @Thornfield Hall, @Redxiv, @Running dog59, @BootsED, @LuckyLouie, @GreenC, @Simonm223 ("conditional weak support") and @Edittlealittle, with further support in discussions below  and on RSN  from @My very best wishes, @Rock & roll is not dead and @Tristario, @Sonicsuns, @Horse Eye's Back and @DolyaIskrina. From what I can see, those opposed include only you, @Bon courage, @Draken Bowser, @KoA, @Noleander, @Slatersteven (who seemed to adjust to the majority at times), and @Aquillion (on RSN), who do not make a majority by any stretch. FailedMusician (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreeing we can say something, (assuming we all do), is not the same as a agreeing to a specific text. Try and RFC asking to add a specific text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We've addressed this previously . WP:RFCBEFORE requires that issues are discussed properly, and I've asked you to clearly state your reason for deletions. Can you identify what exactly is problematic with the text, such as portraying claims as facts? FailedMusician (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have more than once, but I shall do so again (once and once only). Read wp:undue. It should not be in the lede, it is one report. We can't say it is a fact it is an opinion (from one report). We do not need it in the body more than once (it is one report). Read WP:ONUS, the onus is on those waiting to add something "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". So suggest a text (one mention, not in the lede) Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The report was neither in the lead nor repeated in the body when it was reverted today. LegalSmeagolian's removal of the report from a section titled reports does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE. I see no need for an RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked me about my reverts, I can't answer for anyone else's actions. You need to ask them, not me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you about your past reverts. I asked you to state your objections to the text. FailedMusician (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Ive asked you to clearly state your reason for deletions", I took that to mean my deletions as I can't answer for why anyone else deleted it (obviously). Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my support only really goes as far as including it for chronology's sake due to official responses it garnered (To spare my notifications box I think I'll be exiting this conversation now. Take care, all. Keep it chill). Edittlealittle (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not edit warring, and those who are opposed have made it clear that you are failing to properly conduct a RFC about how to incorporate the new article into the page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do they need to have a RfC on that? That doesn't seem constructive, it seems obstructive. It seems like a backdoor way to get what you want even though consensus is against you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the editor is trying to incorporate WP:FRINGE material into this page, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies, and since the 60 Minutes piece completely contradicts the scientific community on the fact that the cause of this "condition" was likely mass psychosis - heck the NIH, which was cited in review study as the basis for the claim under the causes section that "oh but uh one guy cited the NIH who thought RF weapons could cause the symptoms" also said that there are no detectable brain injuries in those reporting that they are afflicted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The solution to fringe pushing isn't a RfC, never has and never will be. Fringe pushing is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree an RfC is not needed here and asking for it is obstructive given the consensus we have already established. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you don't edit the section the way you want. It's hard to form an RfC if we don't understand your objection. You say you disagree with how to "incorporate", but your actions are to delete the entire thing. If we saw your alternative text, we could easily have an RfC: choose this or that diff. But right now, your only proposal is to completely delete the 60 Minutes report. So an RfC would have to be along those binary lines: should the article have text (any text) about the 60 minutes report. I don't think anybody here believes the 60 minutes report should be entirely deleted. The problem is your lack of providing alternative text. It does look like obstruction. -- Green  C  16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure I will reincorporate the material in a way that presents it less conclusively. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @LegalSmeagolian, I agree with your sentiment about FRINGE above and know you were making a good-faith attempt here, but I'd suggest not restoring the 60 minutes content in any form right now. The page was put under protection for two weeks so people would stop edit warring and get consensus on the talk page first for how that content would be added if at all per WP:ONUS policy. That pretty clearly wasn't done, so adding anything back now without getting it hashed out on the talk page first is just going to cause more issues.
 * Comments like GreenC's comments like It does look like obstruction are pretty clearly disruptive and best ignored when the WP:ONUS is squarely on those wanting to include the content to get consensus for it. It's better to stick to expectations of getting consensus here for something, especially right after page protection expired. Right after protection expires isn't the time for the B part of WP:BRD. If the content keeps getting readded in this manner, it might be best to ask for page protection again. KoA (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and won't be offended if you revert to my previous version - I think the current framing is ok but share WP:FRINGE concerns about if it even should be in the article at all (I am fine with it in the chronology section in its current form, but have concerns that any inclusion does further spread misinformation about russian brainwave whatevers). Reverting is up to you! Cheers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that the 60 Minutes report was previously agreed to be WP:NOTBMI and thus should be re-added to the page? Am I missing something? It feels like nothing has changed from two weeks ago. BootsED (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a crucial difference between agreeing to some mention in principle, and agreeing on specific wording. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its a difference without distinction when the editor failed to engage in any discussion on wording. The real reason here is purely behavioural and may require further administrator action. FailedMusician (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, avoiding the Politician's syllogism is not a distinction without difference. Also, You should check the article, the editor in question has made a proposal. And finally, Please do not comment on people's behaviour on this talk page - this is not the place threaten folks with administrator action. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposal was made after four reverts, which was cause for concern, hence my post. I should hope this doesn't require further administrator action. Please don't misrepresent this warning as a personal attack. FailedMusician (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Has there been previous administrator action? The last time there was admin action the protected page did NOT include the 60 minutes report. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you removed it. Thanks for now engaging in discussion and attempting to adapt the text instead of removing it. FailedMusician (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was the last person to removed it before it got page protected... in fact I have already requested additional page protection as it seems a flurry of edits have been made as soon as page protection expired, before any discussion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that your attempt to use page protection to gain an advantage in a content dispute has been rejected on those grounds. That is not a legitimate reason to seek page protection, please do not try to game the system like that again... Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Was not trying to "gain an advantage during a content dispute..." if you actually bothered to looked at the edits to the, you can see that I rewrote the disputed content. Additionally, WP:AGF. Stop acting so paternalistic. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your request was rejected on the grounds that it was a content dispute and did not belong there... I was not me who rejected it. Using something like request for page protection to deal with a content dispute instead of actual disruption is generally frowned upon, whether such poo-pooing is paternalistic or not. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't reject it? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what is the issue? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting my motives??? That is the issue! Oh my lord. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The effect of gained advantage is the same regardless of motives. That is gaming the system, even if only in effect not intent. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Gaming the system means deliberately misusing Wikipedia policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community." WP:GAMING literally requires intent. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "See WP:DISRUPT - "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you are welcome to take this up at ANI or the dispute resolution noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you attempt to relegislate consensus with an RFC, I most certainly will. See WP:VOTE. FailedMusician (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TITFORTAT... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TITFORTAT doesn't seem to apply in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Threatening to take action if someone opens a good faith RFC is WP:TITFORTAT and WP:GAMING... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FailedMusician doesn't seem to have been talking about "if someone opens a good faith RFC." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, because they are not assuming good faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like its you who isn't assuming good faith not FailedMusician. A clear example would be you claiming that there was disruption here when there was a content dispute, that is failing to assume good faith. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Immediately reinstating content that was removed prior to a full page protection as soon as the page protection is removed, without any additional discussion, is disruptive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not, thats actually what normally happens. You were told when you brought this to page protection that it was not disruption but a content dispute, so you know thats not true. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am allowed to have a difference of opinion than an admin. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And having that difference of opinion means you are allowed to refuse to assume good faith why? Why do you get mad when people make assumptions about your behavior when you're making even larger assumptions about other people's behavior? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never not assumed good faith in this instance. See WP:DISRUPT - "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."
 * Editors can be editing in good faith and still be disruptive. Adding WP:FRINGE content without any discussion of the phrasing of that content is disruptive. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this and this conversation is not productive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Above you were arguing that your conduct was not disruptive because it was good faith... Now you say that its disruption regardless of whether or not their is good faith. You have assumed bad faith of both FailedMusician and myself in this very conversation, looking across the page you assume bad faith a half dozen more times. This is a pattern of disruption, if the pattern of disruption does not stop it will likely be stopped. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok bud - I am saying my conduct was not WP:GAMING - however it is also not disruptive. My focus is to improve the article by trying to properly (if at all) incorporate the proposed fringed content. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to keep things even-handed in terms of WP:ONUS policy, I've removed mention of the report. Diffs exist now obviously if someone wants to refer to that in discussion.
 * Just a reminder for all that the page protection was time to propose content and get consensus for something. Without consensus for content on that subject and being obviously under dispute for some time, it's probably best to propose specific content on this talk page and getting consensus on that first (e.g., the D part of WP:BRD) rather than directly editing the article first. If someone is having trouble with talk page formatting, you can use the talk quote template, etc. to propose content along with references on a talk page. KoA (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed the report against consensus in this discussion, and without stating your objections to the wording. FailedMusician (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We already reached substantial consensus that the 60 minutes report should be included (see above) and we also have established that WP:MEDRS sources (see Talk:Havana syndrome) believe the use of directed energy weapons is one of the most likely causes. So nothing in the 60 minutes report is "fringe" at the current level of knowledge we have on this "syndrome". I see editors participating here that have not participated in the previous discussions and probably are unaware of that consensus. Please review them and stop edit warring. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But not how, so suggest how. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah MEDRS sources from like multiple years ago... you are (I believe in good faith) pushing a fringe viewpoint. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Asadi-Pooya, which is discussed in the "Quality sources", came out in December 2023. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am confused, what has any of this got to do with the 60 minutes report? This discussion is about how to include that, not anything else. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What's confusing is why LegalSmeagolian is bringing up the need for MEDRS in relation to this Insider report, as if they somehow it fringe. Besides for one questionable review article, they do not. FailedMusician (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence Russia has such a weapon? Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * NOPE! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is going in circles. The inclusion of claims from the report (previously presented in tl;dr form here on the talk page in ) does not require some other source with a proof of directed-energy weapons existing in this world.
 * This whole post-PP section seems to advocate mentioning only that the report exists and that it lead to the officials commenting on it, without including the claims from the report at all. This decision obviously makes the coverage of the report incomplete and goes contrary to the logic of the inclusion of it on the page (it leaves several questions hanging, e.g.: "Why the report caused such a reaction from public officials and media?", "What is the report about?"). TinyClayMan (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we have consensus to include and those who disagree with inclusion need to change their acts from obstructive to constructive. If you disagree with what other people have included either propose a wording you could live with or go somewhere else. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not have consensus on what to say only to say something, this is why I never agree to blank cheques. Per Onus, it is down to those who want to include it to suggest a text. As so far none has been agreed upon (or even where). Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said we had consensus on what to say. What would you like to say? Please propose a wording you could live with. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to not say anything, as it is highly speculative (at best). Its down to those who want to include it to make the suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We should not be using the 60 minutes report to assert anything regarding claims regardless as it is not WP:MEDRS. I think the best thing to do with it would be to demonstrate via coverage *of* it how its release led to renewed debate regarding the supposed "syndrome". Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need to ask for more PP? Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cut the section on the Insider / 60 minutes report to the parts there's actually consensus for. Unfortunately my edit summary got screwed up. Apologies for that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support your version since it contains no medical claims, but rather is a commentary on the medial debate. I have no objections if anyone wants to tweak the wording to make this even more evident. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good compromise to me. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The “surviving” text is clearly fine. We can keep it as a starting point. It’s just excessively superficial coverage. I don’t see any good reason to remove the rest of the content. It contains no medical claims at all so I’m not sure what the basis for removal is. Why not cover the impacts of the report fully? (E.g. the Russian and US diplomatic response) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 21:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly it felt irrelevant. Two very bland responses from two antagonistic states. Simonm223 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I join @TinyClayMan and @Gtoffoletto in objecting to @Simonm223’s removal of content from the investigative report, made only two minutes after my reversion (indicating that we are still in a edit war). Simonm223’s assertion above that this content requires medical sourcing is incorrect and reflects a misinterpretation of the MEDRS guideline, which is the subject of an ongoing RFC below. We don’t need a review article for including claims from an investigative report, provided we don’t present them as fact or give them undue emphasis. It so happens to be that we have two review articles that acknowledge the weapons theory as a viable possibility  , but that is besides the point. This looks like nothing more than a continuation of an edit war with no substantive arguments offered here for deleting the content. FailedMusician (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh come off it. I made one edit and it wasn't even a straight revert. Simonm223 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You deleted the entire contents of the report within two minutes of me reinstating it, and made your longstanding argument that it requires MEDRS. That is WP:BATTLEGROUND. FailedMusician (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the entire content. I removed the medical claims and I removed a very bland set of responses from the US and Russia that seemed like irrelevant WP:RECENTISM. Simonm223 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The claims were not medical, but political. As was the responses by the Russian and US governments, who bothered to comment on them, showing the significance of the story to the subject of this page. FailedMusician (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly that part seems like recentism to me. Journalists make a story, ask governments about the story. The governments say story seems made up to them. Not incredibly encyclopedic. Unlikely to pass WP:10YT. However I will concede this is a personal judgment call, unlike the repeated insertion of the report's more medical claims which are a MEDRS matter. Simonm223 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please focus on one argument at a time to avoid the appearance of gish galloping. You've claimed the allegation is medical and invoked MEDRS, but it's clear that the allegation of one country using a weapon against another is political. Therefore, MEDRS does not apply as a guideline to restrict such sources. FailedMusician (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. The claim they used a weapon speaks explicitly to causes. Simonm223 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So now flight logs, leaked personal mail, leaked documents about the development of said weapons, and government memos for embassies are WP:BMI? That's not how WP:BMI works. At this point this discussion is a copy of the WP:BMI/WP:NOTBMI discussion in, where the same arguments were presented, and where an understanding was reached that WP:MEDRS does not apply at article level and different claims can have different sourcing.
 * If Havana Syndrome is claimed to be a result of exposure to RF energy, then that claim should be backed with WP:MEDRS. If a WP:RS claims that they found GRU agents in the vicinity of the alleged victims' or that they got documents mentioning the development of weapons causing exposure to RF energy, that is obviously WP:NOTBMI. Use common sense when interpreting the WP:BMI. TinyClayMan (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, please go back and re-read what I said - the claim that Russia used weapons to cause Havana Syndrome is BMI. The rest is just a question of WP:DUE and can be discussed here to build consensus. My personal opinion is that not much of it is due inclusion but would be open to some sort of demonstration beyond, "the media said this is big" for why it might be due more mention than that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If RS say that the Thai king may have shot the Swedish king with a nanobeam, then we do not treat that as BMI. This is absurd and disruptive. FailedMusician (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "may have shot" probably wouldn't get it in the article due to BLP policy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah those were kind of textbook run of the mill responses. The fact the investigation hoodwinked Senators though might be relevant and significant though. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the raygun claims are back in the 60 minutes recentism. Again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep trying to paint directed energy weapons as some kind of imaginary fairytale. They are in active use around the world by multiple forces and for a variety of uses. It isn’t recentism. It is the heart of the matter for this article. Were they used or not? One day we will know the answer I hope and the debate over this will always be relevant one way or the other. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In ten years time the debate over all of this won't even be a footnote in an entry on the neo-cold-war paranoia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The use of radio frequency weapons in the case of Havana Syndrome is an imaginary fairytale, yes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are trying to push your own original research WP:OR or predicting the future WP:CRYSTALBALL. We need to stick to what reliable sources say today. In the future we can edit the article if necessary. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are pretty clear that weapons capable of doing this under the required conditions don't exist. MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Post here those sources and we can use them in the article. Until then it is WP:OR &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are the one advocating the inclusion of sources saying/suggesting weapons can do that. Learn what WP:OR means bud. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They're already being used in the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And several others sources already in the article state that a direct energy weapon is plausible and some even say it is the most likely cause. So painting this as an "imaginary fairytale" is absurd. This circular discussion is useless and we already have consensus as I wrote days ago in the comment above. I'm out. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not seeing any sort of consensus here, no. First, you seem to have been counting people who weighed in solely on the MEDRS issue without saying whether they wanted it included; but second, more importantly, consensus is not just about numbers but about weight of arguments, and many of the people you're counting made no arguments. If you want a clear-cut consensus, start a formal RFC; otherwise, please cease falsely claiming consensus for a position that does not have it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * First, you seem to have been counting people who weighed in solely on the MEDRS issue without saying whether they wanted it included. Please provide some links and I will strike those names if you are right. Like this: Sonicsuns  Tristario  LuckyLouie, etc. FailedMusician (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Unprofessional CBS/60 Minutes report has re-ignited controversy
For most of the history of this article, a majority of editors made it to read like Havana Syndrome was definitely due to Cuban or Russian ray guns. They believed the MPI hypothesis was nuts, and the skeptical POV as reported in only a minority of media should be kept to a minimum. There were even comments about skeptical Wiki editors sticking to UFO, flat-earth, and bigfoot articles, and staying off "this MEDRS article". The release of the reports by the US government intelligence agencies pretty much ended the controversy that had this article mired in edit battles for years, and the tone of the page reversed itself back to allowing appropriate space for the MPI hypothesis. Then came the newest 60 Minutes report. It seems to have caused a reversal again, including removal of info on the just released NIH reports countering the earlier medical reports (see separate section below on that).

The problem is that I believe the CBS claims have been given too much credence. I urge editors to read the rebuttal to that biased episode, and add it appropriately to the article: Smoke and Mirrors: The 60 Minutes ‘Breakthrough’ on Havana Syndrome Exposed. Rp2006 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We're not going to give any preference for the MPI hypothesis unless the reliable sources do so, which they do not. All claims should be attributed and neutrality maintained. FailedMusician (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that there is not a clear consensus to give such preference of place to the CBS story as has been forced in. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the just released NIH reports countering the earlier medical reports (see separate section below on that)."
 * You're misrepresenting the NIH studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern is, no matter which rules the community decides should apply, the core important qualitative property of the article is that it should be accurate. We have in its current state, people editing the article either intentionally misleading readers to advance their view, or who are either ignorant of the scientific literature or scientifically illiterate. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The best way to do this would be to stubify... LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You recently made a change from "Some scientists" to "Most scientists", claiming it better portrays the scientific consensus. But it seems all of the supporting sources for that claim trace back to one small team of scientists. It isn't at all clear this is a consensus, and rather looks more like a minority scientific opinion to me. Even if it were a consensus, "Most scientists have suggested" is poor language as of course most scientists have not studied or weighed in on the matter. The article should not mislead or seek to spin information towards a single POV. A psychogenic cause for most cases, is just one hypothesis, while the true causes are yet to be scientifically verified. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree too. FailedMusician (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The rebuttal you linked, is hyperbolic, childish, fallacious, and overall highly manipulative and misleading, in the context of this current discussion, for example, it states:
 * "Based on the assessments by the intelligence community and the results of the National Institutes of Health studies, Havana Syndrome is dead.",
 * which objectively false information. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:0:0:0:45C (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean it is not false but it is hyperbolic. There is no evidence that Havana Syndrome is the result of any kind of weapon. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is objectively false. The NIH studies were never expected to be highly likely to find biomarkers of Havana syndrome, even if there was damage, and they did not conclude there was no damage. They were also under powered as they mention in their limitations sections. Finding biomarkers was a long shot, that failed, and only a first start. Biomarkers for neurodengeration or neurological damage can take years of research and higher powered studies to find. And the IC assessment was that it is "unlikely", with overall low confidence.
 * The rebuttal is highly fringe, and highly misleading. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say the 60 minutes piece is equally fringe and misleading. We should not be republishing their claims which don't have any detailed medical research backing them up. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The 60 minutes piece however reveals a lot of new information. What that information implies, and how strongly, is up for debate. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And since as an encyclopedia Wikipedia deals in knowledge and not "information" the source is of little use. We need good WP:SECONDARY sourcing analysing the novel proposals it makes, Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Both the “Russian” and the “psychogenic” hypotheses are nothing more than that at this point.
 * Neither is confirmed. Both are pure speculation as far as we are concerned as no WP:MEDRS source has conclusively determined if this “syndrome” even really exists.
 * We should include both hypotheses as they are prominent among WP:RS while ensuring that no medical claim is made (see WP:NOTBMI).
 * We shouldn’t prefer one or the other hypothesis at this stage. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you should support stubifying. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * CBS/60 Minutes are perfect sources on this subject per WP:V. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not when those sources are implying that extraordinary technology is being used to cause these symptoms, which lack any WP:MEDRS support. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything you say here is wrong. Microwave weapons are not extraordinary technology, please see this page Directed-energy weapon, which lists many many examples of modern day microwave weapons in use. There is overwhelming "WP:MEDRS" evidence in favor of the microwave weapon in question here. All of it is well documented in the textbook "Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation" by James Lin which outlines how different power densities and frequencies can cause damage and the Frey effect through thermoelastic expansion of brain matter resulting from minute temperature fluctuations from rapidly pulsed microwaves. Coreyman317 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * So you're citing Robert Bartholomew *once again*? You folks cannot get enough of this guy, despite him never providing a sliver of evidence of anything. It's interesting you characterize the 60 Minutes piece, which was actually a 60 Minutes/Der Spiegel/the Insider piece -- so three separate and extremely reputably media organizations, as "unprofessional." Furthermore, you claim a US intelligence report (!!!) that lists conclusions and no evidence "pretty much ended the controversy ". Not to mention, that "intelligence report" revealed varying degrees of confidence in the conclusions given. There are credible allegations from whistleblowers (represented by Mark Zaid) that the CIA is obfuscating, to put it nicely, and not sharing intelligence with sister agencies.
 * It's wild to me how people are simply unable to reason about this issue. It's the politics I suspect. Coreyman317 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is going to have to be a small section linking to another Wiki page for alternative explanations, it appears this page is bias towards one theory. Whether or not this report is "James Bond," there are other explanations and some in the medical perfession have reversed their opinion (as stated on this page). Also, the 60 Minutes report collaborates other news stories about targeting of specific groups of agents mainly assigned to Russian counterintelligence and the lead investigator for the Pentahon, Greg Edgreen seems to collaborate other news stories. Lastly, as to whether this 60 minutes (I'm not talking about medical explanations) is bad source, name me one news organization who hasn't corrected or retracted many stories? I think a link on this page to a new wiki page for intelligence and alternative explanations is needed because there will be a constant WP:WAR on this wiki. Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally does not do articles on 'alternative explanations', see WP:POVFORK. Besides, all the same content policies would apply just the same at another article title. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If this one is about a medical condition it should not be about the origins/story surrounding the medical condition: see Origin of COVID-19 versus COVID-19. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 is a huge topic, multiple articles are needed due to length concerns. I don't think that is needed here. At any rate the time to think about a split would be after all the redundant primary sourced stuff gets cleaned up. And if consensus turns out to be for stubifying the article, we obviously will not need a split. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does amuse me that the response to all the media-notable conspiracism surrounding COVID-19 was just to gate it off from the actual medical science in a separate article. That shoudn't necessarily become a standard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your point about spinning off an alternatives page for medical is fair, but the gatekeeping and warring here has taken new heights. I would support a page for origins focused on intelligence, history, specific intelligence agent groups affected and their experiences, location, links to Russia, etc. after this page gets cleaned up. Intelligence is not an exact science (you’ll be surprised what ends up on the President’s desk when it comes to intelligence) would be difficult to add here because this page has largely taken the focus of medical explanations and feels largely like a medical journal (which is fine).Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize the actual scientific consensus
As far as my reading of the papers we have as sources go the actual scientific consensus, such as it is, is that there is no positive evidence to support a known weapon-type but most researchers feel hampered because of governmental secrecy surrounding novel weapon systems. The intelligence community seems to be, publicly, discounting that there is a novel weapon as the source of this condition but nobody actually trusts the US intelligence community to be truthful so this is not a significant data-point for scientists working on this. All of this means that there is a great deal of uncertainty. All that seems known for sure is that there is no evidence of neurological injuries among the affected population at levels that differ significantly from control populations. An absence of evidence is not, of course, evidence in and of itself. The material in the recent investigative report is of no validity, scientifically. As I've said many times before, it provides nothing that rises to the level of evidence. But again an absence of evidence is not evidence. The argument favoring weapons is largely that the population in question are people who would be likely targets for weapons. The argument favoring the psychogenic hypothesis is effectively Occam's Razor - we don't need to invoke the Russians to explain this situation. While I pretty openly cleave in a specific direction, as you would expect from a materialist who frequents the Fringe theory noticeboard, I'm also quite aware that neither of these are appropriate bases for discussing the causes of a medical condition.

I keep circling back to "we don't know enough to create a neutral article and should probably stubify this" but I know that's a deeply unpopular position. So two questions:
 * 1) excluding what journalists think will sell, and based on the best quality research we have, am I misinterpreting anything here?
 * 2) assuming my interpretation is reasonable above do we have any better solution than either stubification or just throwing in a bunch of speculation as to causes? Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would just add that there could also be a combination of different causes. The hypothesis that psychogenic illness is responsible for some or most cases is not incompatible with the hypothesis that some were victims of an attack and other possible causes. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:891E:B166:EF3C:53A4 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that reflected in the literature or is that speculation? Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Spoiler: It is speculation. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the scientific community has studied the issue well enough for there to be any real consensus other than that there isn't a consensus to speak of. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we should stub this. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At first I disagreed with this but it is clear that @FailedMusician and @Gtoffoletto seem hellbent on adding WP:FRINGE information that is the result of sensational journalism and is not WP:DUE so maybe stubifying is best. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not cast aspirations against other editors on this article talk page. FailedMusician (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How is that casting aspirations? You and Gtoffoletto are insistent that content that makes a medical claim that lacks medical backing be added to the article, that can be seen by the very edits you have been making. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your critique of journalists' motivations is inappropriate here and undermines your argument. To answer your first question, your assertion of no neurological injury evidence and dismissal of the weapon theory through Occam's Razor indicates a misinterpretation of sources. As some scientists have explained, there is possibility that some incidents may have been caused by a weapon, while others could stem from the hysteria that the Soviet and later Russian spies intended to induce with such a weapon. If you don't have any respect for the journalists of the sources Wikipedia usually considers reliable, such as those who published the investigative report about those experiments, then there is really no point in these discussions. As for your second question, the idea of drastically trimming the article of content and sources doesn't seem to solve any substantive issue; other than to cater to a skewed interpretation that the evidence unequivocally favours one hypothesis, which contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. FailedMusician (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the soviet" - what????? And yes the vast majority of evidence supports that there were no hostile adverse actions using scifi space lasers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are asking that, it's clear you haven't read the latest investigative report, and nor are you familiar with Relman's analysis of recent NIH studies purportedly showing no evidence of neurological injuries . Your reference to "space lasers" suggests you've also missed the MEDRS-compliant review article that discusses different types of weapons . FailedMusician (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am not clicking a .ru link... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read the latest investigative report. I found it deeply unconvincing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And as for the Relman comments, "neither those reports, nor the two new studies, rule out the possibility that some individuals have been attacked and injured" is entirely dissimilar from "we have evidence some individuals have been attacked and injured." As I've said repeatedly, absence of evidence is not evidence. Relman has drawn attention to an absence of evidence. This is why we should be stubbing this article rather than filling it with speculation. The scientific consensus is "we don't know." The science fictional consensus preferred by sensationalist media is inappropriate for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a specific example of an edit where it has been definitively stated, either in the talk page discussions or within the article itself, that the cause of all or even specific cases was a weapon? I haven't seen anything like that. Conversely, I've seen many instances where you've confidently asserted the non-involvement of weapons, despite sources saying it is a possibility. Wikipedia's guidelines strictly prohibit the introduction of personal viewpoints into editing, as outlined in WP:NPOV. FailedMusician (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You say sci-fi space lasers, but the it was the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine that concluded that pulsed microwave energy a likely explanation for some of the cases.
 * "Second, after considering the information available to it and a set of possible mechanisms, the committee felt that many of the distinctive and acute signs, symptoms, and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy. Studies published in the open literature more than a half century ago and over the subsequent decades by Western and Soviet sources provide circumstantial support for this possible mechanism. Other mechanisms may play reinforcing or additive effects, producing some of the nonspecific, chronic signs and symptoms, such as persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, a functional vestibular disorder, and psychological conditions."
 * https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25889/chapter/1#x
 * The effect that was hypothesized to have been a cause has been known about by scientists since the 60's. And multiple independent scientists who are experts in the relevant fields (e.g., Lin, and Foster) have weighed in saying a weapon based on this effect that could produce the symptoms of victims is plausible. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The report you cited is from 2020 and further research has debunked this. Plus isn't the whole claim now from the non-mass psychosis camp GRU acoustic weapons? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Further research has not debunked this although one would easily get the false impression that were the case from reading various news articles that misrepresented the studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting there is a source which considers how Occam's razor applies to Havana Syndrome:
 * Bon courage (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK this I want to read... Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, that was a fun piece. I'm not sure we can really effectively use it in the context of this article but thank you for sharing a delightful article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, that was a fun piece. I'm not sure we can really effectively use it in the context of this article but thank you for sharing a delightful article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone explain what the debate here is? The NY Times reported on two major studies ... why was that removed from the article? The list of major studies alrady exists in this article, and that chronological list is very encyclopedic. I read the above comments here in Talk page, and I cannot understand the objection to including those two reports (as referenced by NY Times and MANY other major media outlets. Noleander (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read this Talk page where the relevant WP:PAGs are discussed multiple times; WP:MEDRS sources are required for WP:BMI. The article is in a hellish mess yes - let's not worsen it. Bon courage (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight... The original JAMA studies and discussions of those in the media are MEDRS, but the subsequent NIH studies -- also reported on in the same media because they countered the original studies -- are not MEDRS? What am I misunderstanding? Rp2006 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "because they countered the original studies"
 * This isn't true. You seem to have gotten the false impression from those news articles, which is indicative of the problem in basing encyclopedic knowledge on early phase medical science on ordinary news reports. Anyone who delves deeper into almost any scientific topic knows that news articles routinely misrepresent scientific results. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference, here are the comments from the NIH about the MRI study.
 * “While we did not identify significant differences in participants with AHIs, it’s important to acknowledge that these symptoms are very real, cause significant disruption in the lives of those affected and can be quite prolonged, disabling and difficult to treat.”
 * “A lack of evidence for an MRI-detectable difference between individuals with AHIs and controls does not exclude that an adverse event impacting the brain occurred at the time of the AHI,” said Carlo Pierpaoli, M.D., Ph.D., senior investigator and chief of the Laboratory on Quantitative Medical Imaging at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, part of NIH, and lead author on the neuroimaging paper. “It is possible that individuals with an AHI may be experiencing the results of an event that led to their symptoms, but the injury did not produce the long-term neuroimaging changes that are typically observed after severe trauma or stroke. We hope these results will alleviate concerns about AHI being associated with severe neurodegenerative changes in the brain.”
 * https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-studies-find-severe-symptoms-havana-syndrome-no-evidence-mri-detectable-brain-injury-or-biological-abnormalities
 * The short summary of the takeaway of the MRI study, quoting from the paper itself, is this:
 * "...These findings suggest that the origin of the symptoms of participants with AHIs may not be linked to an MRI-identifiable injury to the brain...This study has several limitations. First, the sample size of the control population was small, and not all control participants were matched vocationally to the participants with AHIs..."
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816532?guestAccessKey=585c4d36-d78f-4f5c-90ec-06daf860fb3a&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=031824
 * 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no any scientific consensus on this subject. There is nothing to summarize. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So we should stubify the article as it deals with a medical condition, and create a seperate article regarding the media narrative. Or at least stubify the causes section to only include medrs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because the "syndrome" here does not mean any actual (scientifically proven) medical condition, but rather a common name of the subject. This is the reason WP:MEDRS is not applicable to this page as a whole. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes... In fact, as I recall, the original name of this article was "Sonic attacks in Cuba" because Trump and the US gov't claimed publicly that they "knew" the Cubans had done just that before any medical studies were even performed. Then when it became apparent that "sonic weapons" could not do the (claimed) organic damage, the gov't backed off that claim, and other types of weapons were proposed. So the article became "Health attacks in Cuba." THEN when scientists pushed back on THAT as well, the article became just "Anomalous health incidents." See a pattern folks? But the press dubbed it "Havana Syndrome," and thus we have the current name for the article. To me this indicates that the term Havana Syndrome is actually meaningless medically. It is a catch-all description for AHI - anomalous symptoms and illnesses that can be due to a wide variety of unrelated things - including normal sickness and reframing of such ailments due to the belief one is under attack. (Ask any "Targeted individual" about this! Many times these delusional people have vandalized this article with their personal claims of being attacked by such weaponry for decades, and their belief that Havana Syndrome proves their case. It is actually very sad.) Thus IMHO (as well as in the opinion of some scientists mentioned in the article), HS is not a specific medical "disease" needing MEDRS rules. (BTW, the name chain is from memory as I know of no way to discover old article titles! I'd love to know if there is a way.) Rp2006 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

All mentions of 60 Minutes report deleted from page
As of this post, all mention of the 2024 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel report has been removed from this page. Some editors argue that the report is "junk," that this is a MEDRS article, and some have resorted to attacks against editors suggesting they believe in UFOs, bigfoot, and want this to be a "James Bond article." As I have previously stated, it is not the job of Wikipedians to determine what is true or false. Our job is to simply restate what reliable sources state on a topic. 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel are reliable sources so WP:FRINGE does not apply here as some suggest. A one-sentence section that was previously removed should be re-added. One possible wording is below:

"On March 31, 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that their investigators had uncovered evidence that the Russian government as directed by Vladimir Putin had perpetrated the attacks for the purpose of retribution against specific individuals through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons."

No claim is made here that the report is true or false. We are merely reporting what RS on the topic have stated. To ignore adding this in the article would be editorial misconduct and biased through omitting information based on the personal beliefs of editors about what is/is not worthy of inclusion. This topic has created significant media attention from reliable sources and to not include it in this article, again, shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. This article is not solely a MEDRS article and claiming MEDRS should not be used to remove any content from a non-journal article if such content is widely reported from reliable sources. Again, the article is not taking a position on this claim, but we must include a mention of this claim. BootsED (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This article should only include studies & results produced by professional scientists & physicians; OR reliable media sources reporting on studies by professionals.   BUT when a media source (CBS, Insider etc) do their own investigation, that does not rise to the level needed by this article.   Those particular media, in particular, are very sensational (60 minutes has made MANY mistakes over the years they've had to retract).    Noleander (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The report was covered by a very wide array of reliable sources, including the BBC, CNN, CBS, DW, Le Monde, WashPo, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, etc. There were also an official responses from the US and Russian governments, raising it to the level of WP:DUE. FailedMusician (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But not WP:MEDRS so I have moved it to the chronology section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the content as there was already a firm consensus in the discussion above to include it in the article. FailedMusician (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the chronology section as it is more appropriate there. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should definitely be conservative in how we report this, but I think removing this entirely from the article is an overly broad application of WP:MEDRS, as this strongly relates to history and current affairs, and in a number of ways does not match what is described as biomedical information in WP:BMI. I probably wouldn't put this under the "possible causes" section though, and I would use wording even more conservative than what you have suggested, eg. I wouldn't say "the attacks". I would try to objectively as possible describe what the investigation said, and try the best to avoid anything claiming causation or making biomedical claims. Which may entail excluding parts of what the investigation said Tristario (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is a firm consensus for inclusion in the discussions above. Editors @Bon courage and @LegalSmeagolian do not have consensus for their removal of this content. Ping @El C. FailedMusician (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is obviously not a consensus. And including content because there is no consensus for ex clusion, is you did, is an inversion of what should happen. Maybe start a RfC is you're so keen on this? But in general this article needs to slim down a lot, not bulk up with junk. Bon courage (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wouldn't mind a formal RfC with pinging a larger community then just us Havana-heads in here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors in favour of inclusion in : Endwise, Redxiv, Gtoffoletto, Thornfield Hall, Chase1635321, TinyClayMan, Running dog59, Edittlealittle, BootsED, LuckyLouie, GreenC, Machinarium and DolyaIskrina. Even Simonm223 and Slatersteven agreed to inclusion. Yet you remove it citing WP:ONUS? FailedMusician (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, @Simonm223 expressed highly conditional support that it would not be included in the way it is currently being proposed to be included, and @Slatersteven did not express support for inclusion, was completely neutral erring on the side of not inclusion "I have already stated above, we need only 1 mention of this (at best)." (emphasis added). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus to include the 60 minutes investigation in the article should be abundantly clear. Anyone entirely removing it is clearly doing so against consensus at this point and should stop. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 05:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was due mention but should have been treated as a notable fringe view. I have been very consistent about this. If it is not presented as fringe it should be excluded. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually think a sentence or two might be due, sourced to the BBC which has a secondary-ish take which we would need to align to (i.e. "Media reports further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons"). Media reports have fuelled a view, yup. That's a good independent take. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be satisfactory; I don't want to see causal claims coming from that report. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be removed from the causes section but I understand wanting to include it in the chronology section. However I am not sure you have the consensus you claim for inclusion, as it seems multiple edits, aka @Bon courage, myself, @Simonm223, and a few others disagree with at least how it is being included. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire chronology section needs to be replaced by a couple of succint, well-sourced paragraphs. It it mostly poorly sourced and an excuse for an unencyclopedic dumping ground of undigested content. Bon courage (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting because Slatersteven removed it from the Chronological section yesterday, saying it is already in the Causes section you removed it from. There is in fact a majority in favour of including the content in the article, and moving the it to the Chronological section after I reinstated it to the Causes section, based on the argument that it needs MEDRS, makes no sense. No sources in the Causes section are MEDRS. Both of you are edit warring. FailedMusician (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And you are too, heavily, while completely mis-stating policy, Bon courage (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I contest that any edit warring is occuring on my or your end. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bon courage, you just made a couple of massive deletions to the page claiming original research or primary sources. BootsED (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. We don't want original research or undue primary sourcing, surely. Bon courage (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The content you deleted was not OR or primary sources. For instance, one was a secondary source from Politico describing US intelligence agencies reporting on H.S. to members of Congress. This does not fall under OR or primary sources. BootsED (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2019 JAMA report and commentary should also have not have been deleted. They are part of the narrative of events. Calling NYtimes "unreliable" is just ridiculous. FailedMusician (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So is this not a medical condition article, its a narrative of an event article? So you would be in favor of splitting the article, correct? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Legal, again, this is not solely a MEDRS article. MEDRS should not be used to deny including widely-reported RS on a topic that is not solely a biomedical article. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine the truth, we merely report on what RS have stated about a topic. Much of this topic is surrounded by politics and competing claims by governments. Look at the categories this page is listed under. Ex: " B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles ," and " B-Class North American military history articles ." Countless news organizations have reported on this recent report from RS. To not include any mention of it "because MEDRS" is editorial bias. BootsED (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a 'MEDRS article'. Please search this page for the phrase 'common misconception'. It is not MEDRS which is at issue for much of this, it is NPOV. Articles need to be based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we should split the article between the reported "medical condition" and the events surrounding it, with the non medical stuff going in the events article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Using Politico as a source for 'Politico reported ...' is primary sourcing; it's just WP:NEWSPRIMARY reportage. Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Primary does not mean "bad." Secondary does not mean "good." Articles will often have a mix of both. Removing primary sources just because they are primary is itself not a valid reason, especially considering that most of the sources you are removing are both RS and making points which you have previously stated you personally disagree with. BootsED (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The basis of the article must be secondary sourcing. Primary sources are useful for adding stuff once that foundation has been laid. The problem with this article is that the foundation is primary sourcing, seemingly added in a sort of rolling scrap book way. If something has not garnered attention in secondary sourcing, how is WP:WEIGHT demonstrated? Bon courage (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern is that some editors are seemingly using primary source and MEDRS arguments to remove information that they have stated multiple times they personally disagree with. They have also made unilateral edits to the page ignoring the consensus of other editors, engaged in edit warring, and are now seemingly stating that no RfC is necessary to resolve this issue. If I am mistaken please inform me. BootsED (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Who? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Secondary good.Paleolithic period.png LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to exit this conversation now that I see we are resorting to insulting other people's intelligence. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am calling myself a caveman, if that wasn't clear. My ape brain only can compute secondary sources as good (they are, primary sources should be avoided). Also Neanderthals were highly intelligent. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is actually true. Neanderthals were highly intelligent! BootsED (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not edit warring - Slatersteven did remove it from the "Chronological section yesterday, saying it is already in the Causes section" as they were correct, it was duplicated information. It is my belief they removed the wrong duplicate as the sources do not indicate or provide actual medical evidence for a medical cause, so it would be better in the chronological section (if in the article at all). You are welcome to make a report at the edit warring noticeboard, however I think dispute resolution noticeboard would be a better place for this, or opening up a request for comment, especially in light of Talk:Havana syndrome. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So I ask again, can we have a suggested text, posted here so we can comment on it before it is added? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. This report added further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons." (citation to the three plus the BBC article discussed above). Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not think this makes the fringyness of this clear enough. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Try 2:
 * ""On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. This report added further fuel the view that US diplomats may have been targeted with sonic weapons but provided no evidence of the existence of such weapons." (citation to the three plus the BBC article discussed above) Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did they provide any medical evidence that anyone suffered medically proven harm? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It provides Relman's 2022 claims. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And selectively quoted in a way that should make anyone with basic media literacy put up the tag. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically "What we found was we thought clear evidence of an injury to the auditory and vestibular system of the brain." Emphasis mine. Note past-tense. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So no, not really so what we have is enough for "In March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. reported that Russia had agents in those countries around the time of the alleged attacks" Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)."
 * How about "On March 31 an investigative report was issued collaboratively by 60 Minutes, Spiegel and Insider. It claimed that Russia had agents in various countries around the time of some alleged attacks." Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That works. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not with the WP:CLAIM. Russia likely has agents in pretty much all countries all the time. (Which makes the Russia-did-it reasoning pretty silly and the inclusion pretty WP:UNDUE.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * True, and it can be said of the USA (thus, is a forum issue), its very flimsy "evidence" but in effect, this is what they are saying, and other does seem to be some consensus for some kind of inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but included with proper phrasing and with a NPOV lens. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats always inherent in include. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and propose an improved copy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that you've been such a stick in the mud about it I would prefer you did it, then we will know that you won't object to it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is, being honest, my best effort for the phrase. If my proposed text requires additional workshopping I would like to see what others think would improve it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed text (if at any point I suggested I didn't I apologize), its a good start to build a paragraph off of. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Opppose: Wikipedia editors should not be putting forward their own arguments, like Russia likely has agents in pretty much all countries all the time, to delete widely reported details of the investigative report, without referencing significant viewpoints from reliable sources. This kind of tomfoolery is why the article is locked and should remain locked.
 * FailedMusician (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any major power with an intelligence service has agents in most countries or at least some kind of information system in those countries, WP:SKYISBLUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why the "Russia has agents" reasoning is extremely stupid. You will not find any Wikipedia rule that forces editors to include every bit from every reliable source. We have to choose what to include, and not including stupid stuff is a good criterion not forbidden by WP:OR. Anybody in favor of including stupid stuff should read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or maybe people who can't edit the topic dispassionately need to stay away from it? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the investigative report has produced a lot of smoke with effective no fire. Its claims are basically: thatcthe journalists believe Relford's 2022 claims and thwre were Russians in some areas of some countries where alleged attacks occur. It's a notable source for sparking controversy but of no evidentiary value. I'm trying to ensure the reference doesn't give it undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We cover both smoke and fire on wikipedia, they're actually equally worthy of inclusion. We aren't conducting original research so the evidentiary value is meaningless to us, why would you bring it up? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For reasons of assessing WP:DUESimonm223 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that evidentiary value was used when assessing due weight, it isn't mentioned on the linked page. Perhaps you meant to link a different one? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's noteworthy that 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider all agree on the Russia theory (or at least they agree that it's plausible enough to warrant a report). I think it's still noteworthy even if it's wrong.
 * This isn't a medical journal; it's an encyclopedia. If governments and medical associations say one thing while major trustworthy media outlets say something else, that disagreement is itself notable and deserves coverage in this article. Even if the 60 Minutes report is dead wrong, it's still useful to be aware that they made that report in the first place, as it teaches us something about 60 Minutes.
 * This isn't some fringe website. It's a collaborative report with multiple major trustworthy media organizations. We shouldn't ignore it. Sonicsuns (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep referencing Relman for some reason. His views are merely a regurgitation of the panels he's been on, not personal ones. And you keep saying that geolocating a very rare GRU assassination unit's officers at the places and times US personnel were hit is merely smoke. How isn't that direct evidence? It's not conclusory but it's a checkmark in the "attack not MPI" column. Be a good Bayesian! Coreyman317 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Scope and sourcing
Three related questions:

a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research.  Example of non-medical information:  Financial compensation from Havana Act and.

b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals?  Examples of government reports:  and.

c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article?  Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example,  when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source).    Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source:        and

Noleander (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

*Yes, with caveats we can't add medical claims not sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and any other claims must be attributed and stated as opinions, not facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a) and b) YES, c) NO Havana syndrome definitely should not be subject to medical topic area guidelines, because this article is not primarily about a well-defined medical condition. AFAIK we don’t apply these guidelines to articles like tabun or Zyklon B, so why here? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, and no – I agree with RadioactiveBoulevardier in full. --BDD (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The two leading hypotheses for the cause of Havana Syndrome are (a) psychogenic; and (b) hostile nations using directed EM energy weapons. Perhaps someday - 10 or 20 years in the future - there will be a medical conclusion reached that H.S. was psychogenic in nature, and at that time, the "directed EM energy weapons" hypothesis will be considered Fringe science.
 * But, as editors, we cannot jump to those kind of conclusions. Here in this RfC, we have to treat it as a medical condition, simply because many scientists are saying it is. Hence WP:MEDRS applies, and that leads us to the  questions posed above at the top of RfC.  Noleander (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, depends, and YES WP:MEDRS: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article." The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @DolyaIskrina: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c):  what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc.   Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)?  Another example:  What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome:  Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)?  Noleander (talk) Noleander (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring wp:fringe. You are trying to change policy with an RfC. Both are really bad strategies. US Senators don't get to make pronouncements about science and medicine, and we sure as ish don't use wikivoice to repeat their claims. It's not complicated, you just don't like it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If secondary sources for a medical claim do not exist then we do not include the medical claim. A RfC does not have the power to override policy as discussed at WP:LOCALCON, so item (c) should be removed from the RfC as it is nothing but a distraction. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A better question might have been whether specific claims made by 60 Minutes/Spiegel, such as whether Russian intelligence agents allegedly received medals for acoustic weaponry of some kind, is biomedical information or not. Geogene (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr: Could you clarify your thoughts on item (c).  For Havana Syndrome, let's say there  are only two secondary sources for the medical info.  Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say?  And all other medical sources be prohibited?  If the answer is "yes, rely only on the secondary", then what about other material (non medical) such as pronouncements by senators and Secretary of State, etc.   Can there statements about the nature/cause of Havana Syndrome be included in the article (based on the notion that context indicates they are not rendering a medical opinion)?  Another example:  What about a chronological history of Havana Syndrome:  Should past (now rejected) speculations of cause of H.S. be listed in the history (provided it says those are now rejected)?    Noleander (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the medical info in this article must be restricted to what those two sources say? And all other medical sources be prohibited? WP:MEDREV is pretty clear on this: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Outdated information clearly identified as such is also discussed later on in the same guideline. I'm not really clear on what the outcome of this RfC can be other than "follow our PAGs". VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks for pointing out the part of MEDRS that says "There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: ... History sections often cite older work."  I overlooked that before.   Just to clarify my  intention in this RfC:  Some editors were saying "Primary sources can never be used" ...  implying that they cannot even appear in a timeline/history section.   I found that position to be irrational, and item (c) in this RfC is to get clarity on that particular question.  Noleander (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yes, No. BootsED (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC and there really should have been better WP:RFCBEFORE. The answer to (a) is obviously YES and the answer to everything else is to follow the WP:PAGs. The POV that "Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving" and therefore MEDRS can be waived/relaxed is bizarre in the extreme, and that principle in general would invite a boatload of quackery into Wikipedia with fake "syndromes" (and some MEDRS says Havana Syndrome is not actually a real syndrome anyway). We have recent quality secondary sources on this and to invite in older primary sources to undercut/problematize their knowledge would run counter to NPOV. This should probably be withdrawn and the filer trouted before it causes too much of waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the RfC is not worded to your satisfaction. I strove to make it clear and neutral. Question (c) (about primary vs secondary sources) is worded that way because above in this Talk page you stressed, four or five times, that primary sources should be absolutely prohibited in this article, and in fact you said WP:MEDRS does not permit primary sources for any medical content.  You said that there are no exceptions to the "secondary sources are better" guidance from MEDRS.   Your opinion seemed very much contrary to the plain text of MEDRS (which merely says that primary sources should be "avoided", but clearly lists a few situations where they are permitted).    Question (c) is merely asking if Havana Syndrome's nature allows for some primary sources ... i.e. when any new medical syndrome arises, for the first few years there may be only primary sources available, is it okay to use them?  If you feel that primary sources should be prohibited in this article, could you explain here why you think MEDRS prohibits primary sources, when the plain text of MEDRS plainly says primary sources are merely discouraged (not prohibited)?  Noleander (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is simply untrue and wrong
 * and in fact I linked to the WP:MEDFAQ sourcing section where exceptional cases are discussed. MEDRS says (it's even bolded) "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". That is the general case, but there are exceptional cases. Havana syndrome is not such an exceptional case especially since we have multiple MEDRS sources we can use . Your argument, if applied to the Lancet MMR autism fraud would have been "the link between vaccines and autism is new, so we should relax our guidelines and use primary sources and news media". There is a reason the WP:PAGs are as they are. As astutely observes "The fact that HS is new and poorly defined is MORE reason to observe MEDRS, not less". Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree this is a bad RfC as it has an obvious conclusion. As @VQuakr said: we cannot override with an RfC well established policy such as WP:MEDRS. It is non negotiable for bio-medical claims within any article. We can have RfCs if we really have to on whether some stuff is WP:BMI or WP:NOTBMI or if one source is good enough or not for a claim. But this RfC is unfortunately useless. We need to find a way for editors to understand better how WP:MEDRS works… there is too much confusion on this topic and a lot of editors are applying it improperly (both excessively and insufficiently!) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A YES (if it is notable and covered by RS), B depends (WP:RS independence, secondary etc. applies), C YES ( WP:MEDRS not negotiable here). Basically what Bon Courage said above: just follow the WP:PAGs. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The intention of question (c) is to get some guidance from outside editors on whether any primary medical sources related to Havana Syndrome can be used in this article, and if so, how?  In a timeline section?  In a politics section?  In a "recent medical developments" section?   Saying "follow WP:MEDRS" does not help bring an end to edit-warring.   Question (c) is asking for outside editors to help us determine how primary medical sources can be used in this article, if at all.  Maybe the answer is "none" and if so, that is okay.  Noleander (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way of using primary medical sources. That’a the point of WP:MEDRS. Primary medical studies are unrealible. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC Yes on A and C  articles about diseases generally cover these societal aspects and as far as these sections do not make any biomedical claims they may use the lower standard of reliable sources. I reiterate: Further:  The proper level of discussion to overturn WP:MEDRS is centralized discussion, this talk page does not have "jurisdiction". I endorse the view of, to observe WP:V in this instance, a less is more approach is needed. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if issue (c) was not worded clearly.  The intention was not to "overturn" MEDRS, but rather to address an question raised above in this Talk page, viz:   some editors were saying that primary medical sources can never be used in this article.  That didn't seem right, and my reading of MEDRS indicated that there were some exceptions.   The purpose of issue (c) in this RfC is to get some input from outside editors on what sort of exceptions to "Dont use primary sources" rule exist, and whether any of those exceptions may apply to this article.   I think the RfC is working ... several editors have provided excellent insight into how MEDRS can and should be applied to this article (e.g. primary sources may be appropriate in a historical/timeline section of the article).
 * Aside from issue (c) .... we still need to address issues (a) and (b) in this RfC because they were the cause of edit warring (and contributed to the fact that this article got protected).  Hopefully, the RfC can help come to closure on issues (a) and (b) and allow work on this article to resume in a friendly and productive fashion.   Noleander (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from issue (c) .... we still need to address issues (a) and (b) in this RfC because they were the cause of edit warring (and contributed to the fact that this article got protected).  Hopefully, the RfC can help come to closure on issues (a) and (b) and allow work on this article to resume in a friendly and productive fashion.   Noleander (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven: Do you have any thoughts on a particular situation which was the source of some recent edit-warring in this article:  Two new studies were published in early 2024 (both primary sources ... i.e. written by scientists performing tests on people that reported H.S. symptoms); because Havana Syndrome is so noteworthy (in the USA, at least) many, many major news outlets reported on the studies.   Some news articles contained interviews with scientists analyzing the studies.  It may be a long time (years?) before a secondary study is published that encompasses these 2024 sources.  Query:  Should this Havana Syndrome article exclude all mention of these 2024 studie  until a secondary study that includes them is published?  Or should the 2024 studies be mentioned (perhaps in way that presents their publication as a newsworthy event, and de-emphasizes their medical conclusions)?    Noleander (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have already commented on that above. This is not the question the RFC asked. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * there seems to be a lot of confusion about what is bioengt asked, because of a non nuetalty worded RFC opening. close and start again. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, yes, no--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a) Yes. b) Yes. Without the non-medical information this article would lack a huge part of the public discussion necessary to the perception of the topic (as with the previously mentioned Zyklon B or as with the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko). That includes the reports and statements made by the government-affiliated institutions (taking into account their potential conflict of interest and bias). c) Yes, depends. I disagree that the topic being "new and evolving" is a valid reason for ignoring WP:MEDRS.
 * Non-medical claims and analysis by WP:RS are okay (WP:PAG compliance implied). If a WP:RS contains both medical and non-medical claims and analysis, the medical part is treated according to WP:MEDRS, but not the non-medical part (for example, in the context of this article, WP:RS is to be used for "Cold War espionage" and "professional reluctance" statements, and WP:MEDRS is to be used for "psychogenic" and "brain damage due to directed energy" statements).
 * I agree that biomedical primary sources should be used conservatively and with great care ("" as per WP:MEDFAQ), with the major considerations for that being described in WP:WHYMEDRS. One of the WP:MEDFAQ examples of rare cases include "", which could apply, but that is matter of a separate discussion on a case by case basis for each source. Personally, I am not familiar enough with BMI sources here, so I can't say whether any of them can qualify to be that.
 * Further discussion is needed to determine/agree which WP:BMI sources are primary and which are not (after several days of monitoring the discussion and edit history I feel like some medical sources (or part of their contents) are actually review articles/meta-analysis, i.e. secondary and not primary). This should ideally be done on a case by case basis.
 * There was also a question on whether currently rejected theories should be included for chronological/historical purposes. I say "yes" (taking into account all the previous guidelines considerations), provided they are marked as rejected and were important to the public discussion of this topic (that is, if this was not a single op-ed no one else commented upon). As an example in the context of this article, that includes the crickets theory (which is also WP:BMI, afaik).
 * TinyClayMan (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think everyone is in agreement that secondary sources are absolutely the best source for medical conclusions. Issue (c) is simply asking if the nature of Havana means that some primary medical sources can be used in some contexts, e.g.  in a timeline/history section; or in a "what politicians said" section. There were some editors saying that primary sources could never be in this article, and that did not seem right.  As you point out, WP:MEDFAQ contains the guidance that primary sources may be "used in rare situations". Based on what you say, if primary medical sources are mentioned in this article, there should be surrounding contextual verbiage ensuring that readers do not use the primary source for its medical data (instead: use it only for some historical / political / etc purpose).  Noleander (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I bothers me immensely that the reaction to several editors emphasizing that primary medical sources really really shouldn't be used in this way amounts to: So they can be used? Draken Bowser (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all RfCs ask how to apply a particular WP policy to a given source/sentence/article. In this case: there are several primary sources (for example, footnotes 5 and 6 below) that  perhaps should be in the article.    Asking if specific sources can be used in the Havana Syndrome article is exactly what RfCs are for. Simply saying "Nope, never use primary medical sources" is not helpful.   WP:MEDRS does permit primary sources in some situations  - the RfC is asking if any of those situations are applicable here.  The goal is to get clarity and put an end to edit-warring.
 * Can you clarify: are you saying that a historical/timeline section of this article  (if one exists) cannot utilize primary medical sources when listing historical events?   Noleander (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural close malformed RFC Should provide a question about the inclusion about specific content, not a class of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. We will get to that next. FailedMusician (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason that items (a) and (b) are in this RfC is that - during the edit wars that preceded the RfC - some editors (above in Talk page) suggested (1) this article can only include medical info; and (2) this article can only utilize on medical/science sources. There was back-and-forth on that, and so the primary purpose of the RfC is to come to closure on those issues.   Issue (c) is a bit different. Noleander (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This RFC remains entirely malformed regardless of what came before it. It includes incredibly vague edit directions and should be closed for that reason alone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes to (a) and (b), and a nuanced Yes to (c) – My view is that the scope of this article should encompass all geopolitical and historical aspects, as they're essential for a full understanding of the topic. This is especially as there is no consensus in the scientific community on what the cause, symptoms and treatments of this condition are. For (b), using U.S. government studies and statements on Havana syndrome, true or otherwise, Russian government sources and claims in Crocus City Hall attack. As a specific example, the recently reported NIH studies elicited criticism about its methods from a scientist who conducted a previous study, with access to the classified case files   . Yet, despite the the reception these studies received, the content and sources were unceremoniously deleted, citing MEDRS to support what is essentially a deletionist argument (for which WP:DUE would be the relevant policy). See also: .  On (c), while MEDRS is crucial for accuracy on medical topics, the unique and evolving nature of Havana Syndrome means that in some cases, well-publicised primary medical sources might temporarily complement the article, pending secondary reviews. This balances our high sourcing standards with the need to provide current and comprehensive information on the topic. FailedMusician (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you know they're right? Many primary sources are faulty or wrong. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice to employ primary sources for straightforward facts, such as the formal name of the condition, which I added. For more contentious claims, we can rely on reputable secondary news sources, like the New York Times article detailing the NIH studies and Relman's critique. Until there are a number of quality review articles offering definitive conclusions about which hypothesis is proven or likely, we cannot delete well written and sourced content just because editors don't like it. FailedMusician (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * just because editors don't like it &larr; Leaving aside that pathetic personalisation, the fact is that on Wikipedia the NYT is not a reliable source for biomedicine. See WP:MEDPOP. The only sources which have standing to assess primary research on biomedicine are secondary biomedical ones; not lay sources and especially not Wikipedia editors. But agree, etymology is WP:NOTBMI so any RS will do for that. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't the venue for promoting personal viewpoints. Please cast your vote if you haven't already and allow a closer to determine the application of our MEDRS policy to this topic. If there's contention over whether the New York Times reference pertains to biomedicine (which I believe it does not) we can address that in a separate RFC. FailedMusician (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FailedMusician, I don't think your (c) reasoning fully captures the complexity. Primary medical sources can sometimes be used for biomedical content in articles.  However, MEDRS specifically prohibits editors from using primary sources to debunk secondary sources.  This means that you can use a primary medical source for obviously relevant, obviously significant information[*] that isn't covered by a secondary medical source at all, but you can't set up the article to say – or even imply – something like "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer,[secondary source] but this one study found that cigarettes prevent cancer.[primary source]"
 * [*] By "obviously relevant, obviously significant information", I mostly mean that if you can't find a secondary source for information about a major section heading in Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, then you can usually justify using a primary source for that. For example, if you are writing about a drug, and 100% of the reliable sources on the Pharmacokinetics for that drug are published in primary sources, then you can use those primary sources instead of omitting the ==Pharmacokinetics== section entirely.  It is also sometimes okay to use a primary source to provide additional detail that supports the conclusions of the secondary sources.  For example, if the secondary sources say that tobacco causes cancer, then one might be able to justify using a primary source to provide more detail (e.g., how many deaths last year in a particular country).  What I don't mean is that it's okay to use primary sources to debunk the secondary sources.  For example, if the secondary sources say that Havana syndrome isn't actually one disease and almost certainly didn't involve directed-energy weapons, then you can't cram the other POV into this article by using primary sources, or use primary sources to cast doubt on the analysis by secondary sources.  For example, you should not use primary sources to say that some detail remains unexplained, or that the explanation is not accepted by some people.
 * On a more general note, the victims of illness do not have magical, trustworthy insights into the cause of their conditions. Medieval people thought witchs' hexes killed people and livestock, but they didn't believe in bacteria.  In the slightly more modern era, people thought that wetlands produced poisonous miasmas, but they were actually dying of mosquito-born viruses.  Even now, people with dangerous psychotic illnesses will say there is nothing wrong with them, but that doesn't mean that psychotic illness doesn't actually exist.  Similarly:  Americans (in particular) seem to have a hard time believing that stress can lay them low, so a victim claiming that they're so mentally tough that an unknown, undetectable top-secret weapon is more plausible than the human body rebelling under unreasonable amounts of stress, or having an unfortunate post-viral illness, is not proof that an unfortunate, but completely ordinary, illness cluster is not the most plausible explanation.
 * The main message in this article should be based on secondary sources, and nothing we write in this article should try to cast doubt on the main message.
 * (Also: Can I just confirm that we all agree that a daily newspaper is a news source and not a medical source, right?  If anyone in this discussion thinks that a newspaper is a medical source, please let the rest of us know.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The following information was removed because it was not "MEDRS compliant."
 * "On March 31, 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel claimed that their investigators had uncovered evidence that the Russian government as directed by Vladimir Putin had perpetrated the attacks for the purpose of retribution against specific individuals through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons."
 * How is this MEDRS? MEDRS is being used loosely to apply to content that obviously has nothing to do with medical claims, but geopolitics. BootsED (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim that they found evidence of this would actually fail verification. A point I keep making that has people claiming the question of lack of evidence is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reply. This has been covered in dozens of reliable sources. (WaPo, BBC, NYT, etc.) It is directly related to H.S. How does this "fail verification?" BootsED (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying evidence. The only verification that matters to us is staying true to what sources report. See Verifiability. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot claim they found "evidence" based on the content of the report. To claim they found "evidence" of a specific biomedical mechanism we would need supporting WP:MEDRS. This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the RS say they found evidence of a weapons related cause in connection to some specific cases, then we can attribute it to them. Are you familiar with attribution in journalism? See also WP:INTEXT. FailedMusician (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not journalism. If unreliable source start airing fringe views outside their realm of reliability, Wikipedia shuns them (unless there's a reliable secondary source commenting on the 'journalism'). Attribution is not some magic pixie dust that allows in bad content. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Precisely. This is why I keep bringing up the absence of evidence in the investigative report - because it was being inappropriately cited with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement when all it really did was inflame discourse and reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks which are better cited to stronger sources. Furthermore Relman is a single researcher and, while he is due inclusion, his talent for getting in front of cameras should not be used to inflate his significance compared to... literally any other scientist working in the field. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that 60 minutes portion is WP:NOTBMI. So WP:MEDRS is not relevant. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to analyse the evidence or absence thereof for claims published by reliable sources. You claim that the source was used with language that made it seem as if it were evidence of Russian involvement, but I've asked you before to provide examples of that, and you haven't. The text that you and Bon courage reverted says that the investigation published claims . You are also mistaken that Relman is a single researcher, as I explained below, with sources. FailedMusician (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * all it really did was … reiterate Relman's 2022 remarks ← That is false.
 * The report by The Insider, Der Spiegel and 60 Minutes is cited not because of that but because it does the following things (from more to less WP:WEIGHT):
 * Connects the movement of known GRU Unit 29155 agents (which, for example, were previously uncovered here, here and here) with known cases associated with Havana Syndrome;
 * Presents leaked interdepartmental correspondence which connects some of the agents with the development of "non-lethal acoustic weapons";
 * Mentions that the journalists possess documents describing government programs related to the development of "sonar and acoustic weapons systems" (and describes/summarises their contents);
 * Mentions that the journalists possess a US State Department memo for diplomats in the Tbilisi embassy with the advised response to AHI (and partially quotes it);
 * Mentions that some of the victims recognized the photographs of those GRU agents (and quotes them).
 * None of those are WP:BMI.
 * It also contains Relman reiterating his previous comments, other people's (related to the US government's investigations of HS) comments and victims' comments. But from what I see, these are mostly ignored as sources for the article (and they seem to be a simple reiteration of other information in the article already attributed to other sources).
 * I want to emphasize that the WP is not tasked with verifying all those statements, WP:V refers only to verifying that those statements come from the WP:RS. Der Spiegel is directly mentioned in WP:RSP. The Insider is not mentioned there but they have a reputation for their investigations of the Russian government activities (part of those are described in the article about this newspaper).
 * I also don't recall any WP:PAG that states that "only WP:RS that feel plausible to me should be used as sources". The discussion whether these statements are plausible or not sounds like something falling under WP:NOTFORUM. TinyClayMan (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with @TinyClayMan. I would add that The Insider’s main journalist was Christo Grozev an expert in Russian intelligence investigations and European Press Prize winner for investigative journalism. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 05:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was literally evidence of Russian involvement it used geolocation data to place a rare GRU assassination unit in close space time proximity to the attacks on US personnel. Come on... Coreyman317 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The investigative journalists do not say they are certain that directed energy weapons are used. They reveal they have evidence connecting the travel of a notorious Russian secret service unit, widely known for poisonings abroad, to some reported Havana Syndrome cases, but say nothing conclusive about how these agents could have inflicted the reported damage.Machinarium (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, your points on MEDRS are well taken, and since no primary sources were being used to "debunk" secondary medical sources (in the plural), I don't think its the issue here. The main issue this RFC is seeking to address is how to balance accuracy with comprehensiveness, by including non-medical secondary sources that largely do not contradict the medical sources, most of which leave things open as to what the cause is. Moreover, since it is possible that earlier HS cases were caused by a weapon (news and academic sources talk of two types), and later cases by some form of psychosis (an effect that a hostile actor have anticipated), this isn't a binary situation (both hypotheses can be true). This is an argument made by David Relman, a relevant expert, and his opinion does not contradict medical sources, all but one (Bartholomew et al). FailedMusician (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * are you seriously asserting that a quotation from David Relman, the person, in a news article, should be treated equivalent to a statement from all organizations he is involved in? Or do you believe David Relman is, in fact, several people? I am unsure which is more of an absurd waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This comment wasn't addressed to you. Relman is discussed above and below. Please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. FailedMusician (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes to (a) and (b) - per WP:V. No to (c) for two reasons. First, I think this is a loaded question. There is no significant medical content on the page. Secondly, WP:MERDS is needed because people can harm their health after reading incorrect info, for example by practicing certain types of alternative medicine or by using certain drugs. But there is no such danger here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the intent and purpose of WP:MEDRS is accuracy, not preventing harm. FailedMusician (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The idea that MEDRS is somehow related to (bad) medical advice is a canard; Wikipedia does not give medical advice. The purpose of MEDRS is stated plainly in its opening para: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article". Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not my idea. I saw it somewhere in our guidelines (maybe old versions). But I completely agree with the idea of preventing harm to users who read WP. Such harm is very much possible, in many subject areas, and we should try to prevent it by providing good info per WP:NPOV, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think this page and sources are not really about human health, but about the alleged devices or weapons. Yes, we do not know which devices were used here and if they were used at all.  My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think this page and sources are not really about human health, but about the alleged devices or weapons. Yes, we do not know which devices were used here and if they were used at all.  My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes to (c), but it is applicable only to truly biomedical content. For example, here, the sub-section "Psychogenic causes" (starting from "Some scientists suggest that...") and some other sub-sections need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources, i.e. as it was in "Causes" before the revert (I should not be reverting this, sorry). My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, yes, no - Using U.S. government sources to describe a disorder is okay, as long as it's balanced. Adding a bit of background info is fine as long as its not overbroad. And yeah, primary medical sources are needed in an article like this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes/yes as long as it's relating to a non-medical topic, no to the extent normally permitted by WP:MEDRS: "Havana Syndrome" is both a WP:MEDRS topic about a syndrome and a non-MEDRS topic about the political coverage of that syndrome. We can use non-MEDRS sources to talk about the news and politics aspects of this topic, but not about the medical aspects. Specifically, we cannot use government reports suggesting the use of a directed energy weapon to imply that the cause of Havana Syndrome was a directed energy weapon in absense of clear medical evidence of that theory. WP:EXTRAORDINARY still applies. Loki (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Important to clarify that the 2019-2020 NASEM report that considered all possible biologic, acoustic, radiologic, chemical, toxicological and psychological causes isn't a "government report". NASEM constitute private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine . Our article includes a detailed section on the NASEM report, which notably suggested that directed pulsed RF energy may be a plausible cause. Similarly, the 2022 IC report with similar findings was also produced by an independent panel of experts. FailedMusician (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 33411434 is a MEDRS, but it's a little old so it is better to use more recent reviews which cover the same ground. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not all that old and since one of the more recent review articles is hardly a review article, we can't use it to present a scientific consensus in favour of one hypothesis. FailedMusician (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Directed-energy weapons are very much real and widely used. Claims that such weapons were used is not a biomedical topic. "Governmental sources" can be used to source such claims. However, if the claim was made about specific effects on human health (or lack of such), then such claim should be included with areference to WP:MEDRS-complacent sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the claim that a direct-energy weapon may have been used is a biomedical topic, but it straddles the line as a political topic too, and is something the closer needs to assess. I believe its inappropriate to use MEDRS to restrict political content in discussions about topics that blend both biomedical and political elements. FailedMusician (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any connection the article makes between a group of symptoms and the cause of those symptoms should require MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:MEDRS links to WP:BMI to define what information is covered by the policy. The first example under types of biomedical information is "attributes of a disease or condition" and includes "symptoms" and "causes". This is a new and poorly understood syndrome. That doesn't mean we should slacken our standards; on the contrary it's all the more reason to be as careful as possible. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As follows:
 * a) Yes This has become not just a medical topic, but also one pertaining to the US' relationship with other countries, the way the intelligence service operates, and how the media covers stories. For that reason, non-medical sources are needed to bring out the full picture. However, these should be used with proper consideration to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, for the reasons explained below. Also, we should keep in mind how the relative paucity of Cuban sources may adversely affect our ability to get a neutral perspective on the topic.
 * b) Yes with the following caveat: US Government sources have a clear motive to, as governments often do, say things about other countries based on their agendas, rather than a commitment to the facts, deliberately or accidentally. That the US government might therefore be non-neutral with respect to countries that it, verifiably, does not get along well with, should be taken as a given. Thus consider using WP:INTEXT liberally.
 * c) No Specific clauses of the policy apply here that are worth remembering. MEDFAQ, it says primary sources are acceptable, "when writing about a rare disease, uncommon procedure, etc., for which no high-quality secondary literature is available, or for which the available secondary sources do not cover all of the information normally included in an encyclopedia article." As the condition, to the extent that it may exist, is indeed rare and of recent provenance, we will likely have to content ourselves on primary sources for some time, replacing them with secondaries as they become available. Not including them now though risks violating WP:MEDDATE.
 * Consider that while the topic was nascent, it attracted a great deal of media attention because of the fact that, if foreign countries were attacking US diplomatic staff, that would be a significant breach of protocol, if not an act of war. Since the US did not, ultimately, act or retaliate on that basis, any evidence that the syndrome is of natural origin or non-existent is unlikely to generate the same attention from secondary sources. It becomes a mere historical footnote. Therefore it may be quite a long time before reliable sources, which by that point will likely be historians, synthesize the information.
 * That being said, primary sources used should probably be cited as individual studies rather than conclusions to draw, as per WP:MEDPRI.
 * --Ipatrol (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ipatrol Have you seen the discussion above Talk:Havana syndrome? We have WP:MEDRS compliant WP:SECONDARY reviews published recently (December 2023) that provide high quality sources for WP:BMI. So why should we rely on unreliable primary studies at this point? The conditions described at WP:MEDFAQ are not met so we should not use WP:PRIMARY medical sources at this point. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, no. MEDRS is MEDRS: however this doesn't apply to the more political/international relations side of this story - obviously. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a). Yes as long as it isn't used to describe causes or effects. b). Ditto my comment on 'a'. c). No, and no consensus on the talk page could negate MEDRS. Also this is hardly a 'rare disease that has little coverage in medical sources' so using primary sources that way doesn't work either. However the main takeaway away from this RFC is that it's a mess, and the cause is that its question is anything but neutral and brief (WP:RFCBRIEF) so it should be closed as a bad RFC. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just realised I've answered 'no' to c). when I mean 'yes' and reading through other replies the same mistake has been made. Again this is caused by having a rambling non-neuttal statement to the RFC. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, Yes, No. Per previous discussions. -- Green  C  19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC due to non-neutral framing and vagueness as to the actual implications of each answer; WP:CONLOCAL does not allow us to selectively override or reinterpret MEDRS in a sweeping manner like this any case. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

David Relman
Has been raised a number of times as an expert in the field, what is his expertise in? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * He's a microbiologist with ties to veterans affairs. Well respected but also seems a bit of a cold warrior based on his comments about the origins of COVID. His opinions are certainly due but he is, ultimately, one guy and should not be given undue focus just because he has a bit in his teeth about the enemies of the USA. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're revealing even further now that this is political for you? His comments on the origin of COVID are merely calling for further study since determining its origin is important for preventing the next pandemic. So you are implying, wrongly, negative things about his comments.
 * It's interesting you characterize him as a "Cold Warrior" and even suggest his opinions are motivated by which countries are "enemies of the USA". And you have a huge presence editing this very wikipedia page...scary stuff. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Relman headed the NASEM committee that undertook the 2019-2020 study of AHIs and co-chaired the 2022 Intelligence Community Experts Panel on AHIs. It is not for Wikipedia editors to challenge the expertise of a scientist described by reputable sources such as The New York Times as a "prominent scientist" in an article on the topic. Moreover, The NYT article emphasises that the American Medical Association published his critique of the NIH studies, highlighting his respected standing in the scientific community, specific to this topic. He is also mentioned and quoted in articles by the Washington Post, Axios and PBS in articles on the same story about the NIH studies. He has been quote extensively in many RS on HS related stories over the years. FailedMusician (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * None of this contradicts what I said at all. His tendency to get into newspapers is irrelevant to our treatment of his work for WP:MEDRS matters where his assertions are due inclusion but should not be treated as authoritative.I am advocating treating him neutrally and per WP:DUE. I don't know why this seems insufficient to you. Simonm223 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You claimed he is a single researcher . I pointed out that he headed two groups of scientists investigating HS. That is quite a contradiction, and effects how his comments are due. FailedMusician (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * So was Havana Syndrome a biological or Chemical attack? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * His leadership roles in both the NASEM investigation and the intelligence panel, affirm his status as a leading expert on the topic. It is normal for such committees to include and be directed by scientists from a variety of disciplines. FailedMusician (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it does not, as often the heads of teams are (for example) administrators, nothing more. He is not a qualified expert in the field, as his expertise is in microbiology (by the way, he might have been there to offer his opinion on that). Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is just your opinion and has no impact on our article. RS call him a prominent scientist in articles on the topic. Neither do his opinions contradict MEDRS, besides for one review article by an author who is also not an expert on the topic according to your definition. FailedMusician (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Read wp:undue, a view should only here where if it is by an expert in the field, he is not, as this is not a microbiology topic. prominent scientist is not a field of study, position, or qualification. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think your view that he is not an expert, when he was appointed to lead these groups and has his editorials accepted in journals, would find consensus here. FailedMusician (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He IS a qualified expert in the field he has an MD and specifically studies *human* microbiology at Stanford. What are you talking about? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not treating Relman neutrally by suggesting his comments about merely investigating further the origins of COVID make him a Cold Warrior with a "bit" in his teeth about "enemies of the USA." Strongly suggestive of your politics and political bias, motivating your "it's MPI" theory despite overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by sources, not individuals. Has this guy published any peer-reviewed/secondary sources that are relevant to this article? Because since there are peer-reviewed/secondary sources, his stuff won't be usable otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It all depends what MEDRS say and what we quote Relman as saying, and where in the article. Relman's views do not contradict secondary medical sources (WP:MEDRS says review articles in the plural), so I think he's useable as a contrarian voice, specifically on the NIH studies story. FailedMusician (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it kinda depends on where and how you want to put it as well. "Causes" is understood to mean etiology and patophysiology. Anything that goes there is strict MEDRS. You wanna include it somewhere else? Then it depends Draken Bowser (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The specific text deleted, as discussed above, was about a widely reported NIH study, which multiple RS quoted Relman critiquing . It concerns the etiology, but was placed in Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis, a longstanding section that some editors then decided shouldn't exist. Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data, yet Relman is one of the few experts with access to classified files, so I do think his views should even be in the "possible causes" section (recently renamed to "Cause", misleading IMO). FailedMusician (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So an unreliable source opining on an unreliable source. That's ... not useful. Bon courage (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Its important to note that MEDRS on the topic do not offer definitive conclusions, due to the lack of data.." Yes, that's where it should stop, with a scientific interpretation of evidence, not speculation. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Causes" section header
I think the causes section, as it stands, is good. I am entirely neutral as to whether we add the word "potential" or "possible" to it so long as we don't start filling it back in with newspaper articles again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I think "Causes" and "Possible Causes" can imply different meanings, causes imply more certainty; The first line of the Causes Section says, "Possible Causes." I also, noticed the info box says, Causes "Not determined," Not sure if I'm being picky, that may throw some people off? Rock &#38; roll is not dead (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Cause" section in its current state is misleading. It manipulates the perception of the subject in a way that makes a reader think that a definite and unanimous conclusion was reached. Which is obviously not true – it is just that Bartholomew-Baloh publication happened to be released in the last five months, so it was chosen to be framed as drawing the bottom line. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this in the wrong section? I'm not sure how it's related to the topic of how to treat Relman's comments per WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm not sure how the "Cause" section can be read as having a "definite and unanimous conclusion" when it states two different reviews say two different things. The level of huh? with this Talk page is increasing with every post! Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The former section was entitled "possible causes" which imo was much more accurate to the reality of our knowledge on H.S. It should be returned to that and sections on the various speculated causes be re-added to the article. There is no medical consensus on the cause of H.S. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if one does accept that there isn't a medical consensus, that does not then mean the article would include stuff that has been ruled out or has no MEDRS sourcing as a potential cause. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing the title to "possible causes" would increase the risk of unaware editors using non-MEDRS-sourcing to "verify" speculation. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which we can revert. And not be guilty of misleading readers. There is no clear cut cause, as we can't imply there is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This. So we say what the different recent & high-quality reviews say (as now), even if they conflict. I'm completely baffled by the complaints about this. We have some super high quality sources; we reflect what they say; job done. What's the problem again? Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So you want to make it clear to readers that there there is no clear cut cause by renaming Causes to Possible Causes, but we can't include one of the leading experts on the topic (being the lead of two investigations), as quoted in multiple high quality RSs, in a section titled Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis? Explain that for the closer please. FailedMusician (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because of our sourcing policy. One guy's opinions in OpEds is undue when we have quality sources. The "chronology" section is a POV section seemingly being used as a dumping ground for crap sources, and is an invention of Wikipedia editors since no RS (that I know) takes this "chronological" approach. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean this entire community thinks mass psychogenic illness hasnt been ruled out, when it has by 2/3 expert panels that studied the issue systemically. Yet that's treated as THE cause and answer by this Wiki article. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bartholomew and Baloh do that intentionally to get repeated coverage of something they have merely repeated incorrectly for almost 7 years now. They both have a financial interest in doing so to sell their book. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The title should definitely be something like “potential causes” as nothing has been determined yet.
 * Also: as discussed above, the Bartolomew 2024 “Review” doesn’t actually look like a “review”. So I would not use it to contradict the actual December 2023 Asadi-Pooya review we have in the article (the best source we have so far for medical claims) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The section title can be either; it doesn't matter. 38146090 is a review in a high-quality journal and it certainly due, not to "contradict" necessarily, but to present alongside. Trying to suppress such high-quality sourcing would savour of POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly fine to label such sections with the standard "causes" even for idiopathic conditions, but I won't fight you on this tooth and nail. :) Draken Bowser (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Several editors have noted that PMID:38146090 does not read like a standard review article, and certainly not a systematic review as preferred by WP:MEDRS. Using this this article, written by a well-known proponent of the MPI theory who, unlike Relman, lacks access to classified case files, to delete high quality content (much of which is WP:NOTBMI) and sources on the weapons hypothesis, would be seen as POV-pushing. FailedMusician (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Speculation about what Relman has access to, outside of what he has disclosed via published work, is WP:CRYSTAL and is thus irrelevant. This is why we stick to WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. Its written clearly in New York Times that he has access to the classified case files. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Please read WP:CIR. FailedMusician (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no systematic reviews on this topic, only narrative ones. Relman is not published in any MEDRS. We use the quality sources, not the weak ones. Discussion of what causes a health effect is WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have already established in the discussion above Talk:Havana syndrome that PMID:38146090 is much weaker than the Ali A. Asadi-Pooya Review and looks more like a commentary piece rather than a review article. Several editors have reached that consensus.
 * The Ali A. Asadi-Pooya Review is high quality, recent, and very clear in reviewing the existing literature.
 * With regard to causes it states:
 * Potential causes of Havana syndrome:
 * Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy: The most plausible mechanism: Presentation of acute, directional or location-specific early phase signs and symptoms were consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed RF. Many of the chronic, nonspecific symptoms are also consistent with known RF effects.
 * Functional disorder: persistent postural-perceptual dizziness. A secondary reinforcing mechanism: A functional vestibular disorder that may be triggered by vestibular, neurological, other medical and psychological conditions and may explain some chronic signs and symptoms in some patients.
 * Psychogenic: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [3][3, 12, 22]
 * Chemicals/ neurotoxins: Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [23, 30]
 * This is what we should report in the article and is consistent with WP:MEDRS. Reporting by 60 minutes on potential ties to Russian intelligence and their use of Directed energy weapons already has a very strong consensus for inclusion Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6 and should be covered to avoid WP:BMI and only deal with the intelligence aspects. '''I'm not sure what this whole RfC is doing except wasting editor time.
 * ''' &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You sayiing something does not mean it's established. Both reviews are due. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I count at least Tristario, FailedMusician, and me agreeing that it does deserve the same WP:WEIGHT as the other source and does not appear to be a proper review. I will ask other editors in that discussion to express their views explicitly. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ben it's not a review. Bartholomew has been saying everything he said in that article verbatim for the last 7 years. He's merely going to say things like "in light of the recent NIH study" and the interpret events to justify his MPI theory that he's written a book about (with Baloh!) and has a financial interest in popularizing. You guys wouldnt have it if Relman wrote a review every year saying DEW are most likely. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here not find it odd how desperately certain proponents want to recite Bartholomew as if his repeated claims count as more than a single source? He isnt saying anything new. It's very telling when *anyone* cites anything he's written. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here not find it odd how desperately certain proponents want to recite Bartholomew as if his repeated claims count as more than a single source? He isnt saying anything new. It's very telling when *anyone* cites anything he's written. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Two noted RS, 33411434 and this, are scientific review articles, consistent with WP:MEDRS and should be used on this page. They can be used to source a lot of different claims, whatever is relevant. 38146090 - I am less certain (agree with some others above), but again, seems to be MEDRS-consistent. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said I was satisfied with both reviews being included as both appeared consistent with WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree 33411434 is another good source (although less recent - 2020). Please join the discussion on those sources in the section above @My very best wishes so we can continue building consensus: Talk:Havana syndrome &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

New article for summary and inclusion?
Havana Syndrome: A Story That Refuses to Die Why the myth endures. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/202404/havana-syndrome-a-story-that-refuses-to-die?fbclid=IwAR1C21uSc2VVoO5vFuQttQQa8oKK5BAPT8m9U93Bu4QPx-DNm_scjXTwp_I_aem_ASluQHyxnQPcPK01poBJIF8tV_O3EFiPSwdBYkkCLaMXP0GNJ8Rl5bbHnSa7WDTP9VQP-TH9Adku-hhLTbiZPYEK IntegrityForever (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not WP:MEDRS compliant so it can't be used to discuss causes. Good article tho. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on how MEDRS applies to this topic. Bartholomew is a well known commentator on the topic who also, and proponent of the MPI hypothesis. While MEDRS remain undecided, Bartholomew's opinion, just like Relman's expert opinion is WP:DUE. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is clear policy based governance on how MEDRS applies. Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article does not exclusively deal with BMI content on it. MERDS should not be used to apply to non-BMI content. BootsED (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * obviously. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But this specific article speaks, specifically, to causes. The truth is that I liked the article and I generally, personally, agree with what it's saying. But that doesn't matter. We shouldn't be using non MEDRS sources to speak specifically to causes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. But articles such as this one provide important context that can still find a place within this page. BootsED (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit telling that you like an article so much that comes to explicit conclusions as to causes without providing any evidence but just a narrative, and that you're so active editing this Wikipedia page...
 * Does it bother you at all that Bartholomew has a financial stake in convincing the public that MPI is the cause, since he has a book to sell? I'll remind you 2/3 expert panels that reviewed the syndrome in whole have concluded pulsed microwaves are most likely with MPI being implausible. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * More Robert Bartholomew. You guys cannot get enough of his monthly articles about it. Lol Coreyman317 (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 April 2024
The sentence in the first subsection beginning "The review stated that plausible explanation given" is missing a word before plausible. 2600:1002:B156:9F53:0:1:D1BF:801 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How would you rewrite exactly? Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably add the word "that a plausible" LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support that addition if that's what they want. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is. It was a grammar issue, not a content issue. 2600:1002:B156:9F53:0:1:D1BF:801 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a grammatical error. My fault! I didn't get a chance to finish copyediting before the latest protection came down. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are desperate to discredit microwaves as a mechanism and desperately want to push the mass psychogenic conspiracy theory, despite no evidence. Why? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 April 2024 (2)
As per and two follow on comments , please add this review article to the Possible Causes section:

A review article published in 2020 by Julie A. Pavlin and David A. Relman, titled An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, suggested that the incidents commonly referred to as "Havana Syndrome" could potentially be linked to directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy, considering all examined biologic, acoustic, radiologic, chemical, toxicological, and psychological factors.

FailedMusician (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree with inclusion - first, not a peer-reviewed review article, its a report from a NASEM standing committee. Second, it does not actually review patient-level cases, and such review has showed that the incidents are not related to directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How come you falsely claim "such review has showed that the incidents are not related to directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy"? A second panel of experts has found exactly that. From the NAS study: "The clinical investigators presented data to the committee as aggregated summaries of patients’ histories, physical examination findings, and results of laboratory testing and neuroimaging." So your claim that they didn't review patient level cases is entirely inaccurate. You make a lot of false claims about this topic... Coreyman317 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A note that this is not one of the two reviews that were being discussed in my comment but rather a third one I have not actually assessed from a basis of MEDRS compliance at this time. As such keep that in mind when looking at the diff above that is cited to one of my comments. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a 'Consensus Study Report' from the National Academy of Sciences. It isn't a review article - pubmed has miscategorized it. I would say even calling it an 'article' is a bit misleading. It's a report that was authored by a committee. The proposed text incorrectly suggests that Pavlin and Relman were the authors - they were in fact the editors. This clearly cannot be included as suggested. - MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah this request fails the "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." there was no discussion surrounding this inclusion, additionally the NASEM report is the basis of the WP:FRINGE claims from the Asadi-Pooya review article, so I view it with quite a bit of skepticism, especially given the more recent review articles and analysis of Havana Syndrome. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What you call "WP:FRINGE claims" are the conclusions of a high level WP:MEDRS source that performed a review of the literature as discussed and already agreeed on in the discussions above Talk:Havana syndrome. Getting to WP:IDHT at this point. We can't keep going in circles like this.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I have clearly stated that I believe that more recent MEDRS sources supplant the NASEM and Asadi-Pooya article in terms of weight and dueness. We will likely not come to agreement on this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What more recent "MEDRS" sources? You folks keep citing Robert Bartholomew every time and pretend it's an additional source. He's not going to write anything different in his monthly propaganda campaigns about it, because he has a 2020 book to sell that has been superseded by the NAS study and the IC Experts Panel study. It's wild you're just like "well my opinion is that the NAS study has somehow been negated!" Lol that's not how science works. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You view a NAS study by a panel of experts as controversial, and appear to categorize it under some weird Wikipedia "Fringe" category? I have never seen this level of bias on Wikipedia before. The "more recent review articles and analyses" of Havana Syndrome have concluded the same as the NAS study. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie Could you clarify? The article is clearly marked as a review and describes in detail who peer reviewed it and the review process of the draft and final result (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566412/ for the list of committee members and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566406/ for the review process and who performed it). I don't see any evidence of "a miscategorization" and this seems to me to be published as a "peer-reviewed review article" and of high quality. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Review the publisher's site rather than pubmed: . It's not a review article in some other journal, it is an independently published report. The proposed text is incorrect about the authorship and publishing model. Even aside from that, it cherry picks from the report in a misleading way. To quote NASEM's summary of the document: Multiple hypotheses and mechanisms have been proposed to explain these clinical cases, but evidence has been lacking, no hypothesis has been proven, and the circumstances remain unclear. MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you download the full report from the link you provided it states clearly (emphasis mine): Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.. So this checks all boxes required for a WP:MEDRS source of the highest level. What you report as NASEM's summary is an exact summary of the current knowledge we have on the subject. That is exactly what our article should say. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't even mentioned MEDRS or whether it meets that standard or not. The proposed text is simply incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its clear there is no consensus for this, so start a discussion, not an edit request. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As others have said this request is out-of-process and so cannot be actioned, but in any case 33411434 is out-of-date, being a review from 2020 when we have recent (2023) ones which supersede it. Use the WP:BESTSOURCES to achieve NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How has it been "superseded"? FailedMusician (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Dueling RFCs
We have now two RFCs open. One is malformed. The other is much better formed but, imo, premature as workshopping was still underway for appropriate text. Can we at least close the malformed and non-neutral RFC? Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have only one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think both RFCs are necessary and should be closed according to procedure. The first RFC is important to settle the application of MEDRS to this topic, though it could have done a better job at defining what is and is not BPI, where the debate seems to have moved to. No RFC is ideal as editors should attempt to reach consensus through open collaboration, but unfortunately there was firm opposition to including content about the allegations, so we are forced to draw straws. FailedMusician (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first RFC is highly non-neutral, entirely too vague, and extends beyond the scope of what an RFC can accomplish through its attempt to redefine WP:MEDRS - it's clearly malformed and is of no value for improving this page. The second RFC was merely premature. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's nothing a skilled and experienced closer can't see to. FailedMusician (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I'm rather confident that a skilled and experienced closer will immediately see that the first RFC is malformed and of no value it should be closed ASAP to reduce the level of noise on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree all a closer can do in the first RfC is to probably simply close it as malformed. But maybe they may save some sort of consensus out of that long discussion. Might as well let it finish its course at this point. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that RfC is such a big problem that's being made out here. If you look at the !votes and what people are saying, that's the important thing. To throw all those opinions away on some minor technical point of formatting or subjective opinions about neutrality, I don't see that happening. --  Green  C  15:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Article for summary inclusion?
Should this article be summarized or used as a source? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soviet-era-pseudoscience-lurks-behind-havana-syndrome-worries/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3NRgSQaV1lvUNAlu5bJJv1o4rn60ro_BYNTe_2WXtlrfajEAolbsIHwZ0_aem_AZyHR4YjSK2xecaNd4OZpOYNHRLvQ2FcUXKDYesIqRf9SJJbFXLhHL7tLe5V-Okskf6dbhwsQAJFGZNeX74Nwfdh IntegrityForever (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If there's something specific from this article that you believe is due, I'd be open to supporting that, but after briefly reading through the article it seems to be 80-90% about the DOD's history with pseudoscientific weaponry, rather than anything related to the Havana Syndrome. The article briefly states that the 60 minutes report is "is fraught with illogical leaps and convenient omissions", but doesn't go into detail, linking to articles on reason.com and skeptic.com. If anything we should go directly to the original articles, but those platforms are known to be partisan and probably aren't acceptable sources in this context.
 * The main point of the article seems to be that the noise around the Havana Syndrome reminds the author of the DODs checkered history with parapsychology. I'm not sure that this point is due. It might be if this association was made by multiple sources, or by a historian (rather than a journalist in an opinion piece). If I'd include anything from the article it'd probably be the mention of neuroscientist James Giordano or the NAS report, but these are mentioned only in passing and there's better sources to use for that. ChaseK (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It's an opinion piece. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are okay (See WP:RSOPINION). Here is another opinion piece . I just don't think this Scientific American article is the best contrarian opinion piece. There is probably a better one that makes better points. FailedMusician (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is it you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding Slatersteven, whether there's something relevant to include will depend on whether it's something speaking to medical causes (in which case no, not MEDRS) or whether its speaking to the political / social / moral panic angle.. (In which case maybe.) Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just came across an interesting video on X.com of a May 8 2024 Homeland Security Committee meeting on "Silent Weapons : Targeting Americans in the Homeland 'Havana Syndrome' (AHIs)". There is an assessment that Havana Syndrome is caused by covert weapons controlled by the US Government and operated by the CIA. Discussion to answering direct questions about how and why they would be used were deflected to be answered in a classified environment away from public disclosure. I would like to include this reference in the wiki. Does anyone want to comment?
 * https://twitter.com/hal_9_thousand_/status/1788827255470187006 2604:B000:B217:DFC3:C47:29A9:1C2C:EA04 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oddly I have long wondered about that, but this is not a reliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That video is highly edited from the original footage in a very misleading way. In the hearing they were saying that the attacks were -on- the CIA, not 'operated by' the CIA.MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Before you even get to that point, Twitter is not a reliable source. 77.137.20.10 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keith Kloor is specifically not a credible source. He use to work with industry to downplay the danger of pesticides without revealing he was doing this. Kloor was arguing to keep pesticides unregulated since their danger was a "conspiracy theory."
 * Most of the claims in that article are not factually correct either. Dan Vergano is a previous Buzzfeed reporter that has a personal stake in covering Havana Syndrome incorrectly (since most of the claims he's made over 7 years turn on very specific findings -- his credibility is on the line) and is now a Scientific American editor. Dan is the one that got Keith Kloor's article in Scientific American.
 * You can find most of Dan's responses on this Reddit AMA (isn't it notable he wanted to do a Reddit AMA about Havana Syndrome when he's such a skeptic?) to be factually incorrect. Notably to discredit the 2018 JAMA studies finding brain abnormalities more acutely after the attacks, he says they set the bar for brain abnormality so low that "40%" of the population would qualify as having brain abnormalities. This is entirely unsupported and made up.
 * Keith Kloor makes many of the same unsupported claims on his Twitter. Coreyman317 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Differential Diagnosis" Main Section Entirely Unsupported
Delete "Mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" from the infobox section next to "Differential Diagnosis" as this is wildly unsupported and contradicted by the 2020 NAS study and more strongly by the 2022 IC Experts Panel report. The IC Experts Panel report even includes a graphic (page 35) of the requirements for something to meet MPI and not a single requirement was fully fufilled, among 8 different requirements.

Incredibly, in the main Havana Syndrome infobox under "Differential Diagnosis" this article brazenly claims "Mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" and once again (like almost every discussion about Havana Syndrome being mass psychogenic) links back to Robert Bartholomew and a paywalled article that itself cites Robert Bartholomew. This is terrible sourcing. Bartholomew is not a credible source given his financial motivation to make the mass psychogenic claim (because that is the main conclusion of his story book). Just to note btw, this Wikipedia page relentlessly links to Bartholomew's opinion book but never links to James Lin's actual *textbook* "Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation" which derives and explains the physical mechanism behind the microwave-auditory effect.

There have been 3 panels that have studied Havana Syndrome systematically: the National Academies of Science, the JASON group, and an "IC Experts" Panel. The NAS study and the IC Experts panel have both ruled out mass psychogenic illness as a cause and pointed to pulsed microwaves as the most likely culprit.

JASON has said such pulsed microwaves are unlikely, but it is interesting to note that the IC Experts Panel dedicates a (mostly redacted, why's that?) section in their declassified report (the declassified report which is only linked to on the Wiki page under the "Reaction to March 2023 U.S. intelligence agencies' report" section getting Mark Zaid's reaction, completely ignoring that the Salon article FOIA'd the report and got insanely important information) titled "Main Disagreement Concerns Electromagnetic Signals as a Possible Mechanism".

So where is the actual evidence we're relying on to make the claim of mass psychogenic, psychosomatic illness? Two out of three expert panels have dismissed this out of hand, yet we're still citing a single source in Robert Bartholomew and his mere explanation of events given in a book he's financially invested in selling, that was published before any of those three expert panels made their findings public. Coreyman317 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The psychogenic illness possibility is supported by the most recent & highest quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which most recent and "highest" quality sources is it supported by? There are no sources asserting this other than Robert Bartholomew. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if we completely ignore NASEM, JASON and "IC Experts", the currently cited sources in the infobox section contradict "mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" being "what other disease or conditions should be evaluated before concluding patient has the illness", i.e. the Havana syndrome (the description of the differential diagnosis parameter in the infobox from its docs). The cited Bartholomew & Baloh directly says that mass psychogenic illness was the cause of “Havana Syndrome.” and the cited Bloomberg op-ed (a high quality WP:MEDRS, most certainly) calls the HS itself a psychogenic illness.
 * This is a plain misuse of an infobox parameter. Either some applicable source should be found which directly states that Havana syndrome is not a "mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" but a separate condition, or we just simply blank this parameter because it currently only brings misinformation. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a good argument about the infobox parameter being filled out incorrectly. But I would add that rather than cutting just the parameter and ending up with a box with a single parameter being used, we should stop using the infobox entirely. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we do not know ow what it was, and so we can't say with certainty. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox doesn't make sense until the nature of the condition becomes clearer. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the infobox can still be useful: we can use the "synonyms" (for all those UHI/AHI official names) and "symptoms" (taken from Asadi-Pooya, 2023 and possibly Connolly, Hawkshaw, Sataloff, 2024) parameters. The "causes" parameter listing "Undefined" is also okay as a quick way for a reader to determine a lack of consensus in the scientific/medical/political community. TinyClayMan (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024
Change Differential Diagnosis in the info box at the top of the page from "Mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" to "Undetermined" if this suits this community better, but in actuality the 2022 IC Experts Panel found that (page vi) "...clinical samples for the small number of affected individuals who were tested within an appropriate time period have shown early, transient elevations in biomarkers suggestive of cellular injury to the nervous system."

On page 2, "The finding that the elevation in these well-characterized biomarkers is 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...The time-course of elevation in some AHI patients, in which levels return to normal within a few weeks, matches the time-course after mild traumatic brain injury and concussion."

On page B-3, "The rise and fall of the biomarkers after an AHI event are strongly suggestive of neural cell injury but do not provide clues as to mechanism of that injury."

Meanwhile we are citing a mere story book from Robert Bartholomew as evidence for the conclusion that the "Differential Diagnosis" is mass psychogenic illness or psychosomatic and a paywalled Bloomberg article... Coreyman317 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then let's have a debate about the citations presented and form a consensus. Is that not the point of this page? I'm new here. What specifically about the citation I provided, which is one of the big three systematic investigations of Havana Syndrome, is not supportive of the suggested edit? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to gather consensus before making an edit request, not after. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay fair, I didn't know that. So can these edits conceivably be reopened if we have a proper debate about their accuracy here in the comments? Because I'm quite sure these edits would prevail factually speaking.
 * For example, it is important that the 2 out of the only 3 panel studies of this syndrome have found mass psychogenic illness to be implausible. Yet on the info box for the syndrome we're relying solely on Robert Bartholomew and his yearly recycled articles as sourcing that it is in fact MPI. This is poor sourcing compared to 2/3 panel studies agreeing, and essentially all three.
 * Where is the mistake in the above reasoning? Coreyman317 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The most recent quality review is 38146090; you seem to want to emphasize outdated research. That you seem to have a grudge against the author is irrelevant/problematic. Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that is a quality review. Quoting from it now: "The current review, in spite of all the skepticism in the literature, suggests that HS is a nonspecific neurological illness with an unidentified causative factor(s)...While the cause of this illness is not clear yet, a combination of factors (e.g., pulsed RF energy source, neurotoxins, psy- chological issues, etc.) may interact to affect an individual."
 * The author of this review is not Robert Bartholomew. And I don't have a grudge against him, but he has a financial interest in propagating his theory now, which should caution against repeatedly sourcing to him alone. What is outdated about a September 2022 study from the IC Experts Panel? This review you just cited to me is from August 2022, older than the IC Experts Panel report... Coreyman317 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong PMID (I fixed it shortly after posting). The latest review is the Bartholemew and Baloh one. However even the earlier review lists "psychogenic" as a possible cause, so removing it would look distinctly POV. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay so now the very natural question is why are you interested in citing *that* particular review instead of the one you linked to me by Asadi-Pooya? Bartholomew and Baloh have been saying the same thing in articles yearly since 2019, the year before they co-wrote a book on the matter that both have a financial interest in popularizing. The point here is that Bartholomew is not good to *repeat* as a source.
 * Why is Bartholomew's (someone with a financial interest in propagating their theory) review article weigh more in your eyes than two separate experts panel studies that systematically studied the data? Bartholomew has not studied the patients or the data. The IC Experts Panel explicitly ruled out Bartholomew's views in Sept 2022, with the study being released in March 2023.

You added something about an earlier review listing psychogenic causes as a possibility. Are you referring to the Asadi-Pooya review? If so, would you mind quoting from it? Why are you unwilling to discuss 2/3 expert panels ruling out MPI? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As our article correctly summarizes: Why are old/weak sources of interest when we have recent peer-reviewed science? Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That someone has been published on a topic is a good thing reliability wise, not a 'financial interest' to be concerned about - at least as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But you know that I'm not referring to his published research but his story book in Springer. Has Bartholomew analyzed patient data and the events themselves beyond public press and reporting? Three expert panels have, with two of them entirely ruling out mass psychogenic illness. I'm unsure why folks believe Bartholomew's analysis from afar, that he in fact has a financial interest in popularizing because of his Springer book, outweighs 2 expert panels with a dozen or more members that have studied the individual cases with patient data and incident reports. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think that people publishing through academic publishers have a 'financial interest' you should look up how much these books typically return in royalty payments. People don't write them for the money. MrOllie (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean the royalty rate varies substantially. No one said anything about Bartholomew getting rich, but it is indisputable that Bartholomew has a financial interest in propagating his MPI theory since he has a book to sell pushing the same theory, no?
 * That means we should take caution in relying on him almost entirely, as is done on this Wiki page, and probably shouldn't merely discard systematic studies that contradict his opinion from afar. Right? I haven't heard a good answer yet on why the IC Experts Panel, whose report was released in March 2023 and written in September the previous year, completely dismissing the MPI theory holds no weight. Bartholomew is not publishing peer reviewed research but review articles, which just means narrative opinion. He hasn't studied the cases and everyone that has disagrees with him. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is disputable. You can tell because I just disputed it in my comment above. The idea that Wikipedia would value a source less because it has been published runs directly opposite to just about every sourcing policy and guideline that Wikipedia has. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How can you dispute it though? It's a simple if then formula. If you write a book, then you stand to financially benefit from its sales barring some special charity arrangement which we have no evidence exists.
 * So how does Bartholomew not financially benefit from propagating the MPI theory when he has a book to sell claiming the same...again I note, from afar without actual study of the cases or patient data? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That an author has been published is not a point to hold against them. You're not going to get anywhere here by heaping attacks on Bartholomew. I'm not going to contribute to filling this talk pages with irrelevancies any further - feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You continue to mischaracterize my comments for very obvious reasons. Who said being published is a reason to hold anything against an author? No one is attacking Bartholomew but it is a fact that he has a financial interest in popularizing his MPI theory, and that his review articles written in a psychology journal (which has a further interest in popularizing MPI) get written every year and repeat themselves, while not usually analyzing any new literature since none is produced regularly on this topic. These facts are not considered. Nothing I've said is irrelevant but goes to the heart of this Wikipedia page that relies solely on Bartholomew to make its MPI claim while discarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bartholomew has never conducted a single study of the patients or cases, while the sources that contradict him have. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia likes to cite recent review articles in the highest-quality journals. If you have a problem with what such publications are saying, you need to take it up with them. Bon courage (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, so why does Bartholomew's review weigh more heavily than Asadi-Pooya's? Are you saying that as long as Bartholomew writes a "literature review," which means not a new study, every year that you'll happily cite it as an additional source? I think that's interesting when we know said author is not producing original research on the matter but just giving his opinion, and that he has a financial interest in propagating that opinion. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are both due mention, as is currently done. I get the feeling you are making repetitive arguments without being familiar with this article's content and the consensus behind it. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, looks like you're trying to implicate in a rule break to get me banned...
 * I'm not making repetitive arguments, please cite previous arguments the same as mine to evidence that claim.
 * Again, the question I'm asking you is why are we repeatedly citing the same author's opinion which isn't a new study? You called reviews "science" a bit a go...
 * Asadi-Pooya has never written a literature review on the matter. Bartholomew writes one every year for precisely the purpose you're citing him now. It is not good practice to cite the same author merely repeating themselves that has a financial interest in repeating themselves. Can you argue why it is? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd point you to the WP:PAGs. Wikipedia reflects high-quality sources. That you have some weird ideas why a high-quality source somehow isn't (seemingly in service to a POV), is irrevelant, as others have told you. Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd point you to the Reliable sources page. Wikipedia indeed tries to reflect high quality sources. But remember, "high quality" is the important sticker here. You cannot claim a source that merely repeats itself yearly, has a financial interest in popularizing their theory, and that appears on cable television to discuss the syndrome in political terms is high quality or credible.
 * That you have some weird ideas about why a low quality repetitive source is high quality is irrelevant. The next question to be asked is why rely on Bartholomew alone to *conclude* a diagnosis of MPI when 2/3 expert panels studying this issue have found it's implausible? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a review article in an Index Medicus journal, about as good a WP:MEDRS as you can find. That you have some personal views about how published knowledge is repetitive, or some odd notions of mysterious financial interests that you think aren't handled by the publication process, is just irrelevant. It just looks like WP:PROFRINGE special pleading to knock sources you don't like. Wikipedia has written standards; follow them. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are trying this high and mighty route but it simply won't work. Bartholomew is writing the same review articles yearly in the same psychology journal over and over again, and not producing original science or research. He also appears on TV to discuss this syndrome in political terms, which further weighs against his credibility. You folks are happily citing him yearly as if these repeated reviews hold weight.
 * Mysterious financial interests? Writing a book and wanting to sell it is not mysterious. It sounds like you're trying to hard to somehow label this discuss as fringe.
 * Wikipedia indeed does have written standards, but you're not following them in citing a person who goes on TV to make political comments about the syndrome, and whose repeated review articles repeat themselves and don't actually analyze new literature as none exists! Coreyman317 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "The author has been on TV" as a strike against a source's quality anywhere in the WP:PAGs. Perhaps experts are sought for their opinions? Just a thought. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about authors being on TV? No one said that. Why are you constantly playing word games?
 * Are you arguing a person who you're solely relying on for a Different Diagnosis of Havana Syndrome going on TV and making politically charged comments about the syndrome doesn't affect said person's credibility? Coreyman317 (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you quote from the Asadi-Pooya article directly where it says "with other potential causes including functional disorders, psychogenic disease"?
 * Interesting that you characterize Pooya's review as "old/weak" but characterize a review article by Bartholomew as "peer reviewed science" which it certainly is not. Seems like double standard designed to favor Bartholomew. Literature reviews are not science, they are not testing a hypothesis. They are not gathering new data. Right? Coreyman317 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can, but instead I'm going to ask you to actually read the article instead (maybe use word search to help?). I have never characterized that review as "old/weak". Literature reviews are the bedrock of biomedical content on Wikipedia; research is generally unreliable for encyclopedia content. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You said "Why are old/weak sources of interest when we have recent peer-reviewed science?" Why do you mischaracterize Bartholomew's reviews as "science"? There is no hypothesis testing/new data gathering being done.
 * I read the article I cited it to you earlier when quoting it. You say it claims "other potential causes including functional disorders, psychogenic disease" seems the burden is on you to show that claim. I've read the article and it doesn't say that. I can't prove a negative but you can prove that it does exist in that article if it does. You say "Literature reviews are the bedrock of biomedical content on Wikipedia; research is generally unreliable for encyclopedia content" but you're not addressing anything about the particular source in Bartholomew. If someone writes a literature review every year repeating the same thing (since no new literature is written about this topic every year), it's totally fine to cite each literature review and pretend it's an additional source or checkmark in the MPI column if it concludes that? Seems insane. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is not what somebody "writes", but what high quality sources publish . An encyclopedia is just a reflection of such sources, nothing more. Asadi-Pooya is a review article too, and it has a table (Table 4) of possible causes of Havana syndrome. Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes in Table 4, which is merely summarizing the literature they found as you can see in the far right column, they say in the notes section "A secondary reinforcing mechanism" and "Unlikely by some [22] and likely by others [3]" and the likely by others reference goes to Bartholomew again...
 * We're self referencing back to Bartholomew over and over again despite many many other sources contradicting his opinion.
 * You are considering literature reviews published in psychology journals alone as "published" studies? Again, Bartholomew has never studied the patients, their data, or the individual events yet we are essentially equating his yearly, repeated "literature" reviews to full on published science that weighs heavily enough to *conclude* a diagnosis of MPI. If anything, using one source to conclude this is improper when other literature reviews alone, not to mention expert panel studies which you wont even respond to, contradict Bartholomew. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not "conclude" anything on this matter, it summarizes the different sources. Have you actually read our article? That a source is secondary and independent enhances its value to us. And yes, material apearing in journals is WP:PUBLISHED. Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The info box for Havana syndrome concludes a differential diagnosis of "mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" and once again circularly cites Bartholomew and a paywalled article citing Bartholomew. Why are we relying on Bartholomew alone to make this conclusion about the diagnosis? As I suggested we could at least change it to "unknown at this time" or something.
 * So if "materials" appearing in weak journals are published, why aren't you citing Asadi-Pooya's review to conclude a differential diagnosis that's different than MPI? Why are we relying solely on Bartholomew? Coreyman317 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to remove the infobox entirely, as it's necessarily reductive. But it's fair enough to state this as a differential diagnosis if it stays, since it is well-sourced. Bon courage (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's not well sourced as we've established lol. It's a single source in Robert Bartholomew, who is non-credible as he goes on TV to politically discuss this syndrome which you won't address, writes yearly repeated "literature" reviews that don't review new literature, and has a financial interest in popularizing MPI as a cause.
 * This is contradicted by Asadi-Pooya's literature review which you originally cited to me and then immediately edited and inexplicably changed to Bartholomew's review. Why is Bartholomew > Pooya? Coreyman317 (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's not well sourced as we've established lol &larr; you seem to think your arguments have held sway. This is beginning to look like trolling. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know they have in fact, because you keep mischaracterizing me and then not really answering for why certain things are done -- like why you are relying on Bartholomew's "literature" review alone to make an actual Differential Diagnosis of Havana Syndrome when other literate reviews like Asadi-Pooya's contradicts Bartholomew. You fail to explain why Bartholomew's review > Asadi-Pooya's review, and why we're relying solely on Bartholomew.
 * Anything that contradicts a high and mighty admin isn't trolling, in fact. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you see no problem with the fact that you mis-cited the Asadi-Pooya review earlier, erroneously claiming it said "with other potential causes including functional disorders, psychogenic disease,..." and relying on a false summary of said review on this very Wiki page to support your assertion!
 * The Asadi-Pooya review states directed, pulsed RF energy is the "most plausible mechanism" (see the Notes section of Table 4 that you yourself cited) and further note that "with other potential *causes* including functional disorders, psychogenic disease" appears no where in any form in that review article. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The summary is pretty good. The table does indeed list these potential causes so the mis-citing is (another) of your imaginary problems, Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean you're just wrong on the facts here. I don't have imaginary problems, unfortunately. Those are much easier to solve than the very real ones plaguing this page because of bias. Table 4 of Asadi-Pooya, since this is a literature review, is summarizing the potential causes *found in the literature* and adds their (Asadi-Pooya's) thoughts on each potential cause in the Notes column. They say directed pulsed RF energy is the most plausible mechanism. That's as far as they go. They make no similar comment next to psychogenic causes. In the conclusion they say "Havana syndrome is a nonspecific neurological illness with a yet unidentified etiology, a clear acute phase of auditory-vestibular symptoms, and a chronic phase of neurobehavioral symptoms."
 * The summary is factually inaccurate when it claims the literature review concluded "other potential causes includ[e] functional disorders, psychogenic disease, ..." It does not. Which page does it conclude this on? Table 4 is merely listing the potential causes found in the literature.
 * It simply does not say that either in the conclusion or Table 4. Table 4 is merely a listing of the causes found in the literature, which links SOLELY to Bartholomew and Baloh for psychogenic. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The actual conclusion is that the cause is "unidentified". In the course of the article various possibilities found in the literature are entertained. The piece is not proposing anything novel itself. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what the conclusion is. So why did you and this Wiki article falsely claim it said "other potential *causes* includ[e] functional disorders, psychogenic disease, ..." (emphasis mine)? That's not the conclusion.
 * Table 4 is a summary of what the author found in the literature. The author makes their personal finding/judgment known in the "Notes" column of that table.
 * Can you tell what the Notes section says next to directed, pulsed RF energy and then tell me what is said (and the person they cite) in the Notes section next to functional disorder/psychogenic?
 * No one said the "piece" is proposing anything novel. It's just not saying what you and the Wiki summary of it say it says (shocker). Coreyman317 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose because it's a potential cause listed in one quality review article, and strongly asserted in another quality review article. Which seems fair enough. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha I love your trolling by inserting the intentionally false "quality" adjective to describe this circular citation game you're playing for Bartholomew, which Wikipedia cautions against in WP:CIRCULAR.
 * So you're not going to answer why you're falsely characterizing the Asadi-Pooya review article as having listed functional disorder/psychogenic as a "potential cause" when it didn't? It summarized the literature in Table 4, and then noted Functional disorder was "A secondary reinforcing mechanism" and that Psychogenic is considered likely by Bartholomew!
 * Bartholomew, Bartholomew, Bartholomew. All you guys can do is self referentially cite him over and over. You even try that here: "listed in one quality review article, and strongly asserted in another quality review article" these words reference the same person whose said the same thing since 2019 and isn't reviewing new literature as none exists. He's giving his opinion from afar. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (I'll respond here to some of the general points from all of discussions under Coreyman317's sections at once, because they partially repeat themselves, and this section has so far received more replies)
 * About WP guidelines:
 * WP:EDITREQ describes the steps necessary for making an edit request. Before a request itself (with a template) is made, the proposed changes should first be discussed (in case other editors think that some parts are better worded differently, for example). For reference from this talk page, it was done in the "" section.
 * With parts of the article describing symptoms and biological mechanisms, WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS apply to those parts. The relevant tl;dr of those guidelines is that review research papers, monographs and statements from [quasi-]governmental authorities are favoured over primary research papers (WP:MEDSCI).
 * WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply here at all, because it describes the handling of sources relying on material from Wikipedia, not authors of sources referencing themselves.
 * As for Bartholomew and Baloh:
 * From what I see on this talk page, an article is considered a "review" if it is marked as such by a journal in which it was published, or if it calls itself a review (Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 seems to fall into the latter, as it is marked as a "Brief report", which is placed by the journal in the same category as editorials, and not review articles). There was WP:MEDASSESSment of sources in "" section with the consensus [seemingly] being reached on the paper's inclusion but not on the paper's WP:WEIGHT. The word "quality", frequently appearing on this talk page before the word "article", refers to that assessment.
 * Bartholomew didn't start writing papers on this subject with the same points over and over again in 2019 – there are even earlier papers from 2017 (this is the earliest I found), so I disagree with the idea that this researcher's views on the matter are being driven by "writing a book and wanting to sell it" (I don't think that the publication of the book and requests for comments from media either brought bias to Bartholomew's views or reduced quality of his publications at all). Personally, I think it is a case of professional stubbornness/strong opinion (like Noam Chomsky's Cambodian genocide denial the last ~50 years). That is not a cause for ignoring the paper altogether, but it should definitely affect how much WP:WEIGHT is given to it (per WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE). IMHO, it is better to discuss it in "".
 * As for the infobox parameters:
 * What is currently listed in "differential" is actually part of potential causes, not "what other disease or conditions should be evaluated before concluding patient has the illness" (from the infobox docs). "Mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" currently placed in the infobox parameter are considered to be the explanation of the syndrome (i.e., the Havana syndrone being the MPI itself) by Bartholomeh & Baloh and to be a potential part of multiple causal factors by NASEM. The sources cited in "Differential Diagnosis" do not support the notion that they are diseases or conditions separate from the Havana syndrome (neither the Bloomberg op-ed, which for some reason is cited in regards to WP:BMI, nor the work by Bartholomeh & Baloh), so this parameter should be left blank.
 * TinyClayMan (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (2)
Under the "2018 JASON report" section, change "In 2018, JASON, a group of physicists and scientists who advise the U.S. government, analyzed audio recordings from eight of the original 21 incidents of Havana syndrome and two cellphone videos taken by one patient from Cuba." to "In 2018, JASON, a group of physicists and scientists who advise the U.S. government, analyzed only one event in May 2018 where a recorded sound occurred simultaneously with reported onset of symptoms. Seven other recordings were analyzed but not associated with a Havana Syndrome incident."

Note here because of this qualification on page 6 of the report, it is incorrect to describe there having been "audio recordings from eight of the original 21 incidents in Havana..." Quoting from the report now: "Other instances of the sound were recorded at a different time and/or place, from the reported incident." So in fact only one single recording is associated with ANY Havana Syndrome event. These other recordings were proffered by victims as representing something similar to what they heard, not recordings of the specific event. This is a massive misunderstanding by the public and others that Wikipedia can play a role in alleviating here.

Under the "2018 JASON report" section, change "It concluded that the sounds in the eight recordings were "most likely" caused by insects and that it was "highly unlikely" that microwaves or ultrasound beams were involved, because "No plausible single source of energy (neither radio/microwaves nor sonic) can produce both the recorded audio/video signals and the reported medical effects." to "It concluded that the sound in the recording, as with the other seven, was "most likely" caused by insects and that it was "highly unlikely" that microwaves or ultrasound beams produced the sound, because "No plausible single source of energy (neither radio/microwaves nor sonic) can produce both the recorded audio/video signals and the reported medical effects."

Under the "2018 JASON report" section, change "While biomedical engineer Kenneth Foster (an opponent of the microwave theory)..." to "While biomedical engineer Kenneth Foster (once an opponent of the microwave theory but now a proponent)..."

Source:

"University of Pennsylvania bioengineer Ken Foster wasn’t as skeptical.

'I had been a skeptic, but after my recent study, I am convinced that it is possible to cause a frightening but harmless experience to someone using pulsed microwaves,' he said in an email. 'The challenge is to make such attacks ‘stealthy’ (not observed), but I think that is possible also. I do not know whether such weapons exist, and the government is not telling us. But if some actor wanted to frighten the entire State Department and CIA by hitting a few individuals, they succeeded admirably.'" Coreyman317 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for *what*? Everything I wrote in my edit is supported by the citations that are already supporting the same sections in the actual Havana Syndrome page. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a misunderstanding of the role consensus plays on Wikipedia. I would suggest you look at the policy.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I read it, it appears that page says we should have a debate about the citations here in the Talk section. That's what I'm trying to do. Please explain otherwise how this works I'm new here. There are errors in this Wiki article that need to be fixed. It is simply a binary matter whether, for example, it is correct to refer to a Kenneth Foster as an "opponent of the microwave theory". The citations I provided prove that is incorrect and that he is no longer an opponent. This seems cut and dried to me. And I thought if it wasnt cut and dried, folks would debate the citation with me. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to persuade enough editors to your way of thinking. It is not a "debate me bro" situation.  Moreover, I would suggest starting a new section with the change you think best supported.  Lay out your reasoning, and see if people agree.  Changing the status of edit requests is not the way to do this.  Edit requests play a specific function, and that is not being a forum for debate.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean to be frank "debate me bro" is really just a crude, wink at right wingers way of saying what in fact does happen here, no? We are debating the whether the sourcing and citations match the reasoning written in the proposed new section of the Wiki page. What new section should I start? I would write the same things I wrote in these proposed edits. Can I just change these proposed edits to discussions somehow?
 * For example on the Differential Diagnosis one I wrote earlier it wasn't an edit request and yet there is no debate just declarations occurring in the comments. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (3)
Under the "2019" section, change "In January 2019, biologists Alexander L. Stubbs of the University of California, Berkeley and Fernando Montealegre-Z of the University of Lincoln analyzed audio recordings made in Cuba, which were made by U.S. personnel in Havana during incidents associated with Havana syndrome." to "In January 2019, biologists Alexander L. Stubbs of the University of California, Berkeley and Fernando Montealegre-Z of the University of Lincoln analyzed audio recordings made by US personnel in Cuba and obtained by the Associated Press of a "sound linked to the attacks" in Havana."

The important point here, as emphasized by the JASON report, is that these are claimed to be recordings of sounds heard *during* specific Havana Syndrome incidents. The study is careful not to make that claim as linked to above.

Under the "2019" section, change "The two-year investigation of the medical records of 95 U.S. diplomats and family members in Havana who reported symptoms resulted in a final report, marked for official use only, dated December 2019." to "The two-year investigation, dated December 2019 in its report, of the medical records of 95 U.S. diplomats and family members in Havana who reported symptoms concluded the investigation has "not identified a mechanism of injury, process of exposure, effective treatment, or mitigating factor for the unexplained cluster of symptoms experienced by those stationed in Havana, Cuba."

Finally, under the "2019" section, I propose insisting on a source for the claim that "affected staff would have been under significant stress as the U.S. had just reopened its embassy in Cuba." Coreyman317 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then let's form a consensus through debate on this page about the citation. It should be added that these sounds are not claimed to be recorded *during* incidents or even linked to them, but that the sounds are claimed to be similar to the ones heard. I think it's also important to comment on the provenance of these recordings being from a media outlet. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (4)
Under the NASEM report section, delete "(such as medical testing data about affected persons)" since that is incorrect.

Quoting now from page 10 of the NASEM report: "The clinical investigators presented data to the committee as aggregated summaries of patients' histories, physical examination findings, and results of laboratory testing and neuroimaging." So the claim in parenthesis really is just fictional.

Since Robert Bartholomew's book is eagerly linked to under the "2020" year as worthy of citation or development, James Lin's textbook "Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation," not storybook, should be inserted somewhere under the "2021" section. It could be mentioned similarly that Lin derives the physical mechanism (thermoelastic expansion) behind pulsed microwaves causing one to hear a sound and experience brain damage. He endorses the microwave theory in the context of Havana Syndrome in multiple places throughout the book. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus about what? My citation from the NAS report proves that the claim that it didn't include "medical testing data about affected persons" is incorrect. We should be asking why Robert Bartholomew's story book buttressing MPI is worthy of mention but not textbooks buttressing the microwave theory. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)