Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 12 November 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Havana syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cuba Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: edit history watch purge Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Canadian / Chinese / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: August 22 to 28, 2021

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Palmer, Rob (2019-02-05). "Were the 'Sonic Attacks' on American Diplomats Just Sci-Fi?". Skeptical Inquirer.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Actual Cause Conspiracy nonsense

It's called Copper Cysteamine ("CuCy" pronounced) (US Patent 9 593 131 B2) invented in the University of Texas at Arlington's Center for Security Advances Via Applied Nanotechnology (SAVANT Center). In solution, it's a photosensitizer that is responsive to microwave radiation, X-Ray radiation and ultrasound. When actuated by these forms of energy, CuCy undergoes an oxidation reaction that releases the Cu+1 supercation that in reacts with water to make singlet oxygen and other reactive oxygen species. If you conjugate it with the antibody Ri7, you can use it to destroy subcortical endothelial cells immunochemically. The reaction and rereaction of Copper and Cysteamine is used to perform necrotic loops which over time eat away at the endothelium of blood vessels in the brain. On paper, CuCy is supposed to be used medically to treat deep tumours in the CNS like glioblastomas but that's a lie. It's far too dangerous for medical use and nobody is seriously trying to commercialize it as a regulated cancer therapy.

Research in applying CuCy was funded by U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, the National Science Foundation and DHS's joint Academic Research Initiative program, the National Basic Research Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the five-year plan of the Chinese Military.

Cytotoxic nanotoxins are really nasty because even after treatment to remove them, the damage to the blood-brain barrier is permanent. Normal conditions like elevated bilirubin levels or moderately high blood pressure become encephalopathic. Mike Beck, the NSA employee poisoned in China, and claims to have developed Parkinson's disease in his 40s, has vascular dementia that could have contributed to his Parkinson's (assuming the dementia is properly caused by Parkinsonism).

This is an extraordinarily well kept secret because all the great powers and secondary powers know about nanowarfare. That includes traditional enemies like Iran. The human rights lawyer Mark Zaid wasn't lying when he said that this warfare goes on in secret all the time. I'm just shocked nobody has ever broken the silence to the general public.

The BS in the establishment press is literal FUD put out by the deep state. It's hilarious to see self-righteous, useful idiot journalists performing the role of modern day obscurantists and to be praised by the unthinking masses for it too. I'm not sure who benefits to keeping this a secret now that even a non-power like Cuba has reverse engineered a tool of silent, deniable, neurological assassination.

Any philosopher of information will tell you that security through obscurity is not security. I guess that doesn't apply to national security. -- 77.100.55.21 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RS for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Update. This is still the most correct theory. -- 77.100.55.21 (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This isn't the correct forum to introduce the world to a new reality. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is one of these well-known secrets that loads of people know but only brave keyboard warriors will expose. Thanks for the laugh Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HVAC Induced Infrasound Sickness

A new theory about the causes of Havana Syndrome among employees of US embassies, makes a direct accusation against the US government that it is trying to cover up Occupational hazard associated with Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning which is installed in US embassies.

"US HAVC system, CAN NOT maintain a stable indoor air pressure, instead, it creates rapidly pulsating air pressure variations, which are usually in the infrasound range, a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility (generally under 20 Hz)."

Source is Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/HavanaSyndrome/comments/op8n6j/the_truth_about_havana_syndrome_or_how_us/

P.s. Let's question https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rdp060707 why he delete this even from Talking page? Did you have real moderators here? I want to report this person for vandalism. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Rdp060707 didn't delete your talk page post, I did. Reddit is not a reliable source, and since the reddit forum you keep linking to was created today and has no members and no content, it seems likely that you're here to promote it (and your own conspiracy theories). Geogene (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you delete it, I will restore it again, because this is a Talk Page. And this link is already send to thousands of US embassy staff. Expect it to explode in the media in the next few days. I don't hope 3 people that see it here, to make some differences. But your attempt to delete it even in Talk Page, speak clearly what wiki rats you are here. Misplaced Pages needs a purge of guys like you and Rdp060707.79.100.140.118 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I will revert you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"A 1996 study published in Indoor and Built Environment examined low frequency noise of 7 Hz in several offices. Many occupants experienced the following symptoms as a result of exposure to the noise: fatigue, headache, nausea, concentration difficulties, disorientation, seasickness, digestive disorders, cough, vision problems, and dizziness. This study demonstrated that low frequency noise from the ventilation system was amplified in the tightly sealed rooms and that repeated or long-term exposure to the sound triggered a number of physical symptoms." https://sandischwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EM_Magazine_final_printed_article.pdf 79.100.140.118 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

YOu are aware of when this incident happened?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There has to be a reliable source that claims this causes Havana Syndrome, otherwise it's original research. Obviously no study from 1996 is going to do that. Geogene (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Theories regarding cause" - are just that, theories. Sick building syndrome is nothing new, and when symptoms that are connected with Havana Syndrome are exactly the same as Infrasound Sickness ones - this should be mentioned in the main article. Or you want to change and original Sick building syndrome wiki article. Go on... "Sick building causes are frequently pinned down to flaws in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems." start delete what you don't like in it. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that Havana Syndrome is caused by infrasound? Geogene (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say the symptoms are the same?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"symptoms such as a perceived loud noise, ear pain, intense head pressure or vibration, dizziness, visual problems, and cognitive difficulties, and many still continue to experience these or other health problems" https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/12/new-report-assesses-illnesses-among-us-government-personnel-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies What exactly you want, Dictionary?! The symptoms are the same. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nom they are similar, we need a source saying they are the same. A cold has the same symptoms as the flu, they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understand what nonsense you're talking about. Cold, flu... you just want some yellow media to recite what is written in the reddit post so it to become 'reliable' source. Don't worry, in a few days it will happen. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is why we do not allow wp:or as I think they have similar symptoms, such as "cough", "sore throat", "stuffy and runny nose" are symptoms of both Flu and the cold. So yes we need some "yellow media" and not a credit post to say it. On your talk page you have been asked to read our policies. Please do so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When (and if) it happens we might be able to include this. It depends on how it is covered.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So I have question to you. Tomorrow or other day when the media like "The Wall Street Journal" start talking about the connection between Havana Syndrome and HVAC Induced Infrasound Sickness - entirely because I have shown this connection to them - whom you will quote in main Havana Syndrome page, the original post in Reddit where it all started OR experts names WSJ used to backup this connection? As you yourself said it, there are not still articles talking about a direct link between Havana Syndrome and HVAC except this Reddit post, so I can even show you how WSJ are informed by me for this subject. But you will quote them not the source :-) Don't you think this will be a form of plagiarism?! Let's see what will happened.79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been told this already, we go by what wp:rs say. It is also unlikely they will not mention the origin of this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source on scientific subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WSJ is fine for science. They often report on global warming accurately. They accurately reported on Elizabeth Holmes and Therenos. The Opinion pages have the science denial. They are almost like separate papers. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Wall_Street_Journal. -- GreenC 20:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Often" is not enough to be "reliable". Broken clocks regularly show the right time, twice a day even! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Y'all, you gotta cut this out. The HVAC lobby is going to find you ;-) 100.15.224.222 (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect summary of source in opening section

"Likely caused by directed microwaves," "appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases among those that the committee considered" but that "each possible cause remains speculative." These two lines reference the same source but are mutually contradictory; the quoted excerpt explicitly says that the committee does not express an opinion about anything other than ~which of the causes they considered~ is the least implausible. "Likely" implies that they believe it is probable that it was microwaves, and the quoted excerpt explicitly denies twice that they believe that they know what the probable cause is.

Given that this is a highly-charged topic with potential impact on the mental health of thousands of people, it behooves wikipedia to take more care and not use an inaccurate news-site summary (which does in fact use the word likely, but is a tertiary source because it summarises a press release that is itself a summary!) of the study's actual conclusion that is cited next to the quote rather than in the infobox. 2A02:C7E:75B:6000:79C0:D65D:F29:D52F (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point well made. Do you have a suggested alternative wording? Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. How about Cause: "Suspected microwave device, though not determined." "definitively" is a weasel word. "directed" is not informative given that no one has ever seen this alleged device nor knows how it works or whether it's purpose is as a weapon, electronic warfare or data collection. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the editor may have been leaning towards saying microwaves were the "least implausible" mechanism. She may also have suggested that we say that the study did not know what the cause was. Does anyone else think this would be a reasonable description of the findings? Burrobert (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Psychogenesis

An IP is removing this section, which contains referenced material which point to a psychogenetic cause - and more references which say it does not. Both are reliably sourced, and I am opposed to removing referenced material without discussion. Prior to an edit war, I will leave this an an opportunity for involved editors to discuss. Ifnord (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it should be kept as was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit to this section without seeing this - apologies I'm relatively inexperienced as a WP editor and thanks to Slatersteven for pointing out. To summarise I edited the section to include much greater detail on the NAS study's findings on psycho/social causes, including the limitations of its data and the limitations of it as an explanation. I also proposed two edits to the section I've included below. You can probably ascertain from this I'd strongly disagree with removing this section. It's a relatively prominent hypothesis, and is proposed or discussed by experts in the field and in academic sources, including the National Academy of Sciences paper itself. Regardless of the credibility of the hypothesis (and that is a matter others have discussed elsewhere on this talk page), it is worth inclusion.

I've included the rest of my talk post which I made in the wrong talk section here, as a collapsible section to be concise, since it has/proposes to edit the actual content of this section and so is relevant:

I've made an edit to the section on psychogenic illnesses to include a greater explanation of the NAS paper's findings. I believe this gives a much more comprehensive view of the NAS's conclusions on the subjects, however I did want to hear any feedback to the edit, as I gather this particular sub-subsection can be controversial.

I also wanted to propose two separate edits to the first paragraph of this section:

Firstly, I think the interjection 'without evidence' in the first line should be removed. It's unnecessary given it is immediately preceded by stating that this has been speculated. It also gives the impression of editorialising, and I don't believe it's WP:NPOV to make the interjection in the opening of this paragraph or in this manner given the phenomenon is characterised quite broadly by a dearth of evidence.

The first paragraph also quotes the following article solely for its summary of the NAS paper: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/05/health/head-injuries-us-diplomats-government-study/index.html

This seems unnecessary given we could summarise directly from the paper. More importantly, though, I think it gives the wrong impression of the NAS paper's findings, as they do not dismiss or rule out psychological and social causes as being factors in explaining experienced symptoms. I propose editing the sentence to the following, which also has the benefit of quoting the NAS's conclusion directly from its summary:

The 2020 National Academies report considered psychological causes and concluded that "the acute initial, sudden-onset, distinctive, and unusual symptoms and signs are difficult to ascribe to psychological and social factors. However, the significant variability and clinical heterogeneity of the illnesses affecting DOS personnel leave open the possibility of multiple causal factors including psychological and social factors."

Chaste Krassley (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits: Psychogenic Origin

I've made an edit to the section on psychogenic illnesses to include a greater explanation of the NAS paper's findings. I believe this gives a much more comprehensive view of the NAS's conclusions on the subjects, however I did want to hear any feedback to the edit, as I gather this particular sub-subsection can be controversial.

I also wanted to propose two separate edits to the first paragraph of this section:

Firstly, I think the interjection 'without evidence' in the first line should be removed. It's unnecessary given it is immediately preceded by stating that this has been speculated. It also gives the impression of editorialising, and I don't believe it's WP:NPOV to make the interjection in the opening of this paragraph or in this manner given the phenomenon is characterised quite broadly by a dearth of evidence.

The first paragraph also quotes the following article solely for its summary of the NAS paper: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/05/health/head-injuries-us-diplomats-government-study/index.html

This seems unnecessary given we could summarise directly from the paper. More importantly, though, I think it gives the wrong impression of the NAS paper's findings, as they do not dismiss or rule out psychological and social causes as being factors in explaining experienced symptoms. I propose editing the sentence to the following, which also has the benefit of quoting the NAS's conclusion directly from its summary:

The 2020 National Academies report considered psychological causes and concluded that "the acute initial, sudden-onset, distinctive, and unusual symptoms and signs are difficult to ascribe to psychological and social factors. However, the significant variability and clinical heterogeneity of the illnesses affecting DOS personnel leave open the possibility of multiple causal factors including psychological and social factors."

Please let me know if any feedback on the proposed or already made edit/s. In particular on the second proposed edit I'm not quite happy with the length of the quote from the paper, but I've found it hard to find a way to reduce or summarise it without either leaving some key parts out or potentially upsetting one side or the other. Chaste Krassley (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, in the primary/secondary section? Sorry I missed it because of the heading. I'll leave this talk post for the proposed edits and add to that talk section for the edit I did make. Chaste Krassley (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No the one just above this, titled Psychogenesis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, apologies. I'll move this post to the above section. I don't know whether this section would be more appropriately deleted or archived but I'll leave that for others with more experience of WP etiquette. Chaste Krassley (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Cricket sounds as a cause.

Someone with greater expertise than I should explain how the cricket sounds could cause these major medical problems. Dynzmoar (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Most if not all of the proposed explanations involve speculation. We don't mention the way in which the cricket noises are supposed to have caused the medical problems. Presumably the most likely mechanism is through mass hysteria. The workers did not know at the time that the sounds they were hearing were crickets. The workers were placed in an environment which their government described as hostile. The combination of a stressful environment, sickness of fellow workers and unfamiliar and unsettling sounds may have created an atmosphere that led to mass hysteria. It is speculation, but so is most of this article. Burrobert (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The cricket sounds were in reference to a few specific cases only. 79.70.163.251 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Misleading "brain injury" claims in the introduction.

Paragraph 3 in the introduction has the following statement: "Studies of the affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2018, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause of the injuries." The "found evidence...of brain injury" seems to have come from the NYT article and is a misinterpretation of the actual JAMA report. The JAMA report intentionally makes no conclusion about brain injury/trauma/alteration, but notes a difference in certain medical imaging results between patients and a control group. The report also notes explicitly that the differences did not correlate with known patterns of brain trauma, and that there were issues with control groups and initial patient data quality.

I'd prefer to drop the mention from the intro all together (along with the microwave weapons conclusion), but it's a key part of the story, so I propose changing it to something that follows the conclusion more accurately e.g.: "A 2018 retrospective study published in the medical journal JAMA found differences in neuroimaging results of affected diplomats in Cuba, but concluded that 'clinical relevance of these differences is uncertain.'"

Anyone have any input on this? 61.245.132.16 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference NatAcademies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/science/cuba-diplomats-health.html
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6652163/

It would be worth discussing whether the statements about the brain injuries are subject to WP:MEDRS. If so, we should not use the New York Times as a source for the study and instead use the appropriate medical source. The policy regarding medical content in any Misplaced Pages article states:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

Burrobert (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Burrobert: I have just come to the article myself and concluded much the same thing, so I went ahead and made some changes. I quoted as directly as possible from the JAMA article's conclusion as well as from the NYT piece. I have also made a couple of small changes for NPOV in the same paragraph (e.g., paragraph states clearly that there is no expert consensus on the cause of the syndrome, then quotes at length from two hypotheses on the cause, both of which support the microwave weapon theory. I think some trimming might be merited here. If there truly is no expert consensus, then why afford so much weight to the theory that the syndrome is caused by hostile use of RF waves? (or similar). Along these lines I think the wording in the "causes" box is currently not NPOV, so I'll take a look at that, and then sit back a couple of days and give others time to look over my changes. I am not sure about MEDRS, but certainly, the previous content that baldy stated "some sort of brain injury had occurred" was (at the very best) badly misrepresenting the cited study from JAMA. Please take a look at my changes and let me know what you think. Cheers Anotheranothername (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does it give so much attention to microwaves? Because that's currently the dominant theory among experts. Geogene (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Geogene: If there is "no expert consensus" on the cause of the "differences" found by eg the JAMA study then how can there be a "dominant theory" that the cause is microwaves? Is there, or is there not, expert consensus on the cause? Expert consensus I assume here would be from experts on brains and neurology specifically.

@Neutrality: I am unhappy with the reason you gave in the edit summary for my changes to the lead. I am not the only editor here who feels the current "brain injury" content is misrepresenting both the NYT piece and the JAMA study's conclusions, which should be stated clearly for our readers. Your complaints that my changes are "not good style" do not trump WP:NPOV. If you believe it is unnecessary to quote at length from the JAMA study's conclusions, then please work with me on developing content that reflects those conclusions accurately without misrepresenting them. For anyone on this talk page following along, here is the quote from the JAMA study's conclusion:

Among US government personnel in Havana, Cuba, with potential directional phenomena exposure, compared with healthy controls, advanced brain MRI techniques revealed significant neuroimaging differences in whole brain white matter volume, regional gray and white matter volume, cerebellar tissue microstructural integrity, and functional connectivity in the auditory and visuospatial subnetworks but not in the executive control subnetwork. The clinical importance of these differences is uncertain and may require further study.

NYT:

Now, researchers are reporting results from the first brain-imaging studies of 40 of those diplomats, who were carefully examined by neurologists after returning home from Cuba. The study, appearing on Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA, concludes that the diplomats experienced some kind of brain trauma. But the nature and cause of that trauma were not clear, as it did not resemble the signature of more familiar brain injuries such as repeated concussions or exposure to battlefield blasts.

The article text that was just reinstated by User:Neutrality, with no better reason for removing my changes than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT:

A study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2018, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause of the injuries.

"Brain injury" is a vast oversimplification. The NYT text says "they had brain trauma but no one knows what kind or what caused it". The JAMA text says the clinical importance of these differences is uncertain. We must follow NPOV and write what the most authoritative source writes. Anotheranothername (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this content. Please don't restore absent consensus (which has not been achieved here); see WP:ONUS. The quote is far too long, and undue weight for the lead, and it is poor style to do a long, needless quote in the lead.

As for the cause, the lead section makes clear that the cause hasn't been definitively established.

As for brain injury - the sources (both the JAMA study and the NYT piece summarizing it) directly support the statement that the study showed that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury. That's directly supported. It's not "misleading" nor is it an "oversimplification" or "misrepresentation." Obviously, of course, the study said that further research needs to be done. But that doesn't mean that stating the baseline fact is a "vast oversimplification." If the text in the lead said that the brain injury had some sort of specific clinical importance, then I would agree that such a statement would be at odds with the JAMA report. But the lead doesn't say that.

Addendum: As a compromise, I would be fine with something like: "A neuroimaging study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2019, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause or clinical importance of the injuries." Neutrality 03:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: "Brain injury", to me, has clinical importance: brain injury generally has measurable outcome(s) for the patient suffering it. That is the root of my issue with the content we're discussing here, haha... Can you please expand on this notion of "brain injury without clinical importance"? Is there such a thing as brain injury without clinical importance? If clinical importance is similar to clinical significance, then the idea that the diplomats have brain injuries but that the clinical importance of the injuries is unclear just... sounds like the injuries either aren't a big deal or can't really be definitively proven to exist. Again: the JAMA study as I understand it merely identifies differences between the diplomats' brains and the brains of healthy controls (with a long list of caveats in the limitations section). Thanks for the fast and insightful replies so far. Cheers Anotheranothername (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what was meant by "clinical relevance"/"clinical importance" (I would not assume it means the same as "clinical significance"). But as to the main point, I think "brain injury" is a perfectly acceptable summation of the study language. Is not a difference "in whole brain white matter volume, regional gray and white matter volume, cerebellar tissue microstructural integrity, and functional connectivity in the auditory" as compared to "healthy controls" an injury? We need not determine for ourselves: let's look at how others have summarized the study findings for a lay audience (our core job here when crafting the lead section). The NYTimes piece said "the diplomats experienced some kind of brain trauma." And the study authors themselves, in summarizing their findings (see Penn Medicine release, quoting lead study author), used the same "brain injury" terms ("It's hard to tell where the problem started; the brain differences observed could be an immediate effect of the brain injury, or it could a compensatory effect of the recovery process" (emphasis added)). In the body of the article, we can be as precise as possible; in the lead section, when writing for a lay audience (most readers are not going to be neurologists), we can and should use the same shorthand that the experts use. Neutrality 04:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. Rather than confuse our lay readers (which apparently includes both you and I) by telling them that the diplomats had brain injuries but that the injuries were "without clinical importance", how about this: we follow more directly the NYT article's wording that the nature and cause of that trauma were not clear. Though I still have a problem with stating "brain injury" so bluntly, I can't deny your points about secondary coverage in RS. How about this? "A neuroimaging study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2019, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause or the specific character of the trauma." <smile> Anotheranothername (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m OK with that compromise wording. Thanks for the collaboration. Neutrality 04:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this compromise fixes my initial concern here, the terms "brain injury" and "trauma" both imply that the differences in image analysis show some kind of damage or change. The study does not claim that those differences are evidence of damage, they're just differences from a control group.

As an analogy, if we have two pairs of curtains, one blue and one white, we can observe the two and see that they're different, but from that information alone we can't know for how long or why. It's possible they were stained, or we might assume that the blue pair had been dyed in the factory? But they may as well have been made from blue thread from the start. In the same way, due to the problems with control groups the use of clinical data, and the lack of correlation to known modes of trauma we can't conclude that the differences show trauma or injury, and we can't even really say how long the differences may have been present.

This is why the study itself explicitly doesn't claim trauma or injury, and just concludes that there are imaging differences when one specific analytic technique was applied. I don't think it's fair to justify that terminology based on informal quotes. I'm trying to avoid original research here, and I'd prefer a third-party formal medical review that we could cite, but all we have at the moment is the study itself, the NYT article, and a press-release announcing the study. AFAIK none of these sources satisfy WP:MEDRS.

My main issue is that having reference to "brain injury" and "trauma" in the lede implies more than what the study itself is willing to conclude. I'm happy to leave reference to the actual "imaging differences" in the intro, but I think we should shift the interpretation into the body of the article with equal weight to other academic discussion of the results, e.g. the other doctor cited in the NYT piece. 61.245.132.16 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Crickets

BuzzFeed News has published an article about a scientific report to which it has obtained access:

• "A declassified State Department report obtained by BuzzFeed News dismissed the theory that microwave weapons are behind the mysterious neurological injuries in diplomats worldwide".
• "Originally classified as “secret,” the report concluded that the sounds accompanying at least eight of the original 21 Havana syndrome incidents were “most likely” caused by insects. That same scientific review also judged it “highly unlikely” that microwaves or ultrasound beams ... were involved in the incidents.
• Interestingly, on 28 September, the US House of Representatives passed a “Havana Act” bill compensating CIA and State Department personnel affected by incidents such as these.
• "Meanwhile, just this month, the Cuban Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that mass psychology is the best explanation for the incidents".

Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Vergano, Dan (30 September 2021). "A Secret State Department Report Says Microwaves Didn't Cause "Havana Syndrome"". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 30 September 2021.

Psychogenic origin (again)

It looks like the psychogenic origin hypothesis has been removed from the intro again. I haven't (yet) scoured the history to see who removed it and when, but it should definitely be restored.

A couple other points:

1) Like someone else alluded to in the discussion above, if it were pretty much anyone other than US State Department and CIA officials making these allegations, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all...The very label "tinfoil hat" (to describe baseless conspiracy nonsense) comes from people covering their heads in foil to protect their brains from energy weapons, so it's frankly astonishing that such tinfoil hatery is even seriously considered here, let alone presented as presumed accurate.

2) Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, after all these years of speculation, US counterintelligence hasn't been able to find any evidence of such alleged weapons being used, or even the existence of said weapons. I think this should be made clear to readers, as it casts significant (further) doubt on the reality of these supposed attacks. -2003:CA:8722:3335:781B:AC2F:D835:C4E (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This hypothesis (which is a minority view) is adequately addressed in the body of the article. The lead section properly discusses the state of what is known and not known about the events. I don't see any issue here. Neutrality 19:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality - On what basis here do you claim that skepticism of the microwave hypothesis is "a minority view"? A 2018 report from the JASON (advisory group), commissioned by the US State Department and recently released following an FOI request from BuzzFeed News, concludes that microwave or other such energy weapons are highly unlikely, that the sound was caused by crickets, and that the symptoms are most likely psychogenic in nature: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/havana-syndrome-jason-crickets This was originally reported by Buzz Feed News, and has since been widely reported by other mainstream news outlets.

So given that the JASON Group is highly respected and that their report was commissioned by the US government, there's no reason to consider their conclusions in any way fringe or marginal in nature....Yet excluding any mention of crickets or psychogenic origin from the (rather long 4 paragraph) lead, gives the impression that it somehow is, so this is a pretty clearcut violation of NPOV. Hence I've flagged the article as such.

Moreover, I would argue that the microwave weapons hypothesis, being a rather extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence. Crickets and headaches brought on by stress/paranoia are far more mundane explanations, with much lower proof thresholds. -2003:CA:8722:3358:84F0:FDE5:EAF4:A6BF (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

IP, personnel continuing to be disabled after returning home from the initial stressful environment and retiring from government work would seem to be fairly extraordinary evidence. Mass hysterias tend to burn themselves out after a month or so. This has been going on for five years now. As for NPOV, you've seized on one report that you happen to like (JASON) and you seem to be trying to exclude the National Academies report, which got more coverage. And the microwave hypothesis still seems to be getting more attention from reliable sources, which makes it the dominant theory. (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Geogene, no that's not really extraordinary evidence, as any number of things can cause that. PTSD, for example, is often long lasting, and if one believes that the sound of crickets is a microwave weapon frying one's brain then that could be quite traumatic! If microwave weapons are the cause, and it's been going on for years, then why haven't US counterintelligence been able to find any direct evidence of such weapons? Why haven't sensors been able to pick up any such energy signals? And if the Russians (or whoever) is deploying these weapons against US CIA and State Department officials at multiple locations in countries around the world, why hasn't the US Intelligence Community ever been able to intercept or otherwise document the existence of such weapons?....These claims are quite extraordinary, and like I said, frankly tin foil hat type stuff (quite literally!), yet there's been no extraordinary evidence to support them....And as far as the NAS report goes - no, I'm not trying to exclude that report - this is a straw man. I'm simply saying that there's no good reason that the findings of the JASON Group report should be completely excluded from the article's lead, suggesting that they're somehow marginal or "fringe" in nature. Doing so does violate NPOV, and your removal of the template while this is still being actively debated here was inappropriate, so I'm restoring it. -2003:CA:8722:33A2:84F0:FDE5:EAF4:A6BF (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But we're not talking about PTSD, we are talking about mass hysteria. If you're allowed to invoke any other mental illness you wish in addition to mass hysteria, then mass hysteria could potentially "explain" any evidence you're faced with, which makes it non-falsifiable (and not science). So I think it might be best if, instead of trying to solve the mystery here, we focus on which hypothesis is currently getting the most attention from reliable sourcing. Geogene (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The JASON report was about a handful of audio recordings from Havana. It does not address the vast majority of cases. It is far less relevant than the JAMA report or the National Academics of science report, both of which were more systemic. Neutrality 03:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And now there is a new article here bolstering the psychogenic hypothesis: "Havana Syndrome Hysteria and the Great Wild Goose Chase - Classified documents reveal skepticism of foreign actors & bolster the role of psychogenic illness." It references a US gov't document here, which apparently admits that "The contents of a U.S. Government investigation into “Havana Syndrome” released under the Freedom of Information Act, concluded that mass psychogenic illness likely played a major role." In my opinion, there needs to be much more of this POV in the article, including in the lead which ignores it totally. BTW, this is the article's conclusion: "This episode can be summed up in an old adage: “Talk of the devil and he is bound to appear.” Havana Syndrome is a witch scare dressed up in a different cultural guise, making it more palatable for modern acceptance. Instead of witches, it is foreign agents who are being accused of nefarious deeds. A more appropriate label for what has transpired would be “Havana Syndrome Delusion” — the unsubstantiated belief, in the wake of persistent evidence to the contrary, that diplomats are being targeted with an energy weapon. It is a social panic that has been aided by sensational journalism, dubious science, social media conspiracy theories, and government bureaucracy." RobP (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is another Skeptic Movement source that seems to function like a religion, in that a few people are superfans, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't have much weight. I also think the implication that "nefarious deeds" aren't occasionally being done by "foreign agents" is in and of itself naive enough to discredit the source. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove psychogenic origin and its related speculation

At this point, given the facts that:

     1) These events have occurred to hundreds of people, many of whom do not work together
     2) These events have occurred on multiple continents
     3) It has also occurred to Canadian foreign service members
     4) There is direct physical evidence of traumatic brain injury in many of these patients and, 
     5) Most important, there is nothing but pure speculation driving the psychogenic illness origin

While it is understandable because it plays to human biases, it is irresponsible and lacks objectivity to continue to add this reference, which is just some authors who proposed some speculations and drove a lot of profitable, clickable links to their books. It is also damaging, because it lends credibility to this outrageous and insulting idea that anything that cannot be explained can be speculated to involve a psychogenic origin. These speculations are why the ambassadors and agents had to get lawyers and eventually lobby their organizations to take these events seriously, and why they now are legally forced to compensate these injuries as workplace injuries. Speculations of psychogenic illness merely slowed down the objective process by which these events were eventually taken seriously as some sort of poorly understood directional weapon or some other related plausible origin, like as the side-effect of a high-powered surveillance device. It is now clear that they represent some sort of physical phenomenon, and of course while many origins are still plausible they have at least some evidence. No origin theory in this section without actual evidence (and speculation by any person of any profession is still not evidence) should not be allowed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we go with what RS say. So if RS speculates this was a cause we repeat it. Nor is it clear it was some type of weapon, after all satanic ritual abuse occurred involving These events have occurred to hundreds of people, many of whom do not work together and occurred on multiple continents.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse? Can we please delete this joker's comment? I welcome real conversation on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk • contribs)

No, as I am illustrating a point, we do not use our own wp:or (and how your own OR can also be applied to other situations) as we can all find explanations that fit the facts. The point is that much of your argument above is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously not OR, these are well-known, published facts, not an analysis or integration of them into something new. These facts directly contradict even the plausibility of some nebulous, vague psychogenic illness causing it. Many of which are cited in the WP page text. You have a personal issue with me. Get over it and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion you are drawing is (which was the point of my satanic panic comment) in the modern (internet) agree close proximity is not needed for psychogenic origin, only access to the same information, just as in a moral panic. And I have no personal issue with you, do not make this personal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget to assume good faith here. This looks like a purely content-based dispute. I don't see any evidence of this being personal. JellyMan9001 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic at all, or the nonsense word salad you are saying with moral panics or satanic rituals. I am precisely drawing no conclusion - and insisting that an origin theory with no basis whatsoever should not be included merely because someone proposed it. This allows literally any idea to carry the same weight as psychogenic origin, as if "MAYBE" trolls and ogres are the origin. It is just as reasonable. The other sections have actual evidence associated with them. That's the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

IP - indent comments with a ":" or "::" for double etc.. don't lead with spaces or tabs otherwise it causes the page formatting to be messed up. Sign comments at the end with four tilde like ~~~~. -- GreenC 18:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe what Slatersteven is trying to do is use moral panics as an example of how phenomena of psychogenic origin can spread through the internet. JellyMan9001 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am doing, and yes the IP is drawing a conclusion, they are concluding a theory is wrong based upon their reading of the facts.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Again, stop putting words in my mouth and making straw man arguments. I do not have to repeat myself, and I clearly explained already that I am drawing no conclusion, and my problem is with how this conclusion is drawn prematurely, so your comments are a little cringe. This is not a theory, because it has no evidence, and is equivalent with literally any speculation, including demons and ogres. It purely speculation, and this is why it should be removed. Every other listed origin theory has evidence. Again, you will have to respond to what I actually say, not what you wish it to be.--67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You actually have a partially valid point. We can't exclude it entirely because reliable sources do discuss it and our job at Misplaced Pages is not report the truth, but to report what reliable sources say. However there is a thing called WP:WEIGHT where fringe (see WP:FRINGE) or minor theories should not be given too much attention. This theory currently has more WEIGHT than any other, including microwaves. It should be reduced and summarized. -- GreenC 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Microwave" 337 words "Psychogenic origin" 367 words (which includes the refutation of the theory (two whole paragraphs)). Not a huge difference. Most of the rest are rather more implausible and fringe than Psychogenic origin.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reduceing the refutation of "Psychogenic origin" to one line (as it is with "Microwave") would reduce it's size by half.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of psychogenic are ripe for summarizing. Thought the first two paragraphs were OK. -- GreenC 18:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs are talking about the same report. This can be reduced to one paragraph.

The 2020 National Academies report determined that psychological issues were not the likely cause of the injuries. It wrote that "the likelihood of mass psychogenic illness as an explanation for patients' symptoms had to be established from sufficient evidence" and "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries”. In its assessment of potential social and psychological causes, the committee noted the possibility of stress-based psychological responses, and that these were more likely to be triggered by potential threats attributed to human sources than other stressors. It concluded that these could not have caused the acute "audio-vestibular" symptoms some patients experienced, such as sudden unexplained sounds. However, the scope of the provided data limited the committee's ability to investigate psychological and social factors.

Burrobert (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No (to the OP). Your point #5 is founded on the fallacy that psychogenic illness does not cause brain damage. This is wrong (a fact that was kept from the NAS panel and is being kept out of this article). What we have is a lot of people claiming that a lot of possible symptoms are part of a phenomenon with no known origin and a lot of speculation as to what it might be. To decide now that microwave is the only credible explanation is OR that is not supported by sources or WP:MEDRS. Psychogenic is one of many credible alternative causes. All the recent reports about JASON talk about it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was the previous substantial editor of this section I believe, and agree it needed to be summarised further (I found it difficult at the time!), but it should be clear from the text of MPI section that the NAS does not 'refute' it, it is unable to establish for or against it due to the omission of patient level and epidemiological data. To quote directly, "the committee was not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". I think your edit captures some of the issues with the section as I had rendered it, though I also think (not particularly with your edits) that there are a few issues. The first is the opening sentence, which references a sentence in an article stating 'the overall analysis appeared to show MPI was not the likely cause'. I don't think the paraphrasing of this article is an accurate representation of the report, and also in itself has a strangely loaded phrasing ('was not able to establish MPI as a likely cause' for example would be more accurate). Further, the central section is unnecessarily an inappropriately granular given the broadness of the rest of the paragraph (I say this as the person who wrote these sentences). It refers to one particular aspect of the assessed symptoms and potential causes which is accurate but would give the misleading impression that it was the core element being investigated in the absence of the rest of my paragraph. I've opted to delete it for a broader summary as follows: Chaste Krassley (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 National Academies report was "not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". In response to Bartholomew and Baloh, it wrote that such a cause "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries”. The committee sought evidence of potential psychological or social causes, however the scope of the provided data limited their ability to investigate these factors.

Addressing reversion of this edit by Geogene: "Not an improvement, ignores that NAS report concluded microwaves were the most likely cause, deleted references"

On the latter point, the one reference which was deleted was only cited in this one place, for the opening sentence, which by the combination of the article and the paraphrasing of it misconstrues what is said in the report. The report does not state microwave radiation is 'the likely cause' - but that it is the most plausible cause. The only thing broadly speaking the report finds to be likely is that multiple factors contribute to the variety of symptoms reported. In any case though I think it's unnecessary where the report's findings on microwaves are explored in other sections, we could certainly include a brief mention that does address that the report finds this more plausible, but it's important to be clear that the report does not make any finding against the theory of MPI or other psychosocial causes. There were no other references removed - except that the more detailed section quoted from an earlier page of the report (p25) where this only quotes from the summary/conclusion of the MPI/psycho-social section (26-27).

I also think it's important to remove the middle section; as I explained above it's inappropriately detailed without the remainder of the summary I wrote on the various factors, issues, and potential explanations on psycho-social causes the report considered. I'd also be happy for the paragraph to be expanded from my most recent edit (Like I've said I expanded it significantly previously!) but I don't think retaining that section is an adequate way to do that without giving a false impression of the focus of the report on this.

Would the following satisfy as a compromise edit:

The 2020 National Academies report found microwave radiation to be the most plausible primary cause of the symptoms, but was "not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". In response to Bartholomew and Baloh, it wrote that such a cause "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries”. The committee sought evidence of potential psychological or social causes, however the scope of the provided data limited their ability to investigate these factors.

If there are no concerns or proposed alternative edits I'll make the change in a day. If you have concerns not addressed by the above explanation or compromise edit please explain them here before reverting. Chaste Krassley (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The report does not state microwave radiation is 'the likely cause' - but that it is the most plausible cause. that's your own interpretation of a primary source, the secondary source you're trying to delete from the article reads it as 'likely cause'. I trust the secondary source's interpretation of "most plausible" = "most likely" more than I trust your claim that "most plausible" =/= "most likely". Your proposed summary is not an improvement. Geogene (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not interpretation, it is the text of the report. It repeatedly uses the phrase "most plausible" to refer to the HF radiation hypothesis, and uses the term "likely" in the context of its conclusions only when referring to the assertion that there are multiple causes for the variety of symptoms reported. I think we should prioritise the language of the primary literature here, especially as the CNN article is written by a national security rather than scientific or medical reporter and so isn't much use as an interpretive text, and on top of that hedges its language ( ie uses 'appears to') however keeping in mind the terms are broadly synonyms if you're insistent on its inclusion we can incorporate that term into the compromise edit in lieu of 'plausible'. We could even retain the source as the attribution for the term 'likely' instead of 'plausible', as unnecessary as I think that is. If you have any other issues with the edit I have proposed I would appreciate you laying them out rather than just asserting it not to be an improvement so we can work toward a compromise edit more efficiently. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You're the editor seeking to make the change to the article, normally you would be the one to argue your new version is superior and show consensus for it. This edit is not for the better, it leaves out It concludes that these could not have caused the acute "audio-vestibular" symptoms some patients experienced, such as sudden unexplained sounds. That conclusion should remain. Geogene (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've repeatedly argued why I believe my version to superior, as well as made adjustments to address your stated concerns. But ok, if that is the last of your concerns with my edit I'm glad we've at least made progress.

I was the original editor to include the line you're referring to, and the reason I favour its deletion is because, as I explained above several times, it is inappropriately granular. It is one of several issues and caveats explored by this section of the report, and is not a major conclusion of the section but instead an exploration of the plausible mechanisms by which psycho-social factors might have caused the symptoms. It is referring to 'stress-based psychological responses' specifically, not about MPI or psycho-social factors more broadly, and in the original edit it led into an explanation of the deficiencies of the data provided as claimed by the report: specifically, the data was not patient level and came with no epidemiological information. As the report outlines, this is important because such additional data would have allowed it to potentially identify: 1) whether the symptoms in question had other plausible psycho-social explanations, such as hallucination or delusion, and 2) whether these cases represented index cases from which the broader symptoms potentially spread. This is all fairly plain from a reading of pages (iirc) 24-27 of the report as well as (I had thought!) from my original edit, but is obscured here. Without these caveats indicating the significance of the conclusion, or without a credible secondary source contextualising it, its inclusion is misleading. Given what was said above re: WP:WEIGHT, as well as my recognition that the average WP reader probably doesn't want or need to know in as much detail as I personally do the breakdowns the report gives of potential mechanisms, I am inclined to agree despite having originally made that edit that these factors should not be included, but if other editors are steadfastly opposed to its removal it should be appropriately contextualised. Chaste Krassley (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two or more source interference

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

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

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

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

Continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis

What is the deal with the deal continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis? RobP (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the deal with this aspersion? Geogene (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rob: Please don't cast aspersions; you should know that it's inappropriate to engage like that. As for the "psychogenetic origin" hypothesis (which is a minority view): it's given adequate weight here; we include a description of it, without bloat. I have removed a long paragraph that you added (and then re-added) consisting entirely of material from an Washington Post "analysis" (not straight news, sort of op-ed) piece. The author (Philip Bump) has no subject-matter expertise (either in medicine or espionage/intelligence), and he's not saying anything useful that's not already covered by other material in this article. Mr. Bump's writings about his own history of anxiety attacks, or his own lay assessment of the evidence, is basically immaterial. Please don't restore this content absent consensus; WP:ONUS. ---Neutrality 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just getting back to this. Calling what I said ("What is the deal with the deal continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis?") an aspersion is ridiculous. No example on the page you linked to - of what WP considers an aspersion - (a personal attack) comes close. RobP (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just heard the expert on mass psychotogenics Robert Bartholomew and his analysis needs to be here. The lede of the current article makes it sound like the Havana syndrome is a real thing. I understand that the media is reporting in mass uncritically that it is real. But we need to go with experts and RS. Sgerbic (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I've just heard the expert on mass psychotogenics Robert Bartholomew and his analysis needs to be here. did you "hear" him or did you hear from him? Because you're both affiliated with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry . This relentless advocacy for Skeptic Movement sourcing that's been going on on this talk page for years now resembles COI. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously dude - looks just like you stated your bias. Sgerbic (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am seriously biased against people that try to use Misplaced Pages to promote themselves, their businesses, their associates, and similar closely held interests. Geogene (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well we both agree then. Sgerbic (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: some sort of mention of psychogenic cause belongs in the lede. Psychogenic or psychological causes are mentioned in at least 4 of the first 20 sources cited in the lede. (Some are behind paywall) And per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the complete absence of the word in the lede is just plain wrong because both the "cricket" and "psychogenic" sections of this article itself attest to all the other good WP:RS that support the psychological idea. It's in the body, it belongs in the lede. Neutrality, you say there is a consensus to keep it out of the lede, but I don't see a consensus amongst the editors of this page, and there isn't a consensus from the sources themselves in the lede or in the body. Calling it a minority opinion doesn't help your case, because per WP:MEDRS, if the minority opinion is size-able and held by relevant experts, it is worthy of inclusion. It's time to put it back in the lede.DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just did a search and easily found many recent (and some very new) articles discussing the Havana Syndrome. And seemingly, opinions seem to be turning the corner towards realizing that the government botched this investigation, that evidence of actual attacks do not add up, and this is in fact a psychogenic illness situation. I will post what I found here for discussion regarding what should be included in the article. Some may have been argued over in the past (?) but at least some are new, I think:

• NYT: Is ‘Havana Syndrome’ an ‘Act of War’ or ‘Mass Hysteria’?
• The National Interest: Is the Havana Syndrome Real? A Newly Declassified Report Says It May Be Crickets
• Jacobin: Will the Media Finally Learn Something From Its Fake “Havana Syndrome” Debacle?
• Unheard: Havana Syndrome is (obviously) a hoax
• foreignpolicy.com: Claims of Microwave Attacks Are Scientifically Implausible
• Scientists are skeptical that "Havana syndrome" is anything more than a psychogenic illness
• The Conversation: Havana syndrome fits the pattern of psychosomatic illness – but that doesn’t mean the symptoms aren’t real
• McGill Office for Science and Society: Havana Syndrome or a Case for Eliminating the Implausible
• Psychology Today: Evidence Mounts that Mass Suggestion Caused "Havana Syndrome"
• melmagazine.com: SHITPOSTERS AREN’T BUYING ‘HAVANA SYNDROME’ FOR A SINGLE SECOND, Extremely online operators know a hoax when they see one
• Skeptic.com: Suzanne O’Sullivan on psychosomatic disorders and other mystery illnesses, based on her book The Sleeping Beauties: And Other Stories of Mystery Illness
• firstpost.com: Mystery of 'Havana syndrome' fits the bill of mass psychogenic illness, but that doesn't mean symptoms aren't real

That Mel Magazine about "shitposting" memes is some quality journalism you've got there. /s Geogene (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material... yet the opinions expressed in it are wise beyond what most of the credulous media spouts about this topic. RobP (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so you're just trolling now? And I already know you have a problem with the mainstream media. Repeating it over and over isn't helpful unless you manage to change the RS policies. Geogene (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling me a troll? Seems like that's casting aspersions! You do realize I am not actually here to annoy you, right? That's only a satisfying side-effect. I do have a very serious interest in this article, as is demonstrated by the fact that I am the editor with the second highest contribution to it, ten times yours in fact. RobP (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Still looking for opinions regarding these sources (other than melmagazine.com obviously). Note that the NYT article was previously added and reverted I believe. RobP (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As this is about a medical matter we have to go with WP:MEDRS, we have no choice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

There have been a lot of radical changes to the article recently by new accounts, IPs, and SPAs. After this latest example, , should a request be made to put the article under semiprotection? Geogene (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty bad example, IMO. That was a good addition to the article. I have to say, the sources that you are saying outweight everything else so much that even mentioning them in the lede would be UNDUE aren't that great. The brain imaging study isn't very significant, it doesn't really show anything. Certainly doesn't prove or strongly suggest any brain damage or any sort of attack. And the best current "official" explanations is very speculative and shouldn't be given as much weight. To be clear, I'm not saying not to use those sources, I'm not saying not to give them priority, I'm saying they don't outweight everything else as much as you're saying. VdSV9•♫ 22:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The brain imaging study was at least published in a peer reviewed medical journal, which is more than I can say about your The Conversation and McGill sources . As for what's "speculative" or not, that's editor opinion. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, we are not supposed to rely on Primary studies. Peer reviewed Primary that makes medical claims is a violation of MEDRS. The NAS committee is not the last word on the matter and there is a growing body of quality SECONDARY RS challenging them. Most recently, this , and this .

Peer reviewed Primary that makes medical claims is a violation of MEDRS. MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. And you didn't have a problem stating Rofer's primary opinion about the feasibility of microwave weapons when you added it to the article just now, did you? Again, at least JAMA is peer reviewed. The real problem seems to be that some people are ideologically opposed to the findings of the JAMA paper. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, please read WP:SECONDARY where you will find this: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And it's primary for Rofer's opinion. The fact that it's an opinion piece might have tipped you off to this fact, although FP likes to call them "Arguments" instead. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A secondary source is supposed to be an opinion or an analysis. What else could it be? They are bringing their expertise to interpreting a primary source in a way us editors are not qualified to do. Please, read WP:Secondary "an author's own thinking".DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had already written this, apparently I ended up not hitting "Publish". How is it "editor opinion"? Claiming that symptoms are caused by an unknown hypothetical infrasound or ultrasound or "energy" weapon is, by definition, speculation. No such weapon has been produced, nor has it been shown that one could cause those symptoms, let alone that it was the case in any of the reported instances. This is speculation to the third degree. VdSV9•♫ 22:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words: it's only your opinion that microwave weapons are implausible, not the aggregate opinion of reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, I agree with you on the next addition, and I have removed the recently added challenged content from the lead section as undue weight. The content was (1) a minority view (Bartholomew and Baloh's view is already amply represented in the body of the article), and (2) it is improper to juxtapose random blog posts (which is what The Conversation and the McGill website posts are_ with the NAS and JAMA studies, as per WP:WEIGHT. This content must not restored absent consensus per WP:ONUS absent consensus. Neutrality 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do Geogene and Neutrality agreeing on something make it a consensus? They seem to be the only editors supporting the POV that psychogenic illness is ideologically driven and fringe. RobP (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good time to mention all the Canvassing that you and Dolyalskrina have been doing to try to distort the consensus process here? , , . Geogene (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene please read WP:CANVASSING where you will find this: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." And please be careful about accusing editors of misconduct without cause. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't have stopped reading it there, because it goes on to point out that neither selective nor partisan notifications (yours are both) are allowed. It's also not clear why you need to go recruiting in the first place, when you're well aware that this page was recently in the Top 25, and it has 175 watchers. Unless you're looking for a specific POV. Geogene (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Bokat-Lindell, Spencer (October 26, 2021). "Is 'Havana Syndrome' an 'Act of War' or 'Mass Hysteria'?". New York Times.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
2. Rofer, Cheryl (May 10, 2021). "Claims of Microwave Attacks Are Scientifically Implausible: There's little evidence for an unknown weapon being behind "Havana syndrome."". Foreign Policy. Retrieved October 26, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

RfC: Is "Science Vs" a Reliable Source and does it support the addition of my proposed text?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the podcast Science Vs a reliable source for the following text? Does it support its addition to the the “Microwaves” sub-section of this article?:

1. Wendy Zukerman (22 April 2021). "Havana Syndrome: Did a Secret Weapon Fry Diplomats' Brains?". gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/ (Podcast). Gimlet. Event occurs at 27:03.

For the initial discussion involving 4 (but mostly two) editors of this page see "Science Vs podcast" Talk above. Here is the Wikipage I made for Science Vs, and here is their url. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In anticipation of being accused of canvassing again, please note I will post this RfC on noticeboards for WikiProjects Skepticism, Medicine, Physics and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, in compliance with both WP:Canvassing "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion", and WP:RfC#Publicizing an RfC DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• IMO the podcast Science Vs is a reliable source. FWIW here is the transcript of the Podcast. The podcast is ambiguous as to the possibility of a new microwave weapon which Professor Collins admits after pointing out that high energy continuous microwaves would fry one's brain so it appears to me that the proposed insertion is taken somewhat out of context and should not be added as proposed above. Tom94022 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  We can modify the text to include the context you want. Something like, "Chris Collins, Professor of Radiology at New York University, said that while he does not know about all possible energy weapons that have been developed in secret, since the embassy staff reported hearing a loud sustained sound above background noises, a directed microwaves weapons is unlikely since, "you would definitely fry somebody's brain before you could cause a loud sustained sound with a microwave weapon." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• This quote is properly attributed to the speaker; it's fine. I don't have any comment on the general reliability of the source. AlexEng 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • See my new position below. AlexEng 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think it's an issue of whether Science Vs is a reliable source (by itself I would say probably not), but whether this professor is a reliable source (if his credentials are given correctly, he is) and whether he actually said that (which should be easily verifiable by just listening to the episode). Loki (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. and Yes. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note that I intended to Support Inclusion, even though I said that that Science Vs is probably not a reliable source by itself. I also think this RfC is reasonably neutral and not malformed despite not mentioning the weight issues. It's not up to the RfC maker to summarize every issue for or against. Loki (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Adding again: after reading the transcript I think we should probably add more about Dr. Collins' full views on the matter. Something like Chris Collins, Professor of Radiology at New York University, said on the podcast Science Vs that, while the Frey Effect can cause people to hear strange noises, those sounds are "very quiet". Since the embassy staff reported hearing a loud sustained sound above background noises, a directed microwaves weapons is unlikely since "you would definitely fry somebody's brain before you could cause a loud sustained sound with a microwave weapon". However, he acknowledged that it's theoretically possible that a government making a secret weapon might have discovered some way to do this that the broader scientific community is unaware of. Loki (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• This malformed RfC doesn't address the central issue, which is WP:WEIGHT. We have sources like the National Academies of Science and a peer reviewed paper from Journal of the American Medical Association. Why are you trying to counterbalance those with a throwaway line from a podcast nobody has heard of? This article should follow the WP:BESTSOURCES, not whatever Skeptic Movement aligned new media crap nobody has ever heard of. Science Vs didn't even have a Wiki article until this RfC's creator made one for it themselves, apparently to try to use it as a source in this article . Geogene (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I said above that I made the Science Vs page. I am a long time listener of the show. I like to make pages for things I like, and I obviously would like to use it as a source in the future. As I've said before, they do good work, are balanced and have fact checkers and corporate oversight. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to participate in this RfC but it's so malformed in multiple ways I don't know how do so. -- GreenC 03:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• What a mess. (Saw this at RSN). I Can't discern any structure to this RfC. If the question is "is this source reliable for saying what it says", then yes - every source is reliable for that. If the question is whether it's reliable for relaying what the speaker says, then probably yes (easy to verify). If the questions is whether the podcast is generally reliable for wider assertions of fact then the answer is probably not - podcasts are not usable sources except on rare occasions, perhaps per WP:PARITY. If the question is: should this source be used in this article, the answer is no, as better are available so no need to scrape the barrel. This RfC should probably be withdrawn as doomed to lead nowhere productive. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time. As to scraping the barrel, the page currently is in need of parity in terms of basic physics ideas. There is a common misconception that microwaves can heat things from the inside. It is such a basic, and wrong, idea that very few reputable experts are going to take the time to publish it in RS. There is this opinion piece, but I think the Science Vs is actually better because it is fact checked and edited. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Rofer, Cheryl (May 10, 2021). "Claims of Microwave Attacks Are Scientifically Implausible: There's little evidence for an unknown weapon being behind "Havana syndrome."". Foreign Policy. Retrieved October 26, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

• This is an improper and malformed RfC. (1) It combines multiple distinct issues and yet avoids the key one (the issue is not RS per se, but proper weight) and (2) there has been little or no effort to actually discuss beforehand. In any case — no, this content fails the WP:WEIGHT test. Geogene is correct here — this is a random comment by a random academic on a random podcast. The fact that this content appears to be proposed as a way to undercut the JAMA study and National Academies of Sciences study makes me even more skeptical of this. Exclude. Neutrality 05:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  As you will recall I did attempt to discuss this, and you were briefly a part of the discussion. Calling one of the most popular science podcasts and a highly credentialed expert on the relevant topic "random" is IMO the key issue. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  So let's be really clear here. You're a fan of this podcast, and you want to cite it in order to undercut the JAMA and NAS studies? That's blatantly undue. It doesn't matter how popular the podcast is, or how illustrious the guest. Neutrality 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  "Undercut"? I'm doing this in interest of WP:PARITY, WP:BALANCE. You and I just disagree on how conclusive the NAS Expert Committee was about anything. But let's let them speak for themselves. NAS:"each possible cause remains speculative." If each cause remains speculative we owe a balanced presentation of the non-microwave causes, as well as the many actual physics experts who find MW unlikely. And, the main thing I'm on about here, we should allow the REASONS that so many experts find microwaves implausible to appear in the article. The fact that microwaves cannot enter a human head without heating the exterior is chief amongst those reasons. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, not a reliable source. Podcasts are not reliable sources because they are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. We should also be careful of this pattern of "random expert X said Y". If you quote an expert with a minority or fringe opinion by accident, that can add too much legitimacy to their statement. Better to summarize high quality articles and papers, which are easier to vet because we can lean on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:MEDRS, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for weighing in. Science Vs was published first by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and then by Gimlet Media. It was never self published. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the comment above. Podcasts are not reliable sources because it is not possible to assess the editorial oversight, if any. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC).

  Thanks for joining. I don't think it's any harder to determine a podcast's oversight than any other publication. Science Vs is corporate owned and so subject to a board of directors which has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders not to get sued. Science Vs in particular has fact checkers and a commitment to being science-based. Given their long track record, it seems like one could determine how trustworthy they are. But in general, to make the blanket statement that all podcasts are not reliable, is to wipe off the map one of the largest and growing media segments in the world. I don't think we want to do that if we want to remain relevant. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: If an acknowledged expert on a topic is interviewed on a podcast about the topic, and their statements made therein are quoted and sourced to that podcast, why is that unacceptable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Unless you are implying manipulation of the recording, that seems even more reliable than a text quote from a RS, because that could have been an error. (And lest you think that is BS, I was in fact interviewed by the WP:RS Wired, and they got a quote from me very wrong, changing the meaning. Despite my request for correction, and acknowledgement that it was in fact not what I said, they never corrected it, saying "it was close enough.") RobP (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Also, saying all podcasts are not RS is an overreach. This is from WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." One podcast this is applicable to is Squaring the Strange, disallowed in this very article I recall. One of the hosts is Benjamin Radford. And BTW, there are WP cite templates for podcasts. RobP (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Since my original comment, I have had a chance to examine the actual source. Since this podcast involves the interview of a subject matter expert and since it is hosted, created, and edited by a reputable journalist, it sounds like it should be evaluated based on the advice in WP:Interviews. It ticks all the boxes for inclusion for me, and I am not aware of any conflict with WP:PAGs. Therefore, I support inclusion. AlexEng 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until you provide a specific sources supporting that statement; if the source that says that Chris Collins is a professional in Engineering and Safety of Electromagnetic Fields in Magnetic Resonance Imaging is true then he (Collins) is not a relevant source per WP:SPS as MRI is a different field from microwaves; microwaves and MRI operate in different frequency ranges: up to 300 MHz in MRI vs over 300MHz (up to 300 GHz) in microwaves respectively; i.e. the proposal is mostly a speculative one; I propose to bring WP:RS; best AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You quoted his "research interests" from his bio on the NYU website. If you had looked a bit further down, you'd see that he co-authored a study on temperature change in tissue due to exposure to EM fields, which seems pretty on topic to me. AlexEng 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

    @AlexEng: Thanks for heads up. I've seen that one already and I can say that the study didn't cross over 300MHz range meaning it wasn't concerning microwave range; even though I think it's okay per WP:RSCONTEXT to place the proposal above into the article's body but personally I would like see more relevant research supporting those words. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Alexander Davronov: Yeah, but that's kind of his point. We don't typically use microwave radiation in clinical settings because it spikes temperature in living tissue. The lone exception I know of is microwave hyperthermy in which overheating cancerous tissue is the actual goal. AlexEng 19:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose/Malformed per Geogene, Neutrality and AXONOV. I see no reason why we should be citing a podcast when better sources are available. GretLomborg (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It always amazes me when someone does not read reasonably convincing previous comments/votes, and then adds a comment/vote ignoring the point(s) made. AlexEng wrote "Since this podcast involves the interview of a subject matter expert and since it is hosted, created, and edited by a reputable journalist, it sounds like it should be evaluated based on the advice in WP:Interviews... " And yet, GretLomborg is comfortable ignoring those points and just saying "...I see no reason why..." RobP (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki recruitment and this page

This is not respectful of Misplaced Pages's consensus process. WP is not supposed to be an ideological battleground to be fought over to get your message out. Regarding, It contained only a tiny amount of skeptical material, so reading it would leave people with little doubt that the sonic attacks being discussed were real, you're not supposed to be coming here to stack this article with as much skeptical material as you possibly can, that isn't what NPOV is. Re: Unfortunately, when I reexamined it nearly a half year later, the article had grown significantly, but it had been expanded by mostly adding to the reports of the details and repercussions—medical and political—of the supposed “health attacks.” yes, the point of a Misplaced Pages article is to present a complete and encyclopedic summary of what reliable sources say about the subject in proportion to their due weight. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Members of this group "Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages" need to disclose who they are, and when they get involved in an article. They make a big show of playing by the rules then break one of the most fundamental principals which is don't secretly coordinate off site because it's (obviously) not fair to everyone else in a consensus-based environment. It can cause disruption and bad faith. -- GreenC 04:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think, @Rp2006:? -- GreenC 05:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with this, maybe ani, but not really a lot we can do here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The linked article is very interesting but the writer does not appear to have breached any policies. The article shows that the writer is clearly aware of Misplaced Pages's policies and has been scrupulous about acting in accordance with those policies.

• A similar situation exists, for example, when members of the Roman Catholic church edit articles on abortion, contraception or euthanasia.

• We have a policy related to off-wiki harassment, but, afaict, other off-wiki behaviours are not restricted. There are many sites, such as Wikipediocracy, where wiki editors and others can discuss what happens on Misplaced Pages.

• Why is "recruitment" mentioned? Afaict the linked article is a description of the writer’s edits.

• We should not be linking editors with the off-wiki article because:

"When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes".

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages". Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident canvassing off-site is restricted and not disclosing off-site coordination of team editing of articles would be highly concerning. And there is no way to know what is occurring if the members of the group do not disclose involvement. Even on-site groups such as WP:ARS are required to disclose when they get involved, and that group is actively at this moment people are trying to shut it down as an open, disclosed, on-site canvassing group. Off site secret (unknown members) undisclosed canvassing is pretty severe by comparison. Claiming secrecy under cover of not revealing true identity is a pretty neat trick and loophole that would allow anyone for any purpose to setup off-site canvassing groups so long as members reveal true ID offsite. My name is James Spartacus, not really but that's what I said offsite it is. -- GreenC 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @GreenC: but, what rule has been broken? I am part of GSoW -- which I choose to disclose, we do not "need to disclose" anything AFAIK --, and I'm curious at what sort of "off site coordination" you think exists and how exactly that breaks any rules. I heard of this Havana thing a long time ago, checked the wiki article from time to time but had not gotten involved in it, only decided to edit recently after watching this interview of Bartholomew with Mick West and then going on to read and watch a bunch of other stuff about it. Neurologist Suzanne O'Sullivan's recent book also describes Havana Syndrome as psychosomatic in origin. When I came back to look at the page and the discussion I found that there seems to be a couple editors that are really pushing the "sci-fi weapons are real" POV (that the mainstream media loves, but is nothing more than speculation), and even displaying a very strange prejudice against skeptics on some comments. My assessment of the situation was that a couple of non-MEDRS studies have been published saying there might have been injury and that a psychogenic origin is unlikely (with terrible reasoning for both) and Geogene and Neutrality are saying that juxtaposing these with other studies or publications from reliable sources that criticize those studies or that claim psychogenic/psychosomatic origins for the reported symptoms is UNDUE. This is just not the case, so I decided to push back and support the addition of reliable information to a page that is slanted towards an unscientific POV. No one "recruited" me to pile up on this discussion.VdSV9•♫ 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what GSoW does off-site, if anything, will you enlighten us? Typically, mission-focused groups like this operate in a similar manner to Misplaced Pages Projects. This includes listing articles and consensus discussions of interest. -- GreenC 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a review of WP:FALSECONSENSUS would help?

• Any administrator may block indefinitely any suspected meatpuppet for good cause. This includes disruptive behavior like edit warring and personal attacks, but also skewing consensus or neutrality by flooding the discussion.
• The recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged.
• The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
• When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Geogene (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is any of that relevant to this page? Burrobert (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Because in addition to the meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing, certain editors are trying to define consensus based on headcount. . Geogene (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Inappropriate for an article Talk page. Take it elsewhere if there is more to say. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Meatpuppery". Where?
• "off-wiki canvassing". Where and by whom?
• "define consensus based on headcount": Even assuming your interpretation is correct, how is that relevant?

Burrobert (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) ]

@VdSV9:, you write I choose to disclose, we do not "need to disclose" anything AFAIK – per WP:COI editors are generally expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest so that there can be no accusations of impropriety or dishonesty (e.g. vote stacking, canvassing, other means of manufacturing a consensus, or ways in which editors might not be here to improve WP in good faith). Membership in an off-WP group that (I gather) explicitly aims to coordinate WP editing is definitely one such likely source of COI. At the very least, it can look very bad for an editor (to avoid confusion I am not referring explicitly to you here, and have no horse in this race) to get involved in a dispute, only for it to transpire that their neutrality is compromised by their involvement in an off-wiki group. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Since WP:COI says, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest and none of this applies to Guerilla Skeptics, VdSV9 is right in saying that there is no need to disclose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bit like saying that people participating in an edit-a-thon have a COI they must disclose. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I know almost nothing about what this group is, and I also suspect such disclosures are a good thing regardless (they help to dispel suspicion about off-wiki organizing), but I read here that "A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next." This sounds flatly inappropriate to me. I'm opposed to decisions that affect WP being made in fora outside of WP, for a multitude of reasons. Most especially when these fora are not publicly accessible, which goes directly against the open spirit of WP, is socially exclusionary, and an artificial barrier to participation. If the situation arises where editors uninvolved in an off-Wiki forum suddenly see multiple other, apparently independent, editors turning up trying to do the same thing at the same time, and without access to information that does not exist anywhere on WP, mistakenly see this as spontaneous emergence of a consensus, then this is actually pretty dishonest and unfair. I do not think that using the letter of COI (and IMHO, Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest comes pretty close) against the spirit of it is useful in such a case. The point is, it's useful for a variety of reasons for editors not part of an off-Wiki group, which relates directly to the activities of other WP editors, to know who is in said group. And I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in withholding such information from other editors; it's not a principle I especially enjoy invoking, but in this case it seems true enough: if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to be afraid of.

If these folks just want to collaborate in editing topics related to skepticism (which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am strongly in favour of; I'm just questioning the wisdom of their apparent organizational decisions) then there's no reason I can see why they can't just participate in, say, the relevant WikiProject, or start their own. I see no excuse for private Facebook groups, or for any discussion relating directly to WP editing to be hosted on non-Wikimedia servers or in any other forum not directly accessible to other editors. This is blatantly exclusionary and unfair. And if you want to combat conspiracy theories, it does help a bit if you're not conspiratorial in your organizing. But since this is quickly ballooning beyond the scope of an article talk page, I do not propose to respond any further. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if people think this isn't the place for this, but questions have been asked, aspersions have been casted, and I would like to reply. @Archon 2488: If I were to, say, edit Susan Gerbic, I would disclose a COI in the sense that I feel like I know her too closely to present an unbiased POV of her person and her actions (even though I've never met her in person, we are online friends who are part of a group and talk from time to time about common interests, and she has interviewed me a couple of times -- some people think that the type of relationship we have does not imply a COI, but I do). Maybe there are other similar situations where I would feel I needed to disclose a COI because of my participation on GSoW, but I can't think of any such case at the moment. I am well aware of the policy and have disclosed COIs on a couple of occasions on pt.wiki because I edited pages of family members (a great-great-grandfather and a grand-uncle). I'll take the opportunity to reply to @GreenC:. We (mostly Susan) give people a basic training on how to edit Misplaced Pages, along with some information on basic policies and guidelines - this includes telling people to avoid canvassing etc. There is a worklist of "pages of interest" that, if someone is looking for something to work on, maybe there are improvements that could be made - and I expect someone will take this off-context and say it's some sort of fake consensus, but it isn't. It's about coming across a page that needs improving and adding to a collective to-do list. It's not like we are going to gang up on any of those pages, to the contrary, one of us might decide to pick it up and "claim" it, or it will sit there for years untouched, as most do. There is a discussion group where people share their work (in the sense of saying "hey guys, I wrote/rewrote/significantly improved this page, does anyone mind to check it out on my sandbox to make corrections/suggest improvements?) and ask for help when, for instance, there is a citation error they can't get rid of, or when they are having a hard time grasping a policy or another etc. Some people, especially --but not exclusively-- beginners, have a hard time finding help within the regular Misplaced Pages channels, and sometimes the help provided in Misplaced Pages isn't that helpful in the sense that people just say "Here are 12 pages, several hundred words each, that you have to read to understand what you're doing wrong". There is the occasional "An anti-vaxxer is removing referenced material from this page on so-and-so. How do I deal with them?". There is also the occasional post just to vent frustration, i.e. "Look at the credulous state this page is in. This is going to take a while to fix!". This means we end up sometimes learning about what others are working on and that piquing one's interest. But, again, it's not a coordinated thing. Have mistakes been made? Most definitely, everyone is always learning. I've been on WP for 15 years (granted, some of those not actively editing), 5 of which with GSoW, and I still make mistakes and learn new things all the time. But, on this page, we have specifically been told not to get involved because one of us was working on it - and I already explained above why I decided to get involved in spite of that. I really don't think my knowledge of another GSoW member being involved in editing this page is anything that needs disclosing: he didn't ask me to get involved, to the contrary. We do have shared interests and occasionally end up editing the same pages, but not in a coordinated way. There is no "off-site coordination" in a sense that breaks any rules that I know of. And we specifically are told to avoid canvassing or vote-stacking etc. When it comes to alt-med stuff, for instance, it is one of the shared interests many of us have, so every four years when athletes in the Summer Olympics show up displaying their cupping bruises all over the news, some of us would feel inclined to go the page and see if people who look up Cupping are getting good reliable information or not, and we might discuss that with the group. VdSV9•♫ 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's at ANI now, discuss it there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As others noted, it's only potentially COI if people are editing articles about themselves, closely enough related people, company they work(ed) for, etc. Not general (fringe or not) topics. —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Or when some members of the group are adding sources to other members of the group. -- GreenC 01:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources to their own work yes, perhaps those of their own org, it depends on the source type and how close the affiliation is. If in doubt, they should suggest the sources for non-involved editors to assess them, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 02:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

I'm not going to do individual pings; presumably, Alexbrn should have notified those editors whose actions are being discussed on their respective talk pages. For general information, please be aware that there is currently a discussion at ANI about this thread. AlexEng 05:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Douglas H. Smith

@AlexEng: re: The medical team that examined 21 affected diplomats from Cuba made no mention of microwaves in its detailed report published in JAMA in March. But Douglas H. Smith, the study’s lead author and director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a recent interview that microwaves were now considered a main suspect and that the team was increasingly sure the diplomats had suffered brain injury. Geogene (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already self-reverted. My confusion came from the fact that there are two articles, both in NYT, referencing two studies, both published in JAMA, by teams at UPenn. In the older article, Smith is named "lead author" while in the later article, Verma is referred to as the "lead author." Both are correct for their respective studies. AlexEng 07:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"All around the globe"

This addition by RobP exaggerates how widespread the complaints are and tendentiously feeds an MPI talking point. It even seems mocking, by imitating the voice of a childrens' book. Geogene (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

A children's book? Interesting take on a common expression. By any reasonable standards, as is currently reflected in the article, the attacks, if real, have been made all around the globe. Both East and West hemispheres and North and South. Shall I list those mentioned in the article? I will: Cuba (multiple locations), China (multiple locations), Moscow Russia; Poland; Tbilisi, Georgia; Taiwan; and Australia, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria "among other countries." Washington DC (multiple locations), Hanoi Vietnam, Vienna (multiple locations), Berlin, Serbia, London, Taiwan, and Bogota Colombia. Oh... nothing (yet) reported in Antarctica, so I guess we can wait until that happens before saying its all around the globe. Anyone who still maintains this is not psychosomatic but an actual series of attacks by persons unknown with weapons unknown (and not even demonstrably possible) is delusional. Just my opinion, but what do I know? I'm just a silly skeptic. In any case, the count seems like something over 20 (so far), so how about we just say that? I look forward to ratcheting it up as the count increases into triple digits. Hey, maybe even US astronauts on the the ISS will be attacked. That would surely make it an "all around the globe" assault on Americans. RobP (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead section - challenge

I have partly reverted some lead changes. The "crickets" hypothesis, cited to an early (2018) JASON report is undue weight (NBC reporting in Oct. 2021 stated that "Officials say they are now completely discounting a ... report by the JASON advisory group"), and there is no substantial support for this theory four years after it was mooted. Other elements of the lead changes wrongly gives "equal time" to microwaves (identified as most plausible by the National Academies study) with theories that simply don't have much support (e.g., pesticides). That, too, is undue weight.

AlexEng, you added this with the note "Hedge NAS analysis with JASON analysis per WP:BALANCE" - but that is simply inapposite here. That link describes situations when "reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence." But a 2018 report by a government advisory group is not "equal in prominence" to a large National Academies experts report from December 2020. Neutrality 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not tracking all the changes that closely, but I'm generally liking the article now more than before. I especially like your inclusion of the word "suspected" in the body. Ah, that's like water in a desert on this page, which has previously assumed "attack" and "microwaves" to be the default truths. But I wanted to say this about JASON and crickets. Whether or not crickets are a cause (which nobody actually ever said in RS) the fact that there are 8 RECORDING in the ORIGINAL 21 events is hugely significant. An audio recording disproves microwaves. These recording are how the whole HS started! Microwaves don't make audio in that way. So, to cut the JASON findings out of the lead or to only have the findings in the "Crickets" subheading is to miss a very important fact. Lest somebody suggest that this is only my OR on the topic, let's look at the Buzzfeed headline for the JASON report: "A Declassified State Department Report Says Microwaves Didn't Cause "Havana Syndrome" . Of course headlines are almost always problematic, but it shows that isn't just me spinning this idea. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I also object, for a very basic reason: are (presumably American) "officials" really a reliable source? Certainly NBC News is a reliable source that US officials are discounting the cricket theory, but because this is a geopolitical matter and not just a medical one, we shouldn't be taking what the US government says at face value. They're an involved party. They shouldn't be taken as a reliable source of fact any more than Cuba's blanket denials mean we should say in Wikivoice "it wasn't microwaves and didn't have anything to do with the Cuban government". Loki (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar: Well, sure, we don't repeat any government's mere assertion at face value. But the JASON report from 2018 was also a U.S. government study. So if the U.S. government puts out an initial study in 2018, and then later the government says, based on subsequent evidence, we don't credit the earlier study — obviously that's probative of weight. Does that make sense? Also, please see WP:ONUS; the bold edit to the lead has been challenged, so now is time for discussion. Neutrality 19:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Studies conducted by scientists within the US government are very different from US government officials saying something. What a bunch of fundamentally political actors think about the merits of one study over another is irrelevant to how we here on Misplaced Pages should weight them, especially when those political actors have a known agenda that would make them weight "microwaves" over "crickets" regardless of the science behind either explanation.

(Also I'm very familiar with ], thank you. The problem here is that you don't have consensus behind your edit. It's currently you versus AlexEng who made the original edit, DolyaIskrina, and me.) Loki (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A JASON report from 2018 is not equal to, or superior than, the JAMA studies in 2019 or the National Academies report from late 2020. And we don't make content decisions based on counting heads. In any case: WP:ONUS. Neutrality 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Not superior to, sure, but they are all medical reports and should all receive roughly equal weight, and certainly much more weight than any other source on this primarily medical topic. That's why the JASON report should be in the lead: it's not better than the JAMA report or the NAS report but it is a stronger source than almost any other source in the article, and it did recieve independent coverage. We cite what the director of CIA thinks about this in the lead, and if we're doing that we should obviously cite JASON because the JASON report or any other medical report should receive vastly more weight than anything the CIA thinks about a fundamentally medical issue. Loki (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that the old, 2018 JASON source is "a stronger source than almost any other source in the article." That's a pretty bizarre statement in light of the 2019 JAMA neuroimaging studies, the 2018 Golomb study, and the 2020 National Academies consensus report, which examined a range of theories. Neutrality 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The JAMA and NAS sources are indeed stronger, and the Golomb study is on a similar level. But think of this way: there are tiers of reliability here, the highest tier is "medical sources" and there are only a handful of those. Almost all of the source in this article are non-medical sources, and some have significant bias as well. Stated that way, the fact that the JASON source is a top-tier source on this topic makes it clearly deserving of the lead if we're gonna keep something like a comment from the director of the CIA (which IMO is a bottom-tier source on this topic as it has zero medical relevance, plus it's coming from a heavily biased source with deep ties to the US geopolitical goal of accusing Cuba of an attack). For what it's worth, the psychological sources proposing mass psychogenic illness are also "top-tier" and therefore lead-worthy, especially over, again, comments from the director of the CIA. Loki (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot equate peer-reviewed/national academy sources (like JAMA, Golomb, and NAS), with sources that are not (like an old report from an advisory group evaluating a handful of audio clips). That turns the tiers of reliability on its head. And no, the "sources proposing mass psychogenic illness" aren't "top-tier" - please identify what specific source you mean. People were trying to put in podcasts and blogs earlier, for crying out loud. As for the CIA director - his quote is attributed, he's not cited for a medical claim, and the reaction of the head of the CIA is obviously relevant to an article about symptoms affecting CIA personnel (even if the director turns out to be wrong). Neutrality 21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, Neutrality. Thank you for your work here. I take your changes in good faith, but I think you unfortunately made several errors which I will expound on below.

1. The JASON report is not a "crickets" hypothesis with respect to the cause of Havana syndrome. The report assessed the cause of the sounds recorded by affected personnel and determined that they were caused by crickets with "high confidence." The report did not say that the neurological effects and physical symptoms were caused by crickets. It said the opposite, actually:

   ... we find that the power levels in the audio part of the spectrum are too low to cause physiological damage.

   The salient part of the report with respect to the microwave hypothesis is that JASON ruled out microwaves as a cause of both the sounds and the physiological symptoms.
2. The NBC News report should not be used to justify excluding the JASON report as undue. This

   Officials say they are now completely discounting a 2018 State Department report by the JASON advisory group, an elite scientific board, suggesting that some of the original cases were caused by sounds made by a loud species of crickets.

   is a non-specific reference to some nebulous government officials' analysis of the report and is not portrayed by NBC News as representative of any new scientific research. The Buzzfeed News source published two weeks earlier makes two more specific claims attributed to government officials and should be preferred.

   "The 2018 JASON report, which was commissioned during the last administration, is not aligned with the Biden-Harris administration’s understanding of AHI and it has not informed our response," said a senior administration official, in a statement sent to BuzzFeed News. "Because of the acknowledged shortcomings of previous studies, this administration has purposefully established a new panel of experts from across the Intelligence Community, academia, and the private sector with access to the full range of information available to the government to help us determine the cause of these incidents and generate new insights that can help protect our personnel.”

   and

   “We are grateful to the JASON Group for their insight, which while coming to no firm conclusions, has assisted us in our ongoing investigation of these incidents,” a State Department spokesperson told BuzzFeed News in an emailed statement.

3. Other elements of the lead changes wrongly gives "equal time" to microwaves... with theories that simply don't have much support (e.g., pesticides). The lead changes that I made give much more time to discussion of the microwave theory than any of the other three causes. I included both a blurb about the the NAS report and a contrasting blurb about the JASON report's analysis of the microwave scenario. This reflects the balance required of us to maintain NPOV. Pesticides, ultrasound and psychogenic phenomena got one wikilinked word each. How is that equal time?
4. microwaves ... identified as most plausible by the National Academies study. What you called the NAS "study" is not a study but an advisory report based on independent analysis of scientific studies. It is referred to as a report in the NBC News source, the Lancet, the CNN source, and by the report itself – this wording will become important in a later point. Relying exclusively on this NAS report, which has been dismissed or criticized by other reliable sources and experts, is placing WP:UNDUE weight on the microwave hypothesis which itself has been dismissed and criticized by reputable sources and experts.
   1. New York Times 10/2021:

      As recently as this summer , however, U.S. intelligence officials were struggling to find evidence that the condition was a result of microwave attacks by Russian agents — a theory put forward in a study by the National Academy of Sciences in December.

   2. New York Times 11/2021:

      A variety of theories have been proposed, generally along the lines of some form of targeted beams or sonic weapons using microwaves or ultrasound, only to be disproved or deemed inconclusive.

   3. Foreign Policy 5/2021:

      If this weapon exists, knowing how it works is critical. The NAS report fails to make this connection. The references are weak, and the committee includes no experts in microwaves and their effects. The committee is made up mostly of experts in medical-related fields. Only two out of 19 seem likely to have any expertise in microwave technology, and it is not their specialty. The section of the report on microwave effects contains about a dozen references spanning 40 years and more. The older references are probably less reliable. The studies include microwave effects on cell cultures, rats, and rhesus monkeys, and only one discusses effects at all similar to Havana syndrome.

   4. Washington Post 9/2018:

      Foster said there is no technology capable of using microwaves to produce the kinds of symptoms that the U.S. diplomats have experienced — and not for lack of trying.

      “It’s crazy,” said Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania who studied microwave phenomena while working at the Naval Medical Research Center in Bethesda.

      Despite the buzz over microwaves, advanced in news reports in recent days, experts warn that caution is in order. There’s an old scientific aphorism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “And they’re not giving the extraordinary evidence. They’re not giving any evidence,” said physicist Peter Zimmerman, an arms control expert and former scientific adviser to the State Department and Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

   5. New York Times 10/21:

      Many scientists have argued that the microwave weapon theory is implausible. While the U.S. military has tested crowd-control devices that use powerful microwaves that can travel long distances, they are exceedingly large and work by heating people’s skin from the outside in; a microwave weapon capable of injuring the brain, even if it could be concealed, would presumably first fry the victim’s flesh. “The idea that someone could beam huge amounts of microwave energy at people and not have it be obvious defies credibility,” Kenneth Foster, an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the Frey effect, told The Times. “You might as well say little green men from Mars were throwing darts of energy.”

      Cheryl Rofer, a former chemist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, has taken a similar view. “The evidence for microwave effects of the type categorized as Havana syndrome is exceedingly weak,” she wrote in Foreign Policy. “No proponent of the idea has outlined how the weapon would actually work. No evidence has been offered that such a weapon has been developed by any nation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no evidence has been offered to support the existence of this mystery weapon.”

5. But a 2018 report by a government advisory group is not "equal in prominence" to a large National Academies experts report from December 2020. I mentioned in an earlier point that the NAS report is a report and not a study, which you seem to admit in this statement as well. I took that to mean we were comparing apples and oranges, in your view. JASON and the NAS committee that drafted the report are both advisory groups; this was a report and not a new study sponsored by the NAS. The JASON report is older, but had access to classified information while the NAS report did not.

   A December 2020 study of the causes by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that microwave attacks were most likely the cause, but Biden administration officials say the group had no access to classified information.

   I am still going to say that leaning heavily on this NAS report to uplift the prominence of the microwave hypothesis in the article is undue. I think WP:BALANCE demands that we present the hypothesis as the leading explanation (as shown in RS), but also represent the significant disagreement with that hypothesis, as also shown in RS.

Thank you for reading, Neutrality. Can we compromise on appropriate wording that incorporates the RS views I described above? I honestly spent quite a few hours last night trying to get the wording just right to present this in a balanced way. I'm sorry it wasn't good enough, but I think there is still some room for improvement between the old version and the one I ended up settling on yesterday. Please let me know what you think. I have some (hopefully) uncontroversial changes to make outside of this matter, but I'll handle those later. AlexEng 19:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Vergano, Dan (30 September 2021). "A Declassified State Department Report Says Microwaves Didn't Cause "Havana Syndrome"". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
2. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21068770-jason-report-2018-havana-syndrome
3. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/havana-syndrome-jason-crickets
4. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/12/new-report-assesses-illnesses-among-us-government-personnel-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/us/politics/havana-syndrome-colombia.html
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/havana-syndrome.html
7. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/10/microwave-attacks-havana-syndrome-scientifically-implausible/
8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-and-doctors-zap-theory-that-microwave-weapon-injured-cuba-diplomats/2018/09/06/aa51dcd0-b142-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html
9. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/havana-syndrome-disorder.html
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/08/us/politics/havana-syndrome-attacks-mystery.html?searchResultPosition=4

AlexEng: Thanks for this. I do appreciate that you've thought about this.

• I want to be clear that I agree that the JASON 2018 report should be mentioned in the body of the article. But the lead section is different. It is the most prominent part of the article. I think it is undue weight for the following reasons: (1) report was not peer-reviewed; (2) the report predated the NAS and JAMA studies; (3) the report is now discounted by the U.S. government (the State Department language you quoted underscores the point: "acknowledged shortcomings of previous studies") and (4) the report only evaluated a very small number of recordings from a very small number of people (i.e., it is not necessarily probative of causation even for those cases, let alone reports from outside Havana).
• We already make clear (as we should), in the lead section and in the body, that no cause has been definitively determined and that not everyone accepts microwave hypothesis. The Zimmerman, Foster, etc. views are included in the body of the article (even though they are just commentaries, and not anything peer-reviewed). But these alternative, minority explanations are just that. I accepted the inclusion, in the lead section, of language that gives a nod to those ("Other potential causes or contributing factors of the symptoms that have been proposed have included..."). To me, that was a compromise; I'm still not entirely comfortable with it, but I've accepted it in the lead given the feelings of some others and the lack of a definitive determination.
• Re the "NAS report and a contrasting blurb about the JASON report's analysis" - WP:WEIGHT says: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to ... prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements." Here, the prominence of placement and the "contrasting" (juxtaposition) suggest that the NAS December 2020 report and the 2018 JASON report are of equal quality. But that's simply not the case: the NAS report was more recent, it was published by the National Academies, and it represents a consensus view. Even if we say, hey, the NAS report and the JASON report are "both advisory groups," it would be wrong to suggest that the more prominent, more currently accepted, and much more recent advisory group is equal in quality to the less prominent, now basically superseded, and older source.
• I don't understand the argument that "the JASON study is better because they had access to classified information" — that is inconsistent with the fact that the thinking of those with intelligence access now (in 2021, not 2018) tends toward the microwave hypothesis. That is what the New York Times opinion piece by Spencer Bokat-Lindell, that you linked to above, says ("The leading theory among American intelligence officials" is microwaves).

--Neutrality 19:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I continue to think you are giving vastly undue WP:WEIGHT to US intelligence and political officials on a medical issue. The NAS and JASON studies are both very WP:WEIGHTy on this medical topic, where anything said officially by the US government, by the US intelligence community, or in general by any official state actor US or not is very close to useless on medical topics. We don't cite US intelligence officials in our articles on cancer, depression, lumbago or in general any other medical issue, so why should they be reliable here? Loki (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The JAMA and the NAS studies are not "US intelligence and political officials." Second, nobody is proposing citing to U.S. intelligence officials on matters of medicine. (They can absolutely be cited with respect to questions of espionage, analysis of attribution, etc.—as you yourself said above, "this is a geopolitical matter and not just a medical one."). Neutrality 20:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The JAMA and the NAS studies are not what I'm talking about. Those are indeed reliable sources on this topic. I'm talking about things like (3) the report is now discounted by the U.S. government (the State Department language you quoted underscores the point and the thinking of those with intelligence access now (in 2021, not 2018) tends toward the microwave hypothesis and That is what the New York Times opinion piece by Spencer Bokat-Lindell, that you linked to above, says ("The leading theory among American intelligence officials" is microwaves). The State Department's opinion on the causes of a syndrome is irrelevant. American intelligence officials' opinion on the causes of a syndrome is irrelevant. Neither of these are remotely reliable sources on this topic, and so citing them to bolster one medical source over another hurts, rather than helps, your point. Loki (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if one accepted all that (pretty debatable in the context of this whole phenomenon, which affected U.S. government personnel and which the U.S. government is investigating), it wouldn't change all the other key facts: (1) the JASON report was not peer-reviewed (like the JAMA neurological study or the Golomb Neural Computation study) nor put out by a national academy (like the NAS report); (2) the report predated the NAS and JAMA studies; (3) the report only evaluated a very small number of recordings from a very small number of people (i.e., it is not necessarily probative of causation even for those cases, let alone reports from outside Havana); and (4) as far as I know, there has been no peer-reviewed source or national academy publication that has given credence to the cricket thing. Neutrality 21:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: hey, sorry for my absence in this topic area over the weekend. I have a few things to add:

1. I agree that government officials in the current administration have taken a dim view of the JASON report and alternatives to the microwave hypothesis. I think that's reasonable to address in the body of the article, but it should not be a substitute for discussing the validity of the hypothesis in the scientific literature.
2. I feel better about microwaves no longer being included in the infobox, at least. I can compromise on microwaves being called "the most plausible mechanism" in the lead, but I would feel less uneasy if we made more specific mention of the disagreement with that hypothesis. At least it's not said in Misplaced Pages's voice.
3. I'm afraid I don't agree with any of what you said in point above. While the NAS report was more recent, it did not have access to the classified data that the JASON group had access to, such as a significant body of audio/visual recordings from the time of the events in question and interviews with affected personnel. There are also large sections that are blocked out from the FOIA release of the report, but we can trust that JASON took that data into account in their analysis. I also don't think we have nearly enough evidence to suggest that the microwave hypothesis is the consensus view, when we have significant disagreement and not much in the way of agreement. It's basically just the NAS report against the body of experts that disagree with it.
4. I addressed much of your point above, but I want to clarify that I agree with stating that microwaves are the leading theory among intelligence officials, but we don't have the sources to say that is the consensus view among scientists as well. I stated as much in my original reply in this section: I think WP:BALANCE demands that we present the hypothesis as the leading explanation (as shown in RS), but also represent the significant disagreement with that hypothesis, as also shown in RS..

Final note: The NAS report was not peer-reviewed, and I did post a few sources above that indicate expert disagreement with the report as well as methodological flaws. The study published in JAMA is peer-reviewed, and JAMA published "four letters from a total of 10 doctors and scientists criticizing the original study." That's the peer review process in action, and we can't just pretend that it didn't happen. This prompted a response from the authors of the study partially admitting to the methodological flaws highlighted in the letters and promising future research. That future research has already happened (it's the Verma study also published in JAMA), and received further criticism in a letter published by JAMA:

One concern is the choice of controls. To show that directional phenomena might be responsible for brain changes in this cohort, another unexposed group of patients with the same symptoms, such as those found in a general neurology clinic, should have been selected, rather than demographically similar healthy individuals. Details on the comorbidities of the controls and how they were recruited were lacking. Additionally, of the 40 patients studied, 10 did not endorse exposure to directional phenomena, in 20 individuals the nature of the symptoms was not well described, and 6 had no clinical information. Other potentially confounding factors were not adequately considered, including an average delay of 190 days between exposure and imaging, medication effects, and individual differences in IQ or psychiatric comorbidities.

To that, the authors again responded, again partially admitting to the limitations of their study. The thrust of this point is to say that if we're to trust peer-reviewed studies because they peer-reviewed, we should also pay attention to the results of the peer-review process. AlexEng 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2697000
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-and-doctors-zap-theory-that-microwave-weapon-injured-cuba-diplomats/2018/09/06/aa51dcd0-b142-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html
3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2697006
4. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552
5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2757221
6. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2757223

Thanks, AlexEng. A few points:

• First - Nowhere in the current article do we use the phrase "leading theory" (or even the word "leading"). We do quote (as we should) the NAS language regarding the "most plausible mechanism" in explaining the cases considered, giving all the many caveats.
• Second - Re "discussing the validity of the hypothesis in the scientific literature": We are clear upfront about the limitations of the JAMA studies (retrospective, small n, etc.), as the study authors themselves were. Others have quibbled with the methodology (as is often the case), but that doesn't really undercut the importance of the neuroimaging studies, which are, to my knowledge, among the only direct empirical evidence available. (This is phenomenon is pretty unusual and recent, plus it takes places in a cloak-and-dagger context, so it isn't surprising that the available literature naturally isn't abundant.) In some respects, the extent to which the JAMA article aroused interest and responses within the scientific community reinforces how central is is to understanding the phenomenon. If you have a suggestion on additional or different texts for this article re: limitations, my mind is open. But I think we should be very careful not to give anywhere close to equal weight to the articles and to the letters to the editor (the latter are far less prominent than the former, and the latter do not go through the same review process as the former.
• Third - I cannot agree that it's "just the NAS report against the body of experts that disagree with it." While a variety of alternative explanations have been advanced, I have seen no peer-reviewed/national-academy literature that suggests anything close to the existence of "a body of experts" that coalescing around any alternative to the microwave hypothesis. To the contrary, the microwave hypothesis was deemed the most plausible by NAS, the Golomb study (peer-reviewed) agrees with it, and this explanation is consistent with the JAMA studies (also peer-reviewed). Even if the NAS Consensus Study Report was not peer-reviewed, it is one of the best available sources we have, along with JAMA and Golomb. Within the context of the information we have, a report from the National Academies ranks pretty high. It certainly rates higher than letters to the editor in the journal (also not peer-reviewed to my knowledge) or some of the popular-press "alternative explanation" stuff (definitely not peer-reviewed).
• Fourth - We should bear in mind that among the 200+ cases it's possible that it's a multiplicity of factors at work. The suggestion of one cause does not exclude others. (We get at this important point under "Reports outside Cuba" section.) Among the 200+ reports, it's certainly possible that some are the result of directed RF/MW exposure and some are the result of other factors. I don't think this is an all-or-nothing type thing. Neutrality 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: thanks for the well-reasoned response.

• First, I'll concede we don't use that terminology, but it is how some editors are framing the microwave hypothesis in the discussions on this talk page. That's reflected in the word choice used in the article.
• Second, small n is one thing, but the main complaint is the choice of control group, among other confounding factors. That's something that the study's authors did have control over. I don't think we need to re-litigate their case, as we are not experts, but the notable disagreement published by JAMA stands on its own merits.
• Third, I think this is the essence of our disagreement: I don't think we should artificially "promote" any hypothesis by giving it undue weight in the lead. I'm not suggesting that experts have coalesced around any alternative theory. I think you've seen that some editors here have endorsed a psychogenic explanation. I've seen some support for that over the microwave hypothesis, but I don't think we should promote it either. With regards to the two studies in JAMA, I should also point out that the studies themselves – which have been peer-reviewed, but not "peer-accepted" – do not endorse a microwave explanation for the symptoms. The studies' authors have suggested a microwave hypothesis in various interviews, which have not been peer-reviewed. We can't lean on the JAMA studies to promote the microwave hypothesis. It really is just the NAS report. Maybe Golomb. I haven't read her work yet.
• Fourth, I absolutely agree. There could be varied causes. That adds to my determination to not endorse any particular theory in the lead, at least without a counterpoint. AlexEng 02:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Of course, we shouldn't "artificially 'promote'" or "endorse any particular theory in the lead" - and I don't think the current version of the article does so. We reflect what the best available reports and studies say, appropriately caveated and attributed, according to their weight — and the strongest, most recent, highest-quality of the limited set of reports and studies available does identify microwaves as the most plausible and the best supported. There is simply not equivalently strong sourcing for other proposed theories. If we were to put together a chart of the sources available in the article by quality, I think that would be borne out. Neutralit 03:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Victims"

My feeling is the word "victims", as is currently used in the lead, implies attacks. I suggest the following changes (removed wikilinks and refs for smooth reading, those should obviously be kept in the article):

(...) Beginning in 2017, additional victims reported exhibiting these symptoms reports occurred in other locations such as China, Washington D.C., and Europe. Known victims consist ofThe symptoms have been reported mostly by U.S. intelligence and military personnel and their families, including U.S. personnel on missions aimed at countering Russian covert operations.

In a way, sufferers of medical conditions, even if psychosomatic, can also be called victims, but I do feel like someone reading the current version might come away thinking we're saying these people have been attacked, and my suggestion has a smaller chance of being misleading. VdSV9•♫ 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"additional reports occurred" seems clunky. Reports don't really "occur"; they follow the event/incident. Not necessarily opposed to rewording but it should read smoothly. Perhaps "additional incidents were reported in..." Neutrality 19:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

After the recent kerfuffle had me review the entire article, the repeated use of that term (14 times) did jump out at me. I wasn’t actually going to bring it up knowing many editors here do think these are attacks, and hence those attacked are victims. But now that the subject is being discussed, I think it would be disingenuous to say the term victim would not be construed as meaning anything other than people who were intentionally attacked. Also, when I worked on this article a long time ago (see here) there were only 2 uses of the word (in an admittedly much smaller article.) But, I also noticed that the V in HAVANA Act means Victims... an intentional construction to "legally" reinforce the official gov't position. One more thing: as a reminder, when this article was originally published four years ago! its name was something like "Sonic Attacks in Cuba." How far we have come, yet still no proof of attacks with "victims", and yet the main takeaway from reading this article four years later is still that the health issues represent undiscovered attacks with actual victims! Let me point those of you clamoring for "skeptics" to stay away from giving input on "medical matters", to Morgellons as an interesting read, esp. the Media coverage section. Rp2006 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I both agree that the word "victims" presumes that these were attacks and that the proposed rewording is too awkward to seriously consider. How about "sufferers"? Or maybe ""? Loki (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @LokiTheLiar: and @Neutrality: for the suggestions to improve the text. Thanks Rob for the input, as well. How about:

(...) Beginning in 2017, additional victimspeople reported exhibiting these symptoms in other locations such as China, Washington D.C., and Europe. Known victims consist ofThe symptoms have been reported mostly by U.S. intelligence and military personnel and their families, including U.S. personnel on missions aimed at countering Russian covert operations.

? VdSV9•♫ 02:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable. But I have an associated question. Do we have a count of the “victims” to be sure symptoms have been reported “mostly” by the specified categories of people? My understanding was it was mostly embassy staff. Surely not all of those would be US intelligence personnel. And why the specific call out on personnel aimed at countering Russian covert operations? This has now been reported at over 20 places all over the world including South America, in the US, London and even Vienna. Rp2006 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How about something like this: Beginning in 2017, US and Canadian citizens reported having similar symptoms in many locations around the world including in China, Korea, Australia, South America, Europe and the US. Symptoms attributed to Havana Syndrome have been reported by a a wide variety of people including embassy staff, U.S. intelligence, military personnel, white house staff, and family members in many cases. Rp2006 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. I independently came to the conclusion that "victims" was inappropriate before even checking the talk page. It is clearly inappropriate to use until it has been demonstrated that it was anthropogenic in nature (an attack, pesticide poisoning, etc.) The lede is clear that the cause is unknown and leaves open the possibility that it is mass psychogenic illness. "Sufferers", "afflicted", etc. are far more appropriate and less question-begging than "victims", which is opinion/editorializing. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I only could look at the recent progress now, I noticed an improvement in that the focus is less on "attack"/"victim" discourse (that seemed prevalent when I last looked). Per a recent comment I added at FTN, some sources mention that it's outdated terminology. Thank you for improving the article, —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

McGill University Office for science and society

• https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-and-nutrition/havana-syndrome-or-case-eliminating-implausible

I find the above pretty good so am proposing it as a potential source, —PaleoNeonate – 22:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This source was either added and reverted, or perhaps just proposed previously. (I do not recall.) In any case it was claimed to be just a blog and thus unreliable. Rp2006 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I suggested it again above (in Continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis) with other possible MPI sources, but the near silence was deafening. Rp2006 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable source here. This is essentially a blog post. It offers a speculative explanation that is, in any case, already noted in the article. (Moreover, not only is the piece not peer-reviewed or published in an academic press, national academy, or other source, it also is not written by an author with any discernable subject-matter expertise in any relevant area.) Neutrality 23:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Essentially a blog post"? It's published by a university and the organization behind it has been cited by the media numerous times. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Loki (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things are published by universities, including blogs, newsletters, and press releases; that does not make them WP:RS, nor does it make the output WP:DUE. Neutrality 04:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that being published by a university doesn't make a source reliable. An example: press releases from universities often are promotional pieces for research that was done at said uni, no matter how good or bad. But if you take a minute to evaluate this source, it is very much RS. And I'll add what I said a while back, although I was addressing to Geogene, I'm sure you read it back then: the studies published so far aren't all that meaningful and shouldn't be given so much weight as to make everything else UNDUE. The brain scan study in particular is basically meaningless: They found differences in brain scans, some of those differences are contrary to what would be expected from brain injuries; and saying that whatever differences were found had anything to do with the reported symptoms is saying correlation implies causation. I would actually bet money that if we took 20 random people off the streets and compared their brain scans with 20 other random people, and told those researchers to do the same evaluation claiming that one of the groups had reported symptoms, the results would be basically the same - in the sense that there would be differences in some regions with p<0.05 and the researchers would try to interpret them in some way to make them meaningful in the context of the symptoms. VdSV9•♫ 14:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) Editors' own critique of the JAMA study doesn't seem relevant here; if there are peer-reviewed critiques of the study, that would be different; the McGill website isn't that; (2) I agree that the JAMA article should not be "given so much weight as to make everything else UNDUE" but of course that's not what's happening currently. Neutrality 16:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the expectation of “normal” pre publication peer review being the only valid way to invalidate or even challenge results of a study. What’s being downplayed and disallowed here is criticism of the JAMA study being reported by experts in finding flaws in such studies as well as other proclamations of scientists who are not (generally) trained in skepticism. This category of people are called scientific skeptics by the way. This is a worthy read regarding the expectation that peer review is the only way to find flaws in a study. Rp2006 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not here to promote the capital-S Skepticism movement. We are not here to elevate some vague group of scientists whom you deem to be sufficiently "trained in skepticism" and to denigrate others. We are here to faithfully reflect the sources, giving the most weight and space to the best available sources, which here are the NAS report and the JAMA studies. You are free in your individual capacity to criticize NAS or JAMA. But posts on websites are not equivalent to the NAS or JAMA, and they cannot be used to "invalidate them." That is baseline undue weight - specifically improper juxtaposition. If you would like to try to change that policy, than you can make that case on a policy talk page. And to be clear, we already make perfectly plain the limitations of the study; nobody has "downplayed and disallowed" that at all. Neutrality 16:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have heard this type of reasoning quite a few times. It's always the same: the people who use it want to exclude skeptics as sources because they are skeptics, which is a sort of McCarthyism. And the motivation is either that they want to promote the pseudoscience the skeptics are debunking, or that they are dogmatic fence-sitters who do not tolerate non-fence-sitters. Often those frame themselves as "real skeptics" or emphasize their own lack of bias, as if that would help eliminating mistakes and finding the right solution. It's just a naive attempt at science by lazy people.

Skeptics have experience with certain types of situations at the fringes of science. They defend the position with the best evidence. If they don't, other skeptics will contradict them using better evidence. That's how the whole thing works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) This talk page is about article improvements. I don't see how musings about "McCarthyism" and "lazy people" promotes that goal. If you have a specific point, then make it. (2) Nobody has at all argued to "exclude skeptics as sources because they are skeptics." What has been argued is that due weight is our policy, and that no source gets a pass from that baseline policy just because it is deemed to be contrarian or a skeptical movement source. For example, we're not going to use a podcast to undercut a JAMA study or National Academies of Sciences report. This shouldn't be particularly controversial. Neutrality 01:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, no one is here to promote a movement, or to elevate or denigrate anyone. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best available information from reliable sources, and that is all everyone here is trying to do. The above comment from Neutrality sounds like a failure in assuming good faith/aspersions. VdSV9•♫ 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, VdSV9 - a small number of users have candidly stated (in this very thread) that they believe factors other than "the best available information from RS" should influence, or even be the key factor in, content decisions. Specifically, the contention is that it matters deeply whether an author is deemed to belong to specific "category of people" — and that considerations such as quality of sourcing, peer-review, prominence of sourcing, etc., are secondary or not relevant. This is wildly at odds with longstanding encyclopedia policy. Neutrality 01:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely you mean the situations when editors have dismissed reliable sources because they are from skeptics, no? But that is not what is happening in this discussion, so far.VdSV9•♫ 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality, you are verging on WP:IDHT about WP:WEIGHT:"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". You continue to attack the source and not the experts themselves. As long as the source can be trusted to be accurately portraying the expert's views, then it doesn't matter whether or not it is a blog, a podcast or even a tweet. What matters is WP:ACADEMIC notability. The numbers of times I have said this here on talk and been ignored is really quite aggravating. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• DolyaIskrina, you seem to be misunderstanding basic policy here. The quality of the source does matter. It is simply incorrect to say that "it doesn't matter whether or not a blog, a podcast or even a tweet" (and it disturbs me that this really simple point has to be explained repeatedly to you). These sources do not get equal weight to peer-reviewed articles or the NAS. That's what WP:WEIGHT or WP:RS is about. As for Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics) - that is about which people should get biography articles about them. Notability is not about sourcing or article content (WP:N: ... "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles"). Please do read and comprehend links before citing them. Neutrality 19:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to spam you with links. I'm giving you quoted text which you ignore. Here is yet another. WP:FRINGE: "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources." You can't possibly assert that the scientific consensus says there is a secret Spetznaz raygun, because all the peer reviewed studies that you are so fond of go out of their way to say that there is no consensus as to cause. This sentence which is how much of this article still seems to read to me: "The experts aren't quite sure what the heck it is, but NAS thinks microwaves is most likely." That is not NPOV, that is assertion by omission and innuendo. For that reason I am arguing that WP:PARITY applies, and we can allow McGill in the name of BALANCE. Please stop waving your hand at me and saying I don't understand policy (yes, I know WP:FRINGE is a guideline.) A lot of editors have REASONS for wanting sources such as McGill to be accepted. Your adherence to RS in this context starts to feel like lawyering. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article doesn't "assert that the scientific consensus says there is a secret Spetznaz raygun." Nor does the article present any particular hypothesis as "fact." To the contrary, the article is very clear that no cause has been definitively determined. The NAS consensus report did say that microwaves/RF was most plausible among the cases considered, a McGill website (not even from a subject-matter expert) is not equal in prominence to the NAS report, and the Bartholomew/Baloh view is already amply represented. Neutrality 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Until very recent edits, any reasonably literate person would have come away from the article thinking there is in fact a secret Spetsnaz raygun. And still the basic reasons why many experts do not believe in Spetsnaz rayguns are still not present in the article. Namely, that in order to cause a Frey effect loud enough to rise above background noises, you would have to hit the brain with enough energy to cause a great deal of heat. None of the "victims" every complained of a sensation of heat. Whenever I try to include that information, you say my source "isn't equal to NAS." The issue is not whether or not the source is is equal to NAS, the issue is whether or not a large minority (if not a majority) of actual experts in microwaves interacting with human bodies believe that. When it comes to expert consensus on basic notions such as how microwaves work, there will not be peer reviewed sources, because it's so freaking basic no professionals would waste their time saying it. Hence. WP:PARITY. DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to point out that this is similar to the ongoing UFO (renamed UAP) flap. US Navy pilots and officials are are all over the media proclaiming ETs are here, with the only other acknowledged possibility being advanced tech from US enemies. The media eats this up and its covered that way by CNN, ABC, NYT etc. Scientific skeptics who understand what is most likely going on (human perceptual error to begin with) barely get coverage, even when they thoroughly debunk specific cases that the media keeps trotting out as having no earthly explanation. And on these type of topics, one certainly can't write "peer reviewed journal articles." No one can do that "proving" MPI is the cause of Havana Syndrome. The best that can be done is for subject matter experts to point out the flaws in the original "medical" studies. (Not the least of which being they were done by people not equipped to detect MPI and hellbent to prove what the gov't had already proclaimed.) And yet, articles about all this by the experts in that field (psychology/sociology) are mostly declined as RS references here, or at lease said to represent UNDUE. I can't count how many times additions of new articles quoting these experts (containing their latest views regarding recent events) have been reverted with the claim "it adds nothing new" or "the view is already represented here" or it is simply discounted because the expert was interviewed in a non-text source. Rp2006 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Medium.com analysis

The recent vandalism in this article by SPA "Anthony Arellano solved Havana Syndrome" had me investigate Anthony Arellano. I discovered that he has posted virtually the same info he added to this article's lead to many social media accounts, including FB, Twitter and YouTube. He looks to me like someone who would refer to themselves as a "Targeted Individual," which got me to Google that term and Havana Syndrome together. Finding this fascination analysis was the result. Thoughts on including something from it in this WP article?Rp2006 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Medium is all self-published bloggery, so we can't use it directly. If there's any information in that piece that can be sourced to an RS, then sure. What specific things did you have in mind? AlexEng 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The article provides some interesting background information and a good summary of research about HS and related issues. Many of the items are covered in the current version of our article. I doubt whether editors will accept Medium as a suitable source for our article but it could be used as a starting point for further investigation. The article includes plenty of links to reliable sources to substantiate its claims. Here are some interesting bits that are not in our article afaict:

• The State Department declassified a 2018 report in which it found that then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had failed to name a senior official to oversee an investigation into the events, resulting in what the agency termed errors. But in September officials at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department followed that with a round of firings and resignations connected to the case.

• Here is an amusing characterisation of US media which is not relevant to our current article:

The New York Times is the institution. It sets the standard for how journalists divine truth and its style guide shapes how the public understands the truth. Outlets like the New York Times might misrepresent the truth, they might sometimes need to correct how they portray the truth, but they would never lie. Thus, the American media does not promote conspiracy theories.

Presumably, the writer is saying that, whatever US media such as the NYT writes is, by definition, not a conspiracy theory.

• Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania stated that claims made by victims could be consistent with traumatic brain trauma, they found no evidence of impact and mused that it was as if this group had suffered a “concussion without a concussion.”

• As the first wave of alleged attacks occurred in 2016, Cuba was in the midst of an outbreak of the Zika virus. Reports of flu-like symptoms grew until the United States pulled Embassy staff out of Cuba the following year. Per the NAS report: “The committee could not rule out the possibility that some employees were infected by Zika, and that it contributed in some fashion together with other causative factors to the chronic clinical findings, especially during 2017.

• “A former national security official told POLITICO that, in one instance, officials suspected that directed energy had injured a Marine in Syria; but a Pentagon investigation later concluded that the Marine’s symptoms were the result of food poisoning. ”

Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting corrections to the Misplaced Pages article on ‘Havana Syndrome’

Robert E. Bartholomew, PhD Honorary Senior Lecturer Department of Psychological Medicine University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand Contact details: rbar757@aucklanduni.ac.nz Skype: Robert.bartholomew84 Mob: 022 313 3053

Educational Background - Doctorate in Sociology, James Cook University of North Queensland, Australia (1998) - Masters, Australian Sociology, Flinders University of South Australia (1992) - Masters, American Sociology, State University of New York at Albany (1984) - BA, Communications, State University of New York at Plattsburgh (1979) -

• Happy to provide copies of the JAMA articles I am citing or the relevant pages from our book or address any other queries. Thank you.

Below is what the Misplaced Pages page states -

Psychogenic origin After the initial reports of the incidents in Havana, the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit visited the city and came to the assessment that the individuals were suffering from a mass psychogenic illness. The Behavioral Analysis Unit profilers did not speak to any of the afflicted individuals directly, instead relying on transcripts of previous interviews that the FBI had conducted with patients. The unit reviewed the patient histories compiled by the victims' neuropsychologists and other physicians, who had already ruled out mass psychogenic illness, noting that "many of the victims didn't know about the other people who were sick, and their bodies couldn’t have feigned some of the symptoms they were exhibiting."

Response: Robert Bartholomew interviewed one of the American diplomats who were at the embassy during the early stages of the outbreak and they were adamant that all embassy staff had heard the rumors of a sonic attack (Source A). The 2018 JAMA study authors placed mass psychogenic illness in the category of “collective delusional disorders” and said there was no evidence of malingering (the feigning of illness among patients) (Source B). Robert Baloh and Robert Bartholomew state that this position is not reflective of the scientific consensus on mass psychogenic illness which holds that it is not a collective delusional disorder and does not involve the collective feigning of symptoms; it is a stress response (C).

A. Baloh, Robert W., and Bartholomew, Robert E. (2020). Havana Syndrome. Cham, Switzerland: Copernicus Books, p. 28.

B. Swanson R, Hampton S, Green-McKenzie J, Diaz-Arrastia R, Grady M, Ragini V, et al. Neurological manifestations among US government personnel reporting directional audible and sensory phenomena in Havana, Cuba. JAMA. 2018;319(11):1125–33. https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.2018.1742. See p. 1131.

C. Baloh and Bartholomew, 2020, op cit., pp. 27-28.

Misplaced Pages continued - Ragini Verma, the lead author of a University of Pennsylvania study published in JAMA in 2019 that found brain differences in diplomats, concluded that based on its findings, "a wholly psychogenic or psychosomatic cause was very unlikely." Verma added that she was unable to identify a cause based on brain imaging alone.

Response: While Baloh and Bartholomew acknowledge the existence of brain anomalies, they report that it is not uncommon for small cohorts to show minor differences, and they point to the study’s own findings that the anomalies were not significant and the study authors could not rule out the possibility they were caused by individual variation. The 2018 JAMA article stated: “Additionally, it cannot be determined whether the differences among the patients are due to individual differences between patients” (p. 346). While Verma et al. wrote that the presence of the anomalies demonstrated that a psychogenic cause was unlikely, Baloh and Bartholomew observe that similar anomalies can be generated by exposure to prolonged stress. (D)

D. Baloh and Bartholomew, op cit., p. 27.

Misplaced Pages continued - A March 2018 editorial in JAMA by two neurologists argued that a functional disorder such as persistent postural-perceptual dizziness ("a syndrome characterized primarily by chronic symptoms of dizziness and perceived unsteadiness, often triggered by acute or chronic vestibular disease, neurological or medical illness or psychological distress") could explain some of the symptoms the diplomats in Cuba experienced. In a 2019 paper, Robert Bartholomew and Robert Baloh propose that the syndrome represents mass psychogenic illness rather than a "novel clinical entity". They cite the vagueness and inconsistency of symptoms as well as the circumstances they developed in (affected staff would have been under significant stress as the U.S. had just reopened its embassy in Cuba) as a cause. Bartholomew and Baloh co-authored a book, Havana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria (2020), arguing in support of their hypothesis. The 2020 National Academies analysis appeared to show that psychological issues were not the likely cause of the injuries, but the different ways people were affected left open the possible influence of psychological and social factors. The report reads, "the likelihood of mass psychogenic illness as an explanation for patients' symptoms had to be established from sufficient evidence" and "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries".: 26  In its assessment of potential social and psychological causes, the committee notes the possibility of stress-based psychological responses, and that these were more likely to be triggered by potential threats attributed to human sources than other stressors. It concludes that these could not have caused the acute "audio-vestibular" symptoms some patients experienced, such as sudden unexplained sounds.: 25  The scope of the provided data limited the committee's ability to investigate psychological and social factors.: 26–27 

Response: The National Academy of Sciences report stated that “the committee received no epidemiological evidence about patterns of social contacts that would permit a determination about possible social contagion,” hence, “the committee was not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause of the events in Cuba…” (p. 27) (Source E). Bartholomew states that the early social patterning of the outbreak appeared in his book with Robert Baloh eight months earlier (Source F), and in two reports by journalist Timothy Golden and Sebastian Rotella in 2018 and 2019 (Sources G & H). Furthermore, the NAS panel were unaware that in 2018 the then classified JASON report had found the microwave explanation involving the Frey Effect to be implausible (Source I). Once the JASON report was released in September 2021 (Source I), the head of the NAS panel, David Relman, appeared to distance himself from the microwave explanation. In an interview with NPR on October 15, 2021, he was asked “How confident are you that microwaves are what’s behind these symptoms?” His response: “We were not confident. And I have to be clear…we didn’t have any direct evidence that this could explain the entire story for sure or even parts of it.” (Source J).

E. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. An assessment of illness in U.S. government employees and their families at overseas embassies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25889. See p. 27.

F. Baloh and Bartholomew, 2020, op cit., pp. 29-31.

G. Golden Timothy, and Rotella Sebastian. 2019. The Sound and the Fury: Inside the Mystery of the Havana Embassy. ProPublica, February 14, accessed at: https://www.propublica.org/article/diplomats-in-cuba

H. Golden T, Rotella S. 2018. The Strange Case of American Diplomats in Cuba: As the Mystery Deepens, so do Divisions in Washington. ProPublica, November 9, accessed at: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-strange-case-of-american-diplomats-in-cuba-as-the-mystery-deepens-so-do-divisions-in-washington

I. Vergano, Dan (2021). “A Declassified State Department Report Says Microwaves Didn’t Cause ‘Havana Syndrome.’” BuzzFeed News, September 30, accessed at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/havana-syndrome-jason-crickets

J. McCammon, Sarah (2021). New cases of ‘Havana Syndrome’ grow as cause remains a mystery. All Things Considered, National Public Radio (Washington, DC), October 15, accessed at: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046519741/new-cases-of-havana-syndrome-grow-as-cause-remains-a-mystery

103.152.126.102 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Cuba articles
• Mid-importance Cuba articles
• WikiProject Cuba articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• Unassessed physics articles
• Unknown-importance physics articles
• Unassessed physics articles of Unknown-importance
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment