Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:05, 11 February 2019

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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

feel free to rename Ethanbas 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has, and it's an improvement, but I think we should replace the words "suspected sonic attack" to just about anything else which would objectively describe the problem without implying that one of the theories ("sonic attack") is the reality (I know "Health problems of several people with different but overlapping symptoms who are linked to the American and Canadian embassies" is too long.)ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 CUBAN EMBASSY SCARE?Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 20:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Note that much of the text on this article was copied from existing text at Embassy of the United States, Havana. Ethanbas 10:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

medicinal sources

Why is it that alternative explanations need medical sources but everything else does not?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

not all eat the right kind of Falafel or Jaffa Oranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Because making a claim about how things affect the human body falls under WP:MEDRS, something at a higher standard than say, someone is sick, someone got shot, or someone thinks a movie was good or bad.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Such as what the US state department does as well? There are a lot of medical claims being made why is it that the wind farm explanation is the only one that needs medical proof?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Was the State Dept. making a specific medical claim or were they talking about a hypothetical sonic weapon? I think the latter but I haven't read those thoroughly. I didn't add the tags, by the way, I'm just answering a generic question about why medical claims generally need medical RS. I think I'll ask User:Flyer22 Reborn, who has a lot more experience with this kind of thing, whether those tags are approrpiate. For example, the one added to the patients own reported symptoms is likely not necessary. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Commented on my talk page. The vast majority of the content currently in the article does not need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer. I have removed all the med tags, I can't see any justifications for them. I think someone's been overeager.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Microwave auditory effect

Surprised nobody has mentioned the microwave auditory effect. I imagine they could be beamed from some distance away, possibly from the interaction of several small transmitters. On the other hand, perhaps it was just cicadas, hysteria, or some other unintentional cause. 92.3.76.113 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. We are not here to offer our own speculations. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• France24 news has reported on Pompeo`s statement May 23 2018, attributing the frequencies to potential "listening devices". Interoperability across platforms is proven technology, but not explicitly mentioned by French mass-media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Page moves

Northnomad and Tdl1060, regarding this and this, one thing to look at is WP:Common name. Anyway, I agree with Tdl1060 that "reported" was not neutral. And Northnomad's argument that "suspected" was not neutral might be true as well. We usually don't have "reported" or "suspected" in our article titles, that's for sure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't one succinct common name that reliable sources are using for the article subject. As such, "Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana" is a title that does not advance a particular POV as to what caused the illnesses is, and who, if anyone, is behind them. Both of these are currently unknown, and it is not appropriate for the article title to be worded in a way that makes implications regarding the validity or lack thereof of any of the myriad of theories that have been put forward.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that the latest title, "Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana" is an improvement. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I support the latest title too. This is all quite mysterious, but sonic means are far from the only method proposed.--Pharos (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Health related incidents" is far too vague. The article refers to a specific series of incidents during a specific period of time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

How about something like "Suspected embassy attacks"? That emphasizes the wholly inconclusive knowledge about what happened while still communicating the fact that it has been suspected of being an attack. The state department maintains it was an attack, last I heard. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I like that. Perhaps a bit more specific though: Suspected embassy attacks in Cuba Or maybe Embassy attack accusations in Cuba ?? RobP (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As there have been no responses, I renamed the article to Embassy attack accusations in Cuba. RobP (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

This article stops in its tracks Jan 10, though several developments or discussions have taken place since then. See Ian Sample Fresh row over mysterious illness affecting US diplomats in Cuba The Guardian 24 February 2018Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added info from this article. Also added material from other recent articles. While I was at it, I took the opportunity to restructure the article. Events and Reaction material were not logically collected in the two sections, so I hope this is better. Also, lead should be a summary of article, but had material presented only there. Attempted to rectify this issue as well. RobP (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

After looking at this some more, it seem likely this entire thing was mass hysteria. So going with that, Embassy attack accusations in Cuba seems like a much better name for this article going forward. RobP (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, you and others need to be keeping the WP:Article titles policy in mind instead of just making up titles. Editors should not keep moving this article based on their personal preference. We also have the WP:Requested moves process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This was being discussed in the section above, so I dispute it was based on a personal preference. RobP (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, I am aware that it was discussed in the section above. I'm clearly in that section. I see editors having agreed on a title, but not on the one you proposed. And I do not see that you offered any WP:Reliable sources for the title you used. So, yes, the new title is based on your idea/preference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

By section above I meant the Page Move section, not THIS one. RobP (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, late response: What makes you think that I wasn't talking about the #Page moves section when I specifically stated, "I am aware that it was discussed in the section above. I'm clearly in that section."? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

More sources

Found these new sources. Anyone want to add them?

• https://gizmodo.com/study-malfunctioning-surveillance-gear-not-sonic-weap-1823488256
• https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/us-embassy-cuba-staff-reductions-attacks/index.html

RobP (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I did it. RobP (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There has been a new update on November 20th 2018. The mother of one of the diplomats in China has spoken out about her expereince being targeted by what she considers to be weaponry. I have cited the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/mother-u-s-diplomat-hurt-health-attack-speaks-out-n938191

Sonic Attacks and UN Convention

Breaking news 23rd/24th May 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, requesting next years budget from Congress, mentioned the China incident and his assessment that it is "consistent" with the Cuba incidents. This shall surely be extensively written about in the coming months, and it is only natural that the possibility of UN Conventions having been breached shall be a point of discussion. The clincher here is whether or not ANY component or source(s) of the radio was in an orbital state, i.e. in space, as MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD have signed up to the UN Convention against weapons in space, and the earlier "COPUOS"; as the convention EXPLICITLY mentions victims "mental" state. Yep, they had psychological damage covered since the 1950`s. It does apply to people both in space and on earth. If there are any "GPS enabled" devices involved, that may be a stretch. There have not been any reports that the Cuban incidents were influenced by satellite, but the technology has been available since the 1950`s, hence the Conventions. Most of the main stream media have not touched this as it opens the door for criticism of the illicit Israeli space program, and their illegal WMD, amongst other breaches. However, the recurrance of symptoms experienced in Cuba having now been put to the congressional record as having been experienced in China changes that (at least as per official sources). I mean, the Congressional records of the United States are highly credible, verifiable and certifiable; perhaps moreso than the DNS as a source even! French media have speculated on Pompeo`s statement as though the frequencies may have been emitted from a "listening device" but did not expand outside near-field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

China ?

Create Embassy attack accusations in China ? Was it an embassy? 204.38.4.80 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed title gathered no support, and no alternatives gathered much support either. Editors are welcome to open a new request if a more accurate title is available. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Embassy attack accusations in Cuba → Suspected health attacks on American diplomats – I'm listing this at WP:RM not because I think it would be controversial, but because I'm hoping the people it draws might have some ideas. There has been media attention about reports of the same types of symptoms reported by diplomats in China. There's no reason for a separate article, but this name should be changed, as the attacks in China are getting equal attention to the attacks in Cuba. I don't know what the best name would be. I've added one suggestion, but I think there are probably alternatives that would be as good or better. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE do not change the name to that. The phrase "health attacks" is ungrammatical. Also, Canadian diplomats in Cuba also claimed to be attacked, so the current name captures that as well. I see no problem with the current name. RobP (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the current name is that it excludes the reported attacks in China. Natureium (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well it wasn't about China. And I do not think that new section belongs in this article. If it stays then the article needs to be redone to include the China material in other sections also, including the lead. Perhaps a more generic "attack" article could be created out of this, but it does not seem to be there yet. Anyway, would you say "health attacks on school children" to describe a school shooting? That particular phrase is awful English. RobP (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So far, the Cuba incident has had a lot more press coverage than the China incident. Though the latter is newer, and that could change. It's also quite possible we could see this in more locations (edit: update: Uzbekistan incident).--Pharos (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I know it wasn't about China. Now it is. That's why the name is no longer appropriate. It would be inappropriate to create an entire new article on the attacks in China, when they are linked. You wouldn't create an article on shootings and call it a health attack because it is clear that the injuries are caused by gunshots. No peer-reviewed research necessary. There is no identified cause of these reported attacks, so there isn't a clearer term. Natureium (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It actually seems that the "attacks" are likely psychogenic. Imagined. So I do not see that there is a link between Cuba and the new accusations. But if the scope of this article MUST be widened to add any similar reported incident, "health attacks" is still a bad description. How about: American diplomat attack accusations RobP (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the incidents are psychogenic, that's a very real link to a spreading mass phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think there's no link between the conditions reported in China and Cuba? That's inconsistent with what media outlets are reporting. Natureium (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest Suspected embassy sonic attacks to match likely search terms, and to be geographically neutral.--Pharos (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I could live with that. RobP (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I like it in general, but I'm not sure that we should stay geographically neutral as it would suggest the article should encompass any such "sonic attacks" in the future. The article is currently specifically about US and CA staff, so how about Suspected embassy sonic attacks on American and Canadian staff, Suspected sonic attacks on US and Canadian embassies or Sonic attack accusations on embassies in Cuba and China (it can always be updated to "in multiple countries" if is becomes more widespread. Lochaber (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Sonic attacks" probably isn't the best name because it's been widely reported that there is no identified cause of the conditions. Calling it a sonic attack when it could well be something else is incorrect. Natureium (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are going universal, why limit it to embassies? Surely there are surveillance happening in hotels, restaurants, cars etc.. likewise if the problem is caused by over-powered equipment it's not an "attack" but accidental/incidental. Furthermore it's not always "sonic" in nature, such as the Soviet incident involving microwaves in the 1970s already mentioned in this article. Common themes include "espionage", "surveillance" and "casualties"/"injuries". A simple title would be surveillance injuries though it might be too ambiguous, surveillance induced injuries is more literal and to the point. It doesn't imply if they are intentional, where done or why. It leaves the article open to a history of such incidents. -- GreenC 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That would make the article about these type of possibly sonic attacks in general, rather than the specific incidents in 2016-2018 that the article is currently about. If that's what we want to make the article about, that's fine, but changing the title to that would mean a change to the article topic. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the article would continue to be about those topics, but it would expand it so it could also include a history of all such notable incidents. Otherwise why would the 2016-18 incidents be specially notable versus other incidents? -- GreenC

• Can't solely mention Americans, as Canadians have been reliably reported as affected too;
• Can't confine the title to Cuba (or China) because diplomats in China (and Cuba) were affected;
• And, ultimately, we probably shouldn't even describe the phenomenon as an "attack" as there is speculation it may be accidental or otherwise not malicious.

So there you have it—make a title out of that!

But I agree the current title needs changing as events have over-taken it, and it is no longer descriptive of the article. —SerialNumber54129 09:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. If this MUST be about multiple locations, then so be it. I split the Reactions between Cuba and China. Lead has now been updated as well. Also created redirects for Sonic attack in China and Sonic attacks in China to drive such searches here. Problem: What to do when article discuss both locations (and more in the future?) equally in the same article? RobP (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop focusing on the location of the incidents and start focusing on the incidents themselves?

• Unspecified health attacks on American diplomats?
• Unusual illnesses reported by American diplomats?
• Neurological symptoms reported by American diplomats?
• Accusations of sonic attacks on American foreign service workers?
• Incidents that are possibly sonic attacks and possibly instances of mass hysteria by Americans purported to be diplomats but later revealed to be clandestine workers?

Just a few ideas. Natureium (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Surveillance induced injuries is more than sufficient to cover all such incidents, both current event and historical. Article titles are meant to be concise (short) as and have broad coverage. Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper of current events. It is meant to be broad coverage of fundamental topics. -- GreenC 22:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That would work for the hypothesis that malfunctioning surveillance equipment caused the sounds, but that doesn't make sense if you believe it's an episode of mass hysteria. Natureium (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Still works. Mass hysteria is an injury, and if the hysterical people believe it was caused by Surveillance it is to blame. The radio broadcast War of the Worlds caused mass hysteria - do we blame the victims or Orson Wells? Both. Also this is not a theory many subscribe so it doesn't need a lot of emphasis. -- GreenC 14:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Embassy Sonic Attacks? RobP (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The simplest thing to do is not to assume that the attacks are closely related, and split the information on China into a new article, either with a parallel title (Embassy attack accusations in China) or a different title based upon the circumstances there. This article could still reference the possibility of a connection to the Chinese case without assuming one. Dekimasuよ! 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would you assume they're unrelated? Natureium (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't assume they're unrelated, but in order for them to be covered together, the relation should be treated as confirmed by reliable sources. Otherwise you could ask the "why would you assume they're unrelated" question of any two articles on Misplaced Pages. I recognize that there is more information in the article that links the two than there was when this request was opened–the comments by Pompeo stating that the symptoms are alike. But this does not seem to rise to the level of linking the topics, just as we don't have the Ghouta chemical attack and the Tokyo subway sarin attack in the same article because they both involved sarin. Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mild oppose, I think the title instead needs to include "sonic" or "acoustic". There is little evidence but much conjecture that a sonic weapon is involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Microwave weapons

Microwave Weapons Are Prime Suspect in Ills of U.S. Embassy Workers: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.36.92 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to mention the microwave auditory effect, there's also however a lot of speculation and facts that are possibly outside of the article's scope. The title is also sensational, in the same: "Asked about the microwave theory of the case, the State Department said the investigation had yet to identify the cause or source of the attacks. And the F.B.I. declined to comment on the status of the investigation or any theories.", "'Based on what I know,' he remarked, 'it will remain a mystery.'", etc. We could also of course mention that some consider microwave attacks plausible (and who), like this article does. —PaleoNeonate – 03:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dr Hoffer has a major paper coming out in about a month, here is a preview: https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-cbs-morning-apos-host-121918395.html -- in short, not microwaves but directed energy such as ultrasonics. And not brain injury but inner-ear damage. Either way, some sort of neuroweaponary seems to be the consistent message. Hoffner is calling it the Havana Effect. -- GreenC 18:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong thing? I don't see any mention of a Hoffer there. It seems to be solely about Les Moonves' Resignation and others caught up after the #metoo movement. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, as a reminder to editors, take care when writing that you don't randomly introduce people into the article without being clear who they are. See these changes . While I'm not saying that my changes were perfect, I found it incredibly jarring when 4 individuals were suddenly named, only who who had ever been mentioned before, discounting the mention of the Frey effect. This lead to the obvious problem that I had no idea who these people were, or why I should care that they thought the theory was plausible. I mean I could sort of guess that the Frey person was probably the same person who the Frey effect was named after, but that still left two random individuals. And as it turned out, this was actually more than just a minor isse. I sort of assumed that the other 2 would most likely be scientists as well. (With the slightly possibility of them being someone from the state department.) As it turns out, one of them is a lawyer representing some of those affected which means they're not an unbiased source. Funnily enough, the only person named there who's was mentioned before i.e Tillerson (although frankly wasn't needed since anyone familiar with current American politics would recognise their name) doesn't even seem to belong. It's fine to mention someone again, e.g. Smith, without needing to give any context to who they are again. Yes readers who only read that section can be confused, but it's also problematic to keep mentioning who someone is again. (Similar to the way it isn't necessary to wikilink something each time it occurs.) But if you're going to introduce someone for the first time, at least give more than just their family name. I mean even giving a longer name without any description will give the reader some clue this person isn't someone mentioned before they forgot or didn't read about. (This is for articles only, it's obviously fine to just mentioned someone like above since it's assumed the reader if they are interested will read the source.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Havana syndrome

Hi. This should probably be renamed now that new news articles almost always call it the Havana syndrome. Syndrome de La Havane is, accordingly, the title that I've chosen in French. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a neutral and less cumbersome title. Any objections to moving it? Jonathunder (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, the closest topic we have also has a city-based name, Moscow Signal.--Pharos (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see more then once source establishing this is widely used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is being used widely in news articles now.--Pharos (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It may not be the same thing, as some of the sources are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, where does any source say that "Havana syndrome" refers to anything other than what were until recently called the "alleged sonic attacks"? It may be real or not, it may be connected to some other incident or not, but "Havana syndrome" is what it is being called in mainstream media now.--Pharos (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I think I mis read one of them. It was in fact talking about concussion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Any other objection to moving it? Does anyone want a formal move request, or should we just go ahead? Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is good. It follows a tradition, conditions are sometimes named for the place where they were identified. Like Ebola River. The history of AIDS shows how difficult arriving at a name can be. It was called GRID, the 4-H Disease, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphadenopathy and other names before they finally settled on AIDS. Not sure how Havanna Syndrome came about, could be worth mentioning in a history section. -- GreenC 03:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The term appears to have been in use by the Toronto Star since April, and to have been really popularized by an article in The New Yorker in November, after which it spread to many other publications.--Pharos (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Gosint blog is the earliest I can find (Oct 2017). They use is consistently every month. Then the Toronto Star in April. -- GreenC 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Weight on Robert Bartholomew

Why are we still adding additional 2017 quotes from Robert Bartholomew to the article? Hasn't more information come forward in the last two years? Should Bartholomew, who is a high school history teacher, have this much weight? Geogene (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Uhhh... Seriously? Perhaps because, per his Wiki bio he: "writes for several newspapers and journals on various sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times." and "He is an expert in fields such as mass hysteria and mass psychogenic illness and is frequently consulted by media during current events of sociological phenomena such as incidences of suspected mass hysteria or panic." And BTW, the quote you deleted was from this month (Feb 2019), not 2017. RobP (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. Because he's (1) not a doctor (2) has not seen the medical records (3) has not examined the patients and (4) is generally not qualified to diagnose illnesses, psychogenic or otherwise. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: Please check your facts - Bartholomew is a doctor. He earned his doctorate in sociology from James Cook University more than 20 years ago.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A PhD in sociology does not qualify you to diagnose disease in humans. And, I believe you already know that. I'm also already aware of the etymology of "doctor", which derives from the Latin, "docta", an adjective that simply means 'talented' in a generic and not necessarily educated way, but I believe it would be a waste of time to get that far out into the weeds. Just as discussing the sociology doctor of philosophy degree is a distraction and waste of time. I know, and you know, that doesn't make him a medical doctor, and I would ask that refrain from this disingenuous rhetoric. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: Let's stick to the topic. I am not sure why you think it is so relevant to look into word origins - I expect we all own dictionaries. Please refrain from making disrespectful and untruthful statements such as "he's ... not a doctor". That is not a matter of "disingenuous rhetoric"; the point is simply that he does have a doctorate, and in a very relevant field of study. Nobody ever claimed he was a medical doctor, so I don't know why you introduce that red herring either.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the Bartholomew material as undue weight here. If his diagnosis is published in some peer-reviewed work, maybe I would reevaluate. Neutrality 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this not clear @Geogene:? First, Bartholomew is not diagnosing disease; he is diagnosing the attribution of the symptoms to a specific cause, using his specialty as a sociologist whose career has been spent studying and writing about psychogenic illness events. Besides writing numerous papers on the general subject over decades, every time this is in the news, he is the one interviewed. Second (@Geogene:) regarding your peer review comment: specific cases of psychogenic illness are context related and as such cannot have a peer review study as such "proving" that specific instance to be that. This is opinion, yes, but the opinion of an expert in this field. RobP (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Cuba articles
• Low-importance Cuba articles
• WikiProject Cuba articles
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles