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 is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. 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
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. 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 is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
It's normal to not have citations in the lead. The citations appear in the body of the article. If there is a specific statement that you think isn't supported this is the place to bring it up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph is poorly worded, and we should avoid using terms like 'determined' when the previous paragraph states None of the investigations has been able to determine the cause with certainty. The editor who wrote those paragraphs overlooked many studies and reports leaving open the possibility that the first few cases may have been caused by a weapon, with other patients potentially being affected by some form hysteria. The latest NIC report assesses that a small number of early Havana Syndrome cases may have a weapon as a cause, but the majority of incidents, particularly later ones, could be attributed to other factors, like psychogenic illness. 103.235.93.118 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I have been reading this article on Havana syndrome with absolute fascination. There has been a mention of "energy weapons" as a possible cause of Havana syndrome at least 3 times in the introductory section. (1) Investigators consider energy weapons and psychological/social issues to be possible causes. (2) The use of energy weapons was determined to be consistent with the reported AHI symptoms (3) there is little experimental research on the impact of energy weapons on the human brain. Thus far, I had been thinking what in the world are "energy weapons". Then I came upon the fourth mention, where the hyperlink to energy weapons is given "It stated that a plausible explanation was the use of a directed-energy or radio frequency weapon." It was then, that I realized, that there is indeed a place within Wikipedia, I can learn more about it. May I suggest, we put this link on the very first mention, as has been the tradition with most Wikipedia articles. Kindly advice. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this topic encyclopedic is primarily the news coverage, and geopolitical and related issues. If there was no news coverage, it would be about a syndrome that affects so few people, that as a set of symptoms, it would be borderline un-encyclopedic.
User:Noleander, you undid revision 1278531983 by RememberOrwell, noting: "This lead paragraph is talking about CAUSES of H.S, specifically the results of scientific investigations into causes. The GRU think was from the media, based on anonymous interviews, with no corroboration, and with no scientists or drs" (Emphasis mine.)
Please look again and note that the lead-in paragraph ends with "Several news organizations also conducted investigations." See that? So it is talking about, specifically, the results of news organizations' investigations into apparent attacks on the US personnel most often labeled as Havana Syndrome by the press. The scientific academy's investigations are typically into AHI. The GRU reporting appears in highly reputable news media with fact checking standards that are generally higher than academic publications.
"no corroboration"? GRU Unit 29155 has 44 sources; the GRU stuff is sourced to multiple people within the USG, thus with corroboration, by multiple victims who have to speak to media as protected sources because they are not allowed to speak on the record, but identified members of 29155. Reporting from THREE top news sources - 60 Minutes, Der Spiegel and The Insider, including three reporters each with their own standalone article here - Professor Roman Dobrokhotov, PhD (Note: We call him a political scientist and note 'The topic of Dobrokhotov's PhD thesis was "Trust in world politics".), Christo Grozev and Michael Weiss - which alleges that Unit 29155 is connected to cases of "Havana syndrome", IS corroboration. In addition, Greg Edgreen, a retired Army lieutenant colonel led the Defense Intelligence Agency’s '21-'23 investigation into Havana Syndrome and spoke on the record to 60 Minutes, saying that he is confident Russia is behind these attacks, based on his observations during the investigation.
So, it's true that some investigations "point to sitings of agents of and weapons development by Russian Intelligence's Unit 29155."
My take is that there is a consensus among most credentialed writers on this topic that they lean toward presuming the large number of personnel independently reporting sudden onset of symptoms is because of devices which could be deployed at very short range and have effects consistent with the commonly reported symptoms, rather to the less plausible scenario of mass psychosis somehow spreading among people not allowed to talk to each other about their experiences or symptoms. It's been made clear that these are overwhelmingly professionals who would love to keep doing their jobs, and don't want to be casualties, and thus not malingerers.
Kudos for the many improvements you've made recently. Especially for fixing the problems I had flagged. I urge you and others to please review this revert for the reasons above.
RememberOrwell (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best & latest sources say that NO single cause has been identified; and the clear consensus has narrowed causes down to two: Energy weapons or psychogenic (or a combination of the two). Coming to a concrete conclusion between those two, according to the sources, will be very difficult because psychogenic is hard to prove/disprove one way or another, and energy weapons have virtually no hard experimental data to work with. Since that is what the sources say, that is what the article must say.
Regarding the GRU stuff: the reliability of those sources, and the data behind them, is miniscule compared to the rigorous scientific work of the other sources. The GRU are verbal allegations from anonymous sources, collated by for-profit tabloid journalists (60 minutes has been found (after the fact) to be totally wrong on many of their reports). There is no way the GRU media sources can be presented in this article with anywhere near the same level as investigations that did medical exams on patients; and had access to top secret intel (FBI, CIA, DOD, NSA) about Russian assets & capabilities. The GRU info certainly does not belong in the lead; but it can, and is, covered in the body.
@RememberOrwell: Question for you: Do you have any conflict of interest to disclose related to Havana Syndrome? Are you related to any of the Havana Syndrome patients or the law firms representing them? I'm curious, since you seem to devote a lot of energy to promoting the energy weapon cause, far beyond what the recent sources suggest. Noleander (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your take on what the best sources say isn't far from mine. Some lean toward Energy weapons, others away from them. And, notice that most that lean away from Energy weapons take care to make clear that they don't lean toward psychogenic specifically. Since that is what the sources say, that is what the article must say.
I noticed you ignored my request and questions, e.g "...See that?"
Question for all who devote energy to minimizing the energy weapon case: Do you have any conflict of interest to disclose related to Havana Syndrome? Are you related to any of the Havana Syndrome patients or the law firms representing them or the US government or its employees, or contractors or any AHI investigations? I'm curious, since you seem to devote a lot of energy to minimizing the energy weapon case, far beyond what the recent sources suggest. I have no reason or desire to push the energy weapon case in the article beyond what's encyclopedic per reliable sources. I would say that there's far more reason to ask others. May merit an RFC.
I'm confident WP:RSN would oppose your characterization of those 3 top journalists at 60_Minutes#Recognition etc as tabloid hacks vastly inferior <sic> to reporting on incomplete/aborted, coerced medical exams. Which investigators claimed access to what top secret intel where? I saw no evidence of broad access. You claiming to have it? Where?
But it is odd that you are now saying stuff thats BLATANTLY FALSE. As I wrote, "Greg Edgreen, a retired Army lieutenant colonel led the Defense Intelligence Agency’s '21-'23 investigation into Havana Syndrome and spoke on the record to 60 Minutes, saying that he is confident Russia is behind these attacks, based on his observations during the investigation" - what you've written is in direct conflict with that. AGF leads me to ask: Did you miss or mean to give no weight to that entire sentence? Have you watched the CNN interview of Christo Grozev? Read https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/NIC-Unclassified-ICA-Updated-Assessment-AHI-December2024.pdf ? Your argument about the GRU stuff is based on debunked claims. (Other than that,) I don't see where you specifically debunked anything that I've put forward. Saying the GRU stuff certainly doesn't belong in the lead isn't an argument. Especially after you keep(!) pushing those three false claims of
no corroboration and
only anonymous sources and
only verbal allegations
paragraph is only about scientific (not journalistic) investigations
AGAIN, we see one of the investigations - the Defense Intelligence Agency’s '21-'23 investigation's - findings confident Russia is behind these attacks. Based on observations, not just verbal allegations. Not to say that we should take this investigations findings as gospel. But don't keep pretending there are no such investigator conclusions. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a page for just the scientific (and lack thereof) evidence for Havana Syndrome-all of the other parts, political grandstanding and what not, should be in its own page. If there are other ancillary claims of proof, e.g. "we saw some secret Russian agent who was involved in deploying a large, high-energy yet invisible weapon" it needs to have AT LEAST a citation. And that article cited should at provide primary data to substantiate the claim, or be disregarded (maybe put in an "evidence-free page of claims wrt Havana Syndrome." 2003:DF:7701:D6B8:2444:2869:92D4:529F (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making up nonsense claims about the article that don't reflect reality? Investigative journalists are arguably more likely to use proper scientific methods than people in white robes who claim to be the only scientists. Replication crisis...
We have names and photographs and documents showing deployed Russian agents who were working on energy weapons. They're in the reporting on GRU Unit 29155.
.jpg){kind=small}
