Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

feel free to rename Ethanbas ^(talk) 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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

I believe this rebuttal to the microwave theory (published in the Washington Post) should be added. RobP (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The latest findings, reported widely in the news today Dec. 6 2020, are unequivocal and should be regarded as conclusive: the syndrome is the result of microwave energy.

Only unconfirmed is whether the microwave incidents are deliberate or accidental. Hopefully further disclosures from official experts will present whether the contemporaneous affliction—with an essentially identical scope of syndromes—by Canadian personnel in Havana will weigh the likelihood of two different states' representatives in two separate buildings, whose governments just happen to be 5-eyes (Canada, US, UK, Australia, and NZ) intelligence partners, could be troubled by two separate malfunctioning microwave ovens in exactly the same manner, and both malfunctioning domestic cooking units being capable of leaking MW energy in the same direction in such copious amounts to penetrate any number of walls/floors/ceilings. JohndanR (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lets see some of this wide reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is under Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 2#December 2020 Geogene (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (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 [2] 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,[1] Skeptical Inquirer,[2] and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times." and "He is an expert in fields such as mass hysteria and mass psychogenic illness[3] 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^talk 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)

Regarding, Bartholomew is not diagnosing disease; he is diagnosing the attribution of the symptoms to a specific cause that is what a diagnosis is. Regarding, using his specialty as a sociologist whose career has been spent studying and writing about psychogenic illness events, this imprecise wording sidesteps the point that writing about the history and sociology of illness does not confer the expertise to diagnose illness. I haven't mentioned peer review yet, that was Neutrality. But regarding this remark about peer review, 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 I am perplexed by that comment because there are entire sciences devoted to the study of events that happened in the past and which are by their nature non-reproducible. Peer reviewed papers would be helpful here. Also there are claims of medical evidence (persistent disability, MRI findings) in this case that could be subjected to peer review. Geogene (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Such peer review of medical results would not specify the cause. For example, apparently one of the diplomats now needs a hearing aide, would that have happened due to normal aging? Impossible to say. RobP (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Two minds, he is not an MD or psychologist. But he does write about sociological matters (and this is clearly one). I think we only need one line.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am going to summarize the relevant arguments to this time: an editor deleted a quote from RB citing two reasons: he was just "a high school history teacher" and the quote was from 2017. ("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?") Both points were wrong. In reality RB is a recognized expert in mass psychogenic illness (which this incident possibly is). He was already quoted several times in this article over the years this story has been building, as he was interviewed for his opinion on this matter in a variety of WP:RS. Also, the quote removed was from this month, not 2017, as was claimed, so it reflects his most recently provided opinion on this ongoing story. So why are we still arguing about this? RobP (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that he is "just" a high school history teacher, but I did point out, correctly, that he is in fact a high school history teacher. And you should just go ahead and admit that it is unusual to find world-class recognized experts (recognized by whom?) teaching in secondary school classrooms. Note that I have not said it is impossible, nor am I saying that it cannot happen, but it is unusual. The point of this is not to belittle educators, but it is simply a fact of life that one's occupation is usually valid as a heuristic in recognizing one's expertise. It is reasonable to question the article placing this much weight on this person, and there is no need to be offended by that. Discussions like this one are necessary and routine in Wikipedia. Geogene (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Just" was not said, but it was implied - why else even mention it as he is clearly seen as an expert on this subject? Using his other job as the reason for the edit was cherry-picking, and a poisoning of the well (intentional or not). And why has the other issue not been answered? That is, regarding this being a recent quote - not from 2017 - as you claimed was one of your two justifications for deleting it. And BTW, when did I say I was offended? I am just mightily perplexed. RobP (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a mistake on how old the quotes were. That happens. Geogene (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Example of undue weight on Bartholomew

Here is a large block of text that I think is UNDUE weight on Bartholomew, Psychology Today, and Skeptic Magazine. I propose to delete it in its entirety.

On January 9, 2018, U.S. State Department medical director Dr. Charles Rosenfarb testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had "all but ruled out 'mass hysteria' as a cause of the strange illness that has sickened 24 U.S. Embassy staff." The next day, Psychology Today published an article by Robert Bartholomew disputing these findings. Bartholomew said "As a specialist on mass psychogenic illness who has spent the last 25 years studying this topic, the head physician for the U.S. State Department has gotten it wrong—very wrong." Bartholomew said that "Rosenfarb made several assertions which exhibit an alarming lack of familiarity with the basics of psychosomatic medicine." Bartholomew concluded by stating that "Science has a long history of people seeing what they expect or want to see in order to support their initial suspicions. This is just the latest example."[40]

On January 16, 2018, Bartholomew published an article "Sonic Attack Claims Are Unjustified: Just Follow the Facts" in the Skeptical Inquirer in which he concluded that "the key question is not whether or not a sonic attack took place, but why American officials would assume that an attack took place in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."[41] Bartholomew also reported on this issue for Skeptic Magazine titled "The 'Sonic Attack' on U.S. Diplomats in Cuba: Why the State Department’s Claims Don’t Add Up", where he examined the claims from a scientific perspective[42] and concluded that:

The "sonic attack" on embassy staff in Cuba appears to be a case of old wine in new skins. It is the ... Sick Building Syndrome dressed up in a different social and cultural garb. These scares may resonate because they reflect prevailing fears such as the distrust of foreign and domestic governments.[42]

This isn't necessarily the only locus where Bartholomew's POV is overweighted in the article, but it's a clear example of the kind of thing I'm against. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually think those are fine, since they introduce Bartholomew and summarize his views as a subject matter expert. What I do think is a little over the top is the following:

Regarding the JAMA report, Bartholomew was quoted as saying he was "floored by the study" and claimed that it "reads like US government propaganda." He pointed out that "there is no proof that any kind of energy source affected the diplomats, or even that an attack took place."

...which reads like an angry rebuttal. Rather than focusing on emotional quotes from him ("floored", "propaganda", etc), I would trim it down to the essential information: "Bartholomew criticized the JAMA report, saying, "there is no proof that any kind of energy source affected the diplomats, or even that an attack took place." - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with trimming that. However, the quotes removed -- which was the triggering event for this discussion -- seem fine to me. One was from last week. See here. Thoughts on that? RobP (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been following the article history or what has been removed. But according to the diff you gave, I see that the Cricket Thing is discussed elsewhere by others, and I don't think Bartholomew adds anything. What you might use is his analysis of weapon speculations. However yet another Batholomew a quote box seems a little excessive. Better to summarize the content by weaving in a sentence like "Bartholomew (also) dismissed the concept of a weapon that could target some people but not others nearby as "science fiction"" to an existing para containing Bartholomew's opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So where are we with this? Especially regarding my last comment which concerned the removal of a brand new RB quote, under the false claim that it was old news? RobP (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As there has been no reply in a month, I added the most recent statement of Bartholomew back to the article. RobP (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not the correct practice. A contested edit needs to gain consensus for it before it gets reinstated. The burden isn't on anyone here to demonstrate a consensus against it to keep it out of the article. There hasn't been a torrent of support for more weight on Bartholomew, and multiple editors seem to think his views are given too much emphasis as it is. Geogene (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But as I demonstrated without pushback, the claim that the quote I added and which was removed was reverted on the false grounds that it was old. RobP (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

the word "Theory" comes with too much baggage

@Ajñavidya: "Evolution is just a theory." "The CIA invented the term conspiracy theory." Meriam Webster: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." As you can see from these quotes, the word "theory" has become quite polarized and political. Its definition can swing from the vaunted and tested scientific description to the crackpot explanation, one thing I think we can agree on is that it is not a neutral term, and the word "explanation" is more measured in the context of this page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

DolyaIskrina, the word "theory" doesn't have any negative connotation or baggage, or at least it doesn't have in English language. This is the first meaning for the word "theory" according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1) "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. (e.g.: the wave theory of light)"

There is no negative connotation to this word and is widely used in exact sciences and medicine as the multiple mutually-exclusive alternatives to explain of a phenomenon, such as the case in the article hereby treated. Any baggage associated to this word is personal and subjective and not accountable to Wikipedia. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: "criticism" "response" "reaction" are all standard heading on wikipages. "other theories" is not. Unless you can find WP:RS which use the term "theory" to apply to the cited explanations, it is WP:SYNTH and OR to use it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I myself prefer explanations too because of the load. I actually even thought of "better explanations". Another idea may be to omit the title and mix it all, similarly to how criticism sections are generally discouraged... But consider my suggestions "weak" !votes, not strong opinions, I think the article is fine either way. —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I didn't know ==criticism== is discouraged. I rely on it a lot. Do you know where I'd find a discussion of that? Sorry, I'll get back on topic.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This was from memory, but if I look: WP:CRITICISM is only an essay it seems, which doesn't necessarily forbid them (controversy and criticism sections). If there's something else more official it'd be in WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT of course, so also common sense and subject to consensus. afterall... And relevant would be WP:FALSEBALANCE but that's more about presenting equal pro/con when one is clearly fringe. —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand where the claim that the word "theory" has any baggage, negative or positive, comes from. "Theory" is exactly the word for a phenomenon or a case (also in a criminal sense) with multiple explanations on its causes. You can check the Wikipedia's article about the word itself. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Where the distinction is enormous is when it's a scientific theory (for this reason it's been discussed at WP:CLAIM a few times). But this is mostly relevant when proponents of a fringe theory try to present both their flawed hypotheses and mainstream conclusions as equal opinions, an example being the argument "but evolution is only a theory", falsely implying that a scientific theory is only a hypothesis. Maybe it's not really a problem here... —PaleoNeonate – 16:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:@Ajñavidya:The MW definition 3b: Theory, "an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE" Meriam Webster. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: Yes. Exactly the term to use for this article. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)