Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 [{WP:WEIGHT]], 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 [anomalous health incidents] 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 [are]... 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 [2021], 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.^{[emphasis yours]} 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^(TALK) 19:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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

• [A] 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).
• [B] 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.
• [C] 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.
• [D] 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia's voice.
3. I'm afraid I don't agree with any of what you said in point [C] 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 [D] 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^(TALK) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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^talk 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^(TALK) 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^talk 03:01, 9 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia: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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia 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^talk 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)

And the same for unlikely COVID-19 origin stories. Common points that these topics have is that they all have sources explaining the media sensation as a type of moral panic, the public's inability to distinguish between disguised press releases and actual news, information bubbles, the failure of reporting journalists to understand the science involved, plus the active political disinformation campaigns... As others noted, it's often via sources used for WP:PARITY that articles on fringe topics can attempt to maintain a foot on Earth... These typically are secondary sources reviewing the literature and the progress to understand the field. IRT HS, Most do not consider an actual weapon as credible as a stressful setting, anticipation, anxiety, misinterpretations, psychogenic illness and opportunists pushing political disinformation (but they recognize that some people were ill and that cases of mischievous harassment and political stings occurred in the past between the US and Cuba). —PaleoNeonate – 11:40, 13 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^(TALK) 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)

Unlike the above source that goes through a university's program, these are self-published. It then depends on the author, credentials and claims. If it's WP:DUE, it would usually be attributed. —PaleoNeonate – 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting corrections to the Wikipedia article on ‘Havana Syndrome’

Robert E. Bartholomew, PhD Honorary Senior Lecturer Department of Psychological Medicine University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand

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 Wikipedia 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.[76] 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.[76] 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."[76]

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.

Wikipedia 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.[52]

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.

Wikipedia 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.[77] In a 2019 paper, Robert Bartholomew and Robert Baloh propose that the syndrome represents mass psychogenic illness rather than a "novel clinical entity".[78] 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.[78][8] 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.[79] The 2020 National Academies analysis appeared to show that psychological issues were not the likely cause of the injuries,[80] but the different ways people were affected left open the possible influence of psychological and social factors.[81] 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".[6]: 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.[6]: 25  The scope of the provided data limited the committee's ability to investigate psychological and social factors.[6]: 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)

I'm taking you at your word that you are Dr. Bartholomew and placing a COI tag at the top of this page on your behalf. That is the normal procedure. I need more time to look at your proposals, but as a general principle it is easier for us to include statements that are covered by secondary and tertiary sources, rather than to give you point by point rebuttals directly from your own work. For instance, the NPR (J) interview of Relman seems highly usable, so I will include that in the article now. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that there would be a COI issue if he had done the changes himself. Of course we shouldn't just include his statements or "corrections" verbatim just because he said so, but the suggestions with references that include his own work, should be looked at and considered by independent editors. If the refs are RS and, given other considerations such as weight etc, added with the editor's own words.

The part where he says Bartholomew states that the early social patterning of the outbreak appeared in his book with Robert Baloh eight months earlier (Source F) surely can't be used, the ref being the book where it had appeared. For that, we would need a ref where he or someone else is commenting on the NAS report after the fact and mentioning that about the book having been published earlier, and his commenting on this talk page doesn't count. I know he talked about the same thing in the conversation he had with Mick West on YT, but I doubt that source is going to get accepted as RS. VdSV9•♫ 14:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What change do you want made?Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking Bartholomew? As he does not have an account, I'm not sure you will get a response. This is a very complex topic and the presence of so many claims and counterclaims in the article do make it hard to understand his concerns in every case, but at least some of the info he provided is clear regarding the changes he believes are needed. One change was made yesterday. Shall we propose other changes here, or be bold? Rp2006 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am asking the OP what changes they want to make. So yes I think it would be best to know what they are before they are made.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, at least some of the info provided seems clear enough for us to work with (although not everything). In fact, one of those was changed yesterday. Rp2006 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Can someone have a COI regarding a news story? I ask due to the addition of the banner at top of Talk declaring that Robert Bartholomew has one for this article. (Added after he posted to Talk requesting corrections.) I just read through the WP COI info, and it states in the lead: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." So how does this situation fit any of that? Does this mean that a subject matter expert cannot chime in on Talk on a subject of their expertise w/o declaring COI? Rp2006 (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

COI doesn't mean bad faith, it just means you must disclose. And depending on how close the COI is, you might not want to edit a page, but can suggest edits in TALK. I added the COI tag, because the COI policy guideline said to. We definitely do want expert editors, but this is a contentious political and medical page about a topic in which his opinion is often cited. RB is doing this in the right way, and we can consider his suggestions case-by-case, but it's up to us editors to determine BALANCE and WEIGHT to his suggested edits. Any noncontroversial well-sourced additions that he suggests can be taken immediately. It's just important that the page doesn't become his personal soapbox, or that he is always given the last word. The way, ahem, Lin was given the last word prior to recent edits. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything implying bad faith, or that it was bad RB disclosed who he is, but as I said, I see nothing in my reading of the COI description page (as per the summary I quoted) that applies here. WP:COI seems very specifically defined, and I’m honestly curious as to whether this type of situation actually is a subset of the WP specific definition. If I am missing it, please point out the part of the COI description that is applicable. Thanks. Rp2006 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive if we got specific about the particular edits. But as to the general guideline, WP:SELFCITE:"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I think common sense would dictate that since this is such a controversial topic we should err on the side of caution. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization...

Recently added to the top of Talk is the banner "This article has been mentioned by a media organization... "with a reference to a Skeptical Inquirer article not only discussing this WP article, but more importantly, providing info as to the (then) current opinions of MPI expert Bartholomew on HS. Does anyone else think this material (and a citation) should be included in the article? Rp2006 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The SI is a reliable source, and it presents the view of an actual expert, instead of just of people whose competence does not go beyond producing sound using their mouths. I cannot think of a valid reason not to include it. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

introduction

It's of course good to strive for as much neutrality as possible, and it's good to remove things from the lead that don't need to be there, but now the result is a joke that refers to all medical symptoms experienced abroad by US government officials and military:

Havana syndrome refers to medical symptoms experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel. The symptoms range from pain and ringing in the ears to cognitive difficulties and were first reported by United States and Canadian embassy staff in Havana, Cuba, in 2016.

At the very least one should check whether removing stuff leaves an acceptable result. So at the very least the obviously silly first sentence needs to be combined with the second so that this can function as a restrictive relative clause:

Havana syndrome refers to medical symptoms experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel that range from pain and ringing in the ears to cognitive difficulties and that were first reported by United States and Canadian embassy staff in Havana, Cuba, in 2016.

That's no longer blatantly silly, but it's still not restrictive enough since it doesn't really clarify what this article is about. More specifically, it's still a bit silly because the article is not about all medical symptoms ranging from tinnitus to cognitive difficulties experienced by US embassy staff in Havana.

There are three major characteristics of these symptoms that most definitely need to be mentioned in the first sentences: They consist of 1) a wide range of 2) only partly overlapping symptoms and 3) they are claimed or feared by some to be targeted attacks by unknown adversaries. Without these additions, we don't explain enough what this is about.

If we only include #1 and/or #2, we are unintentionally taking sides and implying that this is mass hysteria. The reason that these people have good reason to worry or believe that many serious medical problems experienced by themselves and colleagues may be connected is specifically because they have good reason to believe they have been or still are being attacked. This means that they of course don't believe all medical problems or even all serious ones could be caused by this possible unidentified attack but report them all, as any intelligent patient should, and hope this helps the doctors and other experts decide which ones are connected and what to search for as the cause.

So I hope we can agree on putting back all or some of this and other removed stuff because it was essential or because it was removed due to carelessness or misunderstandings. For example, "unspecific symptoms" is definitely supported by the sources. This is the correct medical term for saying a symptom can't be caused by only one or a limited number of causes and is not specific to only a limited number of illnesses. Since this was not clear to one of us editors, it would probably not be clear to many readers and needs a simpler and clearer expression.

"With unknown causes": This is also important in the definition of the article's scope in the first one or two sentences because it clarifies that we want to present the topic as uncritical of the affected people as possible (and acknowledge their reasonableness in worrying that extremely different and probably unrelated symptoms should be considered simultaneously) but also fulfill our obligation to help the reader understand why these extremely different symptoms are grouped together and that this can be an indication of mass hysteria. In other words we need to mention that the symptoms encompass a wide range as both an essential classification and a characteristic that says a lot about the likelihood of a single cause but also doesn't discredit the valid fear that some may be related and due to the same possible cause. --Espoo (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As the lead reads at this moment I think it's pretty good, except for the part that says other people have experienced "these symptoms" which implies a definite set of symptoms. Are you happy with its current state? When it comes to medical claims, we have to be very careful that we are not creating diagnosis criteria out of thin air. To the average reader "syndrome" reads as "disease" and "plausible mechanism" reads as "probable cause". I think the way to counter this bias is to underscore the uncertainty coming from the most medically competent experts. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does the "partly overlapping" phrase come from? Is it in a source? DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Citation would be needed for sure. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

New cats

New categories keep being added by IP's (which are very similar, so are you in fact the same user?) whose presence seems to be based on OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you speaking about 96.63.177.129? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

U.S. intelligence consensus

@96.63.177.129: Technically speaking, you are disputing a paragraph that didn't face significant objection when it was added (see [09:27, August 25, 2021] edit by Chaste Krassley). It's fair to state that it's a consensual version. Why would you remove that? ([18:24, December 3, 2021]). Pinging: @Neutrality and Chaste Krassley: AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm restoring the content - as Alexander notes, this has consensus, reflects an important element of the body, and is properly phrased. Neutrality^talk 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have reviewed the comments and will summarize the discussion. A majority of editors think this RFC asks the wrong question or that the source Science Vs is not reliable. Most importantly the explanatory supplement WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered, not just whether this source is reliable for documenting that this expert said this thing. (There is a consensus that this source is reliable for that limited purpose, but this is beside the large point of whether the statement based on this source should be included in this article based on Wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:NPOV.) The comments by Geogene, Neutrality, and Alexbrn are the most incisive and most strongly based on policy. Therefore, they carry the most weight. This discussion, malformed as it may be, does not support inclusion of the statement based on Science Vs. Issues of WP:WEIGHT could be addressed in a subsequent discussion. Until such a consensus might be generated, this content should not be included. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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?:

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, in compliance with both WP:Canvassing "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia 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^(TALK) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • See my new position below. AlexEng^(TALK) 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 [1]. 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

• 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia? 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^(TALK) 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^(TALK) 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^(TALK) 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)
• The podcast is published by Gimlet media and is reliable for the claim that Chris Collins said something. It is not likely they exercised editorial control over what Dr. Collins said, so the claim about microwave weapons is an expert WP:SPS. It is permissible to include it as an attributed opinion, as is being proposed here. WP:ONUS still applies. Sennalen (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIA interim report

NBC News reported today that about six sources of theirs with access to a CIA interim report have said that mundane/alternative explanations have been found for most (hundreds of) reported cases of Havana syndrome globally. There is no "sustained global campaign by a hostile power aimed at hundreds of U.S. diplomats and spies". There remain about 24 cases, many from Havana, where "foreign involvement" can't be ruled out. A Havana Syndrome advocacy group expressed disappointment with the report and said "We have reason to believe the interim report does not even represent the consensus of the full CIA." [2] Geogene (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit because the source doesn't support the statement that "no foreign government is behind the attacks" [3]. The finding is "We assess it is unlikely that a foreign actor, including Russia, is conducting a sustained, worldwide campaign harming U.S. personnel with a weapon or mechanism". Geogene (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That exactly means that there's no foreign government behind the "attacks". It also means that there are no attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:CD01:D808:EBD3:53DE (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says that in so many words, and we'll add it to the article. Geogene (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this wording by the CIA is as close as we are going to get. Completely backtracking on their early assertions and admitting they completely misunderstood the evidence or purposefully misrepresented it is not going to happen in your lifetime or mine.The andf (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Find a reliable source that says that in so many words." See here. Rp2006 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This should be in the lead, although it is better to use the careful wording of the CIA. The Havana syndrome claims have the same credibility as alien abductions. They are still still within the realm of possibility, but unsupported by evidence and extremely unlikely to the point that reasonable people would assumed them untrue. TFD (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you all think of adding a cite to this interview segment on the subject from DW News, perhaps with some quotes from the two experts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)