This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This content is thoroughly verifiable. But it's been removed twice. @Bon Courage, again, how is it not comparable or better than other content in the article? Do you dispute that it's wp:verifiable? That NIH-performed research is of above-par caliber?
This is primary research. In general we need WP:MEDRS for WP:BMI. It is particularly unfortunate it was presented in a way which did not do justice to the finding (which is: there was no brain injury); this something that using a good WP:SECONDARY source would avoid. There might be a case that medpagetoday could exceptionally be used, but it is a very weak source. Bon courage (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is primary. So has underlying primary research, but as you later acknowledge, it's not entirely primary. Two of the sources are secondary. @Bon Courage, again, how is it not comparable or better than other content in the article? Do you dispute that it's wp:verifiable? That NIH-performed research is of above-par caliber? What makes medpagetoday insufficient? You removed the content twice, so either you do or don't think medpagetoday insufficient. Which is it? RememberOrwell (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
medpagetoday is a weak source, and I am not convinced it should be used. If other parts of this article are poorly-sourced, that is no reason to make it even worse. You could help be fixing other other poor parts. Bon courage (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Bon Courage. We would need solid secondary MEDRS-sourcing. Additionally, the proposed text was not written in encyclopedic style. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NIH-backed study, published in JAMA, is noteworthy and covered by plenty of reliable secondary sources [1][2][3]. The study was recently halted due to the CIA allegedly coercing subjects into participating in it [4][5][6], a subject that is excepted by WP:BMI (see "Medical ethics" section of WP:NOTBMI). Depending on how the study is covered, it shouldn't violate WP:MEDRS and normal editing can proceed. ReveredScholar (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added information of these studies, which were widely reported in the national news, to this page, with links to AP and NPR accounts as well as NIH telebriefing transcript. Surprised to have not seen here already. Dan Vergano (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims were false and misleading. Your talk page / edit history is full of evidence of you "wasting other people's time and energy for them, and gaming the system, which is obstructing the improvement and development of articles." Furthermore, much of this is WP:NOTBMI. Clearly you wish WP:MEDRS does what you say but it doesn't have that role. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than going troll, why not consider the question. Changes in the human brain are WP:BMI. If in doubt, ask at any noticeboard. If and when appropriate WP:SECONDARY sources show up, they will be useful for coverage. There's no hurry and this is no biggie. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is primarily regarding the *history* of an issue of US national security covered by the media. MEDRS doesn't require keeping secret what is's about. What the collection of symptoms the media is reporting on is is encyclopedic. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2024/03/14/preview-pmc-improvements/: "A streamlined citation display that more clearly indicates the date an article was first made available in print or electronic format, based on data provided to PMC. Other dates — such as submission, acceptance, and issue dates — can be viewed under the Article Notes section, which can be found under the article’s authors."
Use the PUBMED dates for the version of record. They appear on the landing page. If we were to do otherwise many citations on Wikipedia would need to change. Also saying a review was "published in August 2022 by Asadi-Pooya AA" is wrong. that guy is not a publisher, but an author. WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't cherry-pick that; use the date for the version of record in the metadata. You can use a tool like this to produce citations in the correct format if you're struggling to do it manually. Bon courage (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: Declining at this time, as there has not been thorough discussion of the dispute yet as required per the instructions. If and when that changes, provided other editors have not joined the dispute, you are welcome to re-file. Otherwise, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna support the version favoured by Bon Courage, also because I'd argue that "explored the scientific literature on Havana syndrome" is not allowed under WP:SS, we've already said its a review article, and linked the concept. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and apart from the verbosity it is completely standard to date publications as the publisher has. Journal articles have many dates (e.g. submission, acceptance, early access, publication) and it standard practice always to use the date the publisher puts on an item as its version-of-record primary date. GOK why there is apparently some need to deviate from that practice in this case. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should replace "proposing" with, something better indicating what would be done in a review if we're removing "explored the scientific literature", yes? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As documented above, PUBMED has decided that "the date an article was first made available in print or electronic format" is the important date, and in this case, I tried to keep the article doing using data provided from the publisher to PMC. Do we have a policy that says the nominal issue date or some other date is more important? AFAIK, these dates are getting more out of sync lately, so it hasn't been an issue. No one has pointed to such a policy. RememberOrwell (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Weird. I tried to undo the revert on 3O right after I made it when I saw that - contrary to the edit summary - others were providing opinions here- but my edit didn't save, it seems. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: 2)No one else has mentioned anything about what makes which date proper. 2)There was extensive discussion; as noted https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1249415960#Active_disagreements, there had been "Disagreement about proper dates in article and citation, and policy (section above)." AND "Mutual edit warring warnings" and disagreements had brought things to a standstill. A 3O should have been and should be provided, as I see it, DonIago. I asked "Do we have a policy that says the nominal issue date or some other date is more important?" - no one has replied. Yet. The review was made available in 2023. Not 2024. In addition to the reasons already given well above: Wikipedia’s verifiability policy emphasizes citing reliable sources, including online publications. Also, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00207640231208374 only has the 2023 date: "First published online December 25, 2023. " PMC also only has the 2023 date. It provides the following citation, by default:
Bartholomew RE, Baloh RW. "Havana Syndrome": A post mortem. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2024 Mar;70(2):402-405. doi: 10.1177/00207640231208374. Epub 2023 Dec 25. PMID: 38146090; PMCID: PMC10913303.
I'm not going to relitigate a 3O request from over a month ago, especially not when there are clearly more than two editors involved at this time. As I said at the time, other forms of dispute resolution are available if you don't feel this discussion is satsifactory. DonIago (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated use of SYNTHesized "precise" large numbers gives misleading indications of precision. (An almost textbook propaganda technique.) "976" does not appear in either cited source. Seems to be SYNTH : Approximately 1000 - about two dozen is approximately 976. This fabricated/false precision is seen in the unfounded claims in the current article: "Foreign involvement was ruled out in 976 cases of the 1,000 reviewed" and multiple other places. In the sources, two of the quantities (~1,000 & ~24) are clearly identified as approximate, and the third doesn't appear at all in the sources, but appear over and over and over: 1,000, 1,000, 1,000, 24 (=1000-976), 976, 976. Wow. Flagged as failed verification. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In about two dozen cases, the agency cannot rule out foreign involvement, including many of the cases that originated at the U.S. Embassy in Havana beginning in 2016." the figure 976 appears to be an attempt to say the same thing, without violating copyright. But maybe change it "in the vast majority of cases". Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We now have detailed, specific, incriminating evidence of state actor involvement (e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/30/health/nih-havana-syndrome-study/index.html – September 1, 2024 interview – and note: the video interview of the journalist Christo Grozev presenting the situation is key - not just the printed article), so article content based on out-of-date sources (earlier reporting that didn't and couldn't take into account newer, stronger evidence) needs to be revisited to reflect the new picture. The journalist's reputation is strongly bolstered by his acclaimed journalism connecting the FSB to high-profile Novichok poisoning assassinations sufficiently well-documented to result in international arrest warrants, as well as his colleagues and affiliations. See GRU Unit 29155#Alleged connection to Havana syndrome, e.g.:
Among the core findings of the yearlong collaboration of Roman Dobrokhotov, Christo Grozev and Michael Weiss were that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that members of the unit have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents.
He reports ~50 members of GRU assassination Unit 29155 were found to have arrived undercover and then been present for 7-8 Havana incidents.
Compensation for developing a nonlethal acoustic weapon went to the GRU unit's founding commanding officer's son who was spotted when an apparent attack occurred.
I see no mention of anything related to GRU Unit 29155. Until I brought it up here.
Nothing on
He reports ~50 members of GRU assassination Unit 29155 were found to have arrived undercover and then been present for 7-8 Havana incidents.
Compensation for developing a nonlethal acoustic weapon went to the GRU unit's founding commanding officer's son who was spotted when an apparent attack occurred.
The CNN piece describes the research as flawed and inconclusive, and ends with There was longstanding speculation about a new kind of weapon as the cause of these illnesses, but the US intelligence community said last year that it cannot link any cases to a foreign adversary, ruling it unlikely that the unexplained illness was the result of a targeted campaign by an enemy of the US. We'd want to be careful with breaking-news stuff about a medical issue like this that has gotten a lot of academic coverage, but even beyond that, I don't think we can use a random clip from an interview by a non-expert, especially it's in the context of a more in-depth article that describes how the study was flawed due to the CIA compelling people to participate. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the quote, in context, shows the IC research is flawed and inconclusive. The CNN piece also reports IC staff were told not to discuss their symptoms with their own families. Neurologist-and chief medical reporter Sanjay Gupta is a non-expert? CIA physician Dr. Paul Andrews was one of the first people sent to Havana, Cuba, to investigate a spate of mysterious health incidents but he's a non-expert? Christo Grozev isn't an acclaimed, professional, expert journalist? Absolutely, the NIH research was flawed; according to participants, they were ordered to participate, and an NIH investigation confirmed people were coerced. Journalists, especially MDs who are also journalists, are qualified to evaluate IC reporting on IC activity, including when it involves disabled IC agents. Death is a medical issue, but do we only use reviews in academic medical journals as sources when documenting war atrocities? Of course not. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leighton Chan, MD, chief, rehabilitation medicine and acting chief scientific officer, NIH Clinical Center, and lead author on one of the papers: “While we did not identify significant differences in participants with AHIs, it’s important to acknowledge that these symptoms are very real, cause significant disruption in the lives of those affected and can be quite prolonged, disabling and difficult to treat.” ... “A lack of evidence for an MRI-detectable difference between individuals with AHIs and controls does not exclude that an adverse event impacting the brain occurred at the time of the AHI,”
But we must ignore that he says these things? I think not. Though, he is claiming that p=.006 is not 'significant' and not evidence of a difference, without explaining the 'justifying' adjustments well. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a controversial diagnosis, it seems to be a violation of MEDRS to list the (vague) symptoms in the infobox, where we put noncontroversial information. One editor reverted my deletion claiming that since this is potentially not even a disease MEDRS doesn't apply. That is some twisted logic that is very common in pseudomedicine. As soon as you list symptoms, you are making a medical claim and MEDRS applies.DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On December 06, 2024, in an Unclassified House congressional inquiry U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, the chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee said, "appears increasingly likely that a foreign adversary is behind some" cases of what officials refer to as "anomalous health incidents" and “The Intelligence Community has attempted to thwart the Subcommittee’s investigative efforts to uncover the truth at every turn.” [1]The interim report said there is evidence the intelligence community, tried to create “a politically palatable conclusion,” “impede investigative efforts that would uncover this effort,” and “withheld valuable information.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, disputed those claims, saying, thier investigation “was among the most comprehensive in our history, bringing to bear the [intelligence community’s] full operational, analytic, and technical capabilities and those of our partners.” [2]
Its the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the matter is a national security issue. They also have access to classified information not available to the public. Who else would be an expert on an alleged national security threat if not the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? The Long Connor (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This portion of the article features investigative work by media organizations such as 'The Insider' and '60 Minutes'. Why object to a report released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? The journalists at 'The Insider' and '60 Minutes' are less experienced in these matters than the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The Long Connor (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists are considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia - their profession is built around determining credibility of sources and relaying information. That is not the basis of the political profession. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that means that the sources which include journalists reporting on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report can themselves be cited? Also, the section includes a statement issued by Marko Rubio as a source. I would agree if the source was a rank and file member of congress making an offhand remark, but the source is a report from a bipartisan committee whose purpose is oversight of the intelligence community. Using the standard you have set, then you wouldnt be able to cite the 2012 U.S. Senate report on CIA torture, or any report from any lawmaking body. The Long Connor (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to offend, and I apologize if I have done so. I am just trying to understand why this is not a valid source? The original response said the source was inappropriate as it was less expert than other sources, but the section features statements by individual politicians like Marco Rubio. The Long Connor (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also recall that the inclusion of the 60 minutes material and the specifics of how to include it was deeply controversial at the time as many editors believed that this article should avoid using journalists to discuss causes of an illness per WP:MEDRS. A group of politicians would be even less appropriate to discuss the causes of an illness than journalists are. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly the idea that the CIA is suppressing witnesses on behalf of Russia is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the report is related how the Intelligence Community has attempted to obfuscate the investigation into Havana Syndrome, and can be used in a manner so as not to imply any authority in a biomedical sense. Seeing as the subsection is titled 'Chronology of investigation' and features intelligence community reports as sources, it would be appropriate to include reports by bodies who are tasked with oversight of those agencies. Also, the section features sources such as a statement from Marco Rubio, as well as a 2021 statement from the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Long Connor (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution against speculating as to why the CIA may be obstructing investigations. There are a number of reasons why they may be doing so, which subsequent investigation may or may not reveal. Regardless, the source comes not just from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but the Central Intelligence Agency Subcommittee. The Long Connor (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that including the claim that the intelligence community of the USA is covering up the cause of Havana Syndrome is a conspiracist claim and requires extraordinary sources. American politicians grandstanding is not that. Simonm223 (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is making such an accusation is obviously worthy of mention in the article, and is reported by credible secondary sources. Your belief that it’s political grandstanding is not relevant. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to apply the same standard to the CIA usage of enhanced interrogation techniques, then the 2012 senate torture report wouldn't be included as a source. This is a report from the committee tasked with oversight of the Intelligence Community, which is probably one of the most credible sources on intelligence outside of the agencies themselves. The Long Connor (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why specifically are journalists more reliable when they have less information to work with than the permanent committee? As others have pointed out, the committee has access to confidential materials that ordinary journalists wouldn't have.
And to your second point, perhaps politicians in general are not in the business of investigating and determining the credibility of sources, but committee members are. That's what a committee does. House reports are cited all over wikipedia as reliable sources. The House report on the JFK assassination has its own article. How can you call them, in general, unreliable? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is subject-specific. If a group of people is notorious for clinging to crazy stupid ideas about science, whatever they collect on a scientific subject can be considered garbage.
There are two possibilities: other, better sources agree with what those people believe - then we should use those better sources. Or they do not - then we should not propagate the loonies' claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whistleblower Report Submitted to Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Alleging CIA/ODNI Interference
A Salon article published on September 16th 2024 detailed a report obtained via a FOIA request which suggests that the CIA along with the ODNI have been attempting to muddy the waters in regards to the causes of Havana Syndrome/AHIs.
The following is a direct quote from the cited report, '“The CIA, with apparent assistance of elements of the DNI — notably the National Intelligence Council and the National Counter Intelligence and Security Center . . . is engaged in the active suppression of witnesses, and actions which may constitute obstruction of justice and witness tampering as define in federal statute,” it states in the released documents.'[3]The Long Connor (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no axe to grind with the article and if anything agree with your apparent stance that this supposed syndrome is psychosomatic, but I still find your arguments against including this ridiculous and your editing WP:TENDENTIOUS. Absurd the claim may be, and we should not state it as proven fact, but we have reliable sources attesting that it's being made at the highest levels of Federal government and this alone makes it notable. Jpatokal (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024 Chronology section contained a small subsection titled "NIC report" about a purported report from 1 March 2024. It appears the editor that created that subsection is mistaken: there was a similar report released on 1 March 2023, and I could find no sources about a 1 March 2024 report. The 2023 report is already discussed, extensively in the 2023 Chronology section. I deleted the erroneous 2024 subsection, and moved two of its decent citations to the (existing) 2023 section. Noleander (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved lede to be more encyclopedic & to better reflect article body
I improved lede to be more encyclopedic, more readable and to better reflect the article body. If anyone has any suggestions for how it can be better, or any concerns about changes, let me know and I'll be happy to work to improve the lede. Noleander (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put news reports into "Media" subsections, to distinguish from scientific/official investigations?
Above in this talk page there is a discussion ("Major rework needed to fairly represent...") about media reports/investigations vs official scientific/engineering investigations. Currently, the are both equally represented with the "Chronology of Investigation" section. Certainly, the media info deserve to be mentioned, since they are reputable sources (New York Times, 60 minutes, etc). But it seems that they should be distinguished from science-based investigations. Significant differences include: peer-reviewed vs not; conclusions from scientists/engineers vs from politicians/journalists; follow scientific method vs simple interviews; anonymous sources (often) used in media articles vs publicly named individuals (although in the case of official govmt investigations relying on classified intel, most persons are anonymous).
I think a good solution is to leave all the media reports where the are now, within the Chronology section, but put them within subsections named "Media"... that way the info is all still there for the readers, but they get a clue when they are reading (potentially sensationalist) media interviews (vs formal studies with some rigor). I've made that tentative change in the article now. To repeat: no media text/sources were removed ... they were simply put into "Media" subsections. If anyone has any concerns or a better approach, let me know. Noleander (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put non-scientific events/actions/opinions/studies into "Other Responses" section?
The article has a "Chronology of Investigations" section, which - I believe - is intended to be limited to serious, unbiased scientific or journalistic investigations. Other stuff should be outside the Chronology section. There were several non-investigation sections, and so I created a new top-level section called "Other Responses" to hold them all, so the article is better organized and easier to navigate. This new "Other Responses" top-level section includes the following info (which has been in the article for awhile): laws passed by Congress; press releases from Governments (US, Cuba, Russia, etc); as well as lawsuits by AHI patients.
Question: Where should the Dec 2024 report from the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intelligence (CIA subcommittee) go? I read the sources, and see that: (a) the primary purpose of the House report is to investigate the ODNI's 2023 response to AHIs (i.e. the House report is not investigating the nature or cause of AHIs); and (b) the House report is primarily political in nature (i.e. primary purpose of the House report is to attack the CIA's performance under the Biden administration). For those reasons I've tentatively moved it out from the "Chronology of Investigations" into the "Other Responses" section (within the U.S. Congress subsection). Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title of section from "Chronology of investigations" to "History of investigations". My goal was to minimize issues related to WP:MEDRS, which crop-up in this article from time to time. I also added an invisible comment to that section reminding future editors about WP:MEDRS, specifically that mention of historical/newsworthy primary medical studies must only restate the study author's conclusions (i.e. no extrapolation or synthesis is permitted, unless there is a secondary study to support it). Noleander (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
This article does not comply with the MOS specifically:
MOS:LAYOUT: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." There is a lot of very short headings or subheadings in this article. " Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read." There are many single sentence paragraphs, even within the lead. "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." There is about three different citation styles used throughout this article.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I'm failing this article for a couple reasons. Firstly, the nominator asked me to fail it as they would like a new reviewer because of differing opinions on GAC. This article also has quite a few issues that should ideally be fixed before renomination including the sources, prose, and MOS issues. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just some initial comments, the lead should be around 4 paragraphs. You have 5 right now. Havana syndrome is characterized by a variety of symptoms, including dizziness, headaches, pain, and cognitive problems. It is not a recognized medical diagnosis, and it is not recognized as a disease by the medical community. and It had tasked JASON to consider all available data and evaluate potential directed energy mechanisms with regard to their ability to produce the reported effects. and In response to Havana syndrome, United States Senator Susan Collins introduced a bill (S. 1828), cosponsored by a bipartisan group of nine other senators, that would close a loophole in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act that would normally not cover damage to organs such as the brain and heart. appears to be unsourced. You've also got a lot of very short sections that could be combined as well as one sentence paragraphs that should be combined. There is also some WP:PROSELINE going on throughout the article. This is all I have for first impressions but should keep you busy while I continue my review. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great feedback. I'm starting to work on those issues. One issue that may need further discussion is WP:PROSELINE("When writing articles, begin paragraphs with the date sparingly. Instead, condense the text and focus on the main ideas."). That essay has some good ideas, but it may be hard to apply those suggestions to Havana Syndrome (H.S.) article because the H.S. article is influenced by two major factors, that in some ways conflict with WP:PROSELINE:
1) H.S. is _heavily_ reported-on in mainstream media (New York Times, BBC, CNN, Fox, etc). Virtually every single medical or scientific study that is published gets reported-on prominently, and the US public is strongly interested in the results of the studies. In particular: everyone wants to know what the cause of H.S. is. The article, naturally, should mention these very newsworthy studies.
2) The WP:MEDRS guideline states that any medical/biological info from primary sources (which 99% of the papers on H.S. are) is discouraged, and if primary sources are included in an article, the editor can only restate the conclusions of the primary-source paper. Editors are not permitted to pick-and-choose the primary sources; and they cannot combine sources in a prose fashion that might suggest relationships or consensus (in the scientific realm). Conversely, WP:MEDRS encourages secondary sources, and states that only secondary sources can be used to draw conclusions. Unfortunately, there are only three secondary studies on H.S, and they are not very in-depth. Those 2ndary sources are all represented in the section Havana_syndrome#Causes.
A result of these two factors is that the Causes section is the official medical judgement, and only 2ndary sources are used there; and all the primary studies, which are newsworthy and of historical importance, are recorded in the History of Investigations section.
That History of Investigations section is where we run afoul of the suggestions made in the WP:PROSELINE essay. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way change the History section to adhere the WP:PROSELINE suggestions without violating the principles of WP:MEDRS ... because if an editor starts combining studies into a single large paragraph; or re-categories the studies into a scheme that is not chronological (e.g. grouping the studies by conclusion); or re-wording the study conclusions in encyclopedic prose ... all those editorial efforts would be (justifiably) challenged by editors based on WP:MEDRS. In other words, the History section is only permitted by WP:MEDRS to the extent it is a history of newsworthy events (some of which happen to be medical studies).
I'm not sure you fully understand what proseline is. I'm just asking that you change up the wording a bit. For example under the section "Elsewhere in Asia" you have two pargraphs. In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam, after incidents of Havana syndrome were reported. and In September 2021, an aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome on a diplomatic visit to India. Which one could instead be written as An aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome during a diplomatic visit to India in September 2021.. Use this same stratergy of rearranging the setence structure throughout the article and you can reduce the proseline issues and make the article more readable. I don't see how this violates MEDRS. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the this requirement? I thought uniform citations were a featured article requirement, not good article requirement. Noleander (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I expanded more on my talkpage but it mostly has to do with MOS compliance. My suggestions here are not absolute. I am absolutely open to negotiations and I’m also willing to put in some time myself fixing up citations or prose stuff as well if that’s something you’d want help with. Ultimately having the bare urls in the refs won’t cause me to fail the article, if that is the only thing wrong. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that the image in the lead is appropriate for the lead. Infoboxes/leads don't NEED images and per MOS:LEADAs with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. Image captions are part of the article text. The image you have in the lead isn't super relevant and I don't think it is representative to HS. This is further expanded on in MOS:LEADIMAGE. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing the nomination, so please mark the review as "Failed".
The reason is that many of the changes identified above are not required for GA, yet the reviewer seems to think they are (e.g. four paragraph lead, uniform citation format, etc). If a reviewr has a suggestion that is not necessary to pass the GA review, they should explicitly say that when they first make the suggestion. For example "I'd suggest making all your widgets larger ... if you leave them alone, it won't stop the GA approval, but making them bigger would make the article more attractive". It's okay for a GA reviewer to suggest some optional changes (e.g. some FA-unique criteria) ... but the nominator should not need to guess which are required and which are optional. Noleander (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which changes are not required for GAC? I have explained to you how each one of my proposed changes does. You never had to guess, you could have just asked, but you didn't ask you just requested a new reviewer. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the nominator has expressed they would prefer a different nominator, this article doesn't qualify for a QF so I am going to give a brief review on why this article doesn't meet GAC. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.jpg){kind=small}
3O Response: Declining at this time, as there has not been thorough discussion of the dispute yet as required per the instructions. If and when that changes, provided other editors have not joined the dispute, you are welcome to re-file. Otherwise, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)