Talk:Havana syndrome

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Havana syndrome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 60 days

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.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cuba Mid‑importance

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 articles

Mid

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

WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

New article announcements:
Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave
Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba)
Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista
Update: Nochebuena
NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba
Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella
Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits
Style: Fidel Castro
Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven

International relations Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Mid‑importance

	Russia portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Canadian / Chinese / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Post-Cold War B‑class

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 articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Palmer, Rob (2019-02-05). "Were the 'Sonic Attacks' on American Diplomats Just Sci-Fi?". Skeptical Inquirer.

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.

103.152.126.102 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

On February 7th 2024, in the US House of Representatives, the HR 7305 bill was introduced, entitled “Initiating Imperative Reporting on Anomalous Health Incidents Act or the IIR on AHI Act”, specifically to account for the number of people affected by the AHIs both from the armed forces and the civilian employees. See link https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7305 109.166.131.240 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY source, not usable in Wikipedia. We have to wait until a WP:RS talks about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "JASON Report On February 10, 2002, the State Department released unclassified portions of a report it had commissioned from the JASON Advisory Group[18]." to "JASON Report On February 10, 2022, the State Department released unclassified portions of a report it had commissioned from the JASON Advisory Group[18].

2002 seems to be a typo. Chuppl (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second JAMA study, by NIH, in 2024.

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?

A 2024 analysis of MRIs of US diplomatic and related personnel reporting Havana syndrome symptoms funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in JAMA reported "lower intranetwork connectivity in the salience networks, a larger corpus callosum, and diffusion MRI differences at (P < .05) significance in the corpus callosum, superior longitudinal fasciculus (p=.006(right), .04(left)), cingulum, inferior cerebellar peduncle, and amygdala."^[1]^[2]^[3] These were deemed not statistically significant after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment for multiple comparisons.^[3]

^ Chan, Leighton; Hallett, Mark; Zalewski, Chris K.; Brewer, Carmen C.; Zampieri, Cris; Hoa, Michael; Lippa, Sara M.; Fitzgibbon, Edmond; French, Louis M.; Moses, Anita D.; van der Merwe, André J.; Pierpaoli, Carlo; Turtzo, L. Christine; Yonter, Simge; Shahim, Pashtun (2 April 2024). "Clinical, Biomarker, and Research Tests Among US Government Personnel and Their Family Members Involved in Anomalous Health Incidents". JAMA. 331 (13): 1109–1121. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.2413. ISSN 0098-7484.
^ https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/generalneurology/109232. Retrieved 1 October 2024. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ ^a ^b Pierpaoli, Carlo; Nayak, Amritha; Hafiz, Rakibul; Irfanoglu, M. Okan; Chen, Gang; Taylor, Paul; Hallett, Mark; Hoa, Michael; Pham, Dzung; Chou, Yi-Yu; Moses, Anita D.; van der Merwe, André J.; Lippa, Sara M.; Brewer, Carmen C.; Zalewski, Chris K. (2024-04-02). "Neuroimaging Findings in US Government Personnel and Their Family Members Involved in Anomalous Health Incidents". JAMA. 331 (13): 1122–1134. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.2424. ISSN 0098-7484. PMC 10949155. PMID 38497822.

RememberOrwell (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage RememberOrwell (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You're not answering my questions. For example, Your saying medpagetoday is a weak source doesn't make it one. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you try improving the content instead of Edit warring? You seem to disagree with medpagetoday's findings. Add contrasting findings. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think: wait for reliable sources. If you want more views abour medpagetoday's reliability for WP:BMI try WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think: Follow policy. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:24, 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]
Unfortunately your additions failed WP:V. We need reliable sources (specifically WP:MEDRS in this case) to support content. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more false, and misleading claims from Bon courage. WP:MEDRS is not part of WP:V. The additions did not fail WP:V. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V requires that a reliable source be provided, and WP:MEDRS gives guidance on what are reliable sources for WP:BMI. So yeah. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 23 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]
What is trolling in my comment? You are edit warring and making up policy to enforce Wikipedia:Ownership of the page and removing content contrary to the RFC you claim supports your revert. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication dates

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10913303/ reflects the correct 2023 publication date. Note:

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."

So change to 2024 reverted. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"Epub 2023 Dec 25" - PUBMED. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:28, 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]

No longer appropriate for WP:3O, as more than 2 editors now involved. If no consensus is reached, try WP:Requests for Comment, or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:49, 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]

[1] Chan, Leighton; Hallett, Mark; Zalewski, Chris K.; Brewer, Carmen C.; Zampieri, Cris; Hoa, Michael; Lippa, Sara M.; Fitzgibbon, Edmond; French, Louis M.; Moses, Anita D.; van der Merwe, André J.; Pierpaoli, Carlo; Turtzo, L. Christine; Yonter, Simge; Shahim, Pashtun (2 April 2024). "Clinical, Biomarker, and Research Tests Among US Government Personnel and Their Family Members Involved in Anomalous Health Incidents". JAMA. 331 (13): 1109–1121. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.2413. ISSN 0098-7484.

[artichokes-2] ttps://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/generalneurology/109232. Retrieved 1 October 2024. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[JAMA2-3] Pierpaoli, Carlo; Nayak, Amritha; Hafiz, Rakibul; Irfanoglu, M. Okan; Chen, Gang; Taylor, Paul; Hallett, Mark; Hoa, Michael; Pham, Dzung; Chou, Yi-Yu; Moses, Anita D.; van der Merwe, André J.; Lippa, Sara M.; Brewer, Carmen C.; Zalewski, Chris K. (2024-04-02). "Neuroimaging Findings in US Government Personnel and Their Family Members Involved in Anomalous Health Incidents". JAMA. 331 (13): 1122–1134. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.2424. ISSN 0098-7484. PMC 10949155. PMID 38497822.

[1]

[2]

[3]