Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:32, 20 December 2024

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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 rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: edit history watch purge 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. 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 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: August 22 to 28, 2021 March 31 to April 6, 2024

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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." These were deemed not statistically significant after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment for multiple comparisons.

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think: Follow policy. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

• The NIH-backed study, published in JAMA, is noteworthy and covered by plenty of reliable secondary sources . The study was recently halted due to the CIA allegedly coercing subjects into participating in it , 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  What is trolling in my comment? You are edit warring and making up policy to enforce Misplaced Pages:Ownership of the page and removing content contrary to the RFC you claim supports your revert. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Use the PUBMED dates for the version of record. They appear on the landing page. If we were to do otherwise many citations on Misplaced Pages 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)

"Epub 2023 Dec 25" - PUBMED. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Correction: 2)No one else has mentioned anything about what makes which date proper. 2)There was extensive discussion; as noted https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages’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.

(it and PubMed offer both dates) RememberOrwell (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As I found @HaeB has discussed "this kind of discrepancy between formal (or print) and factual (or online) publication date" perhaps they can chime in? RememberOrwell (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Fake Data

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)

"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)

"in the vast majority of cases" - OK. RememberOrwell (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Major rework needed to fairly represent major POVs in reliable sources, in light of new facts.

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.                                         

RememberOrwell (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it, this is a media source, not a scientific one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Also I seem to recall it is nothing new, this information has been discussed here before. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Some major shortcomings:

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.}

This is notable and verifiably historic major political activity. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Symptoms in the Infobox

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)

Chronology of investigation

2024

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence unclassified report

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.” 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 full operational, analytic, and technical capabilities and those of our partners.”

I think mentioning of the somewhat no finished report by the House intelligence subcommittee should be mentioned. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. The US house of representatives seems less expert than other sources. This would be WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

THe people who advise them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Journalists are considered to be reliable sources on Misplaced Pages - 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)

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)

No, kindly do not put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The US house of representatives in 1976 was a very different body from the US house of representatives today. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, the House does get new membership every two years. But it sounds like you're implying something else that would fall under special pleading. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.' The Long Connor (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely undue inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why? At the very least, I believe it should be included as a response/reaction to the 2023 IC assessment. The Long Connor (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

References

1. Wales, Matt (December 6, 2024). "Foreign adversary was likely behind Havana Syndrome, House Intelligence leaders say". CBS News. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
2. Tores, Nora (December 6, 2024). "Foreign adversary' is likely behind some Havana Syndrome incidents, House report says". Miaimi Herald. Retrieved December 6, 2024.
3. Karem, Brian (December 6, 2024). ""Active suppression of witnesses": CIA lied about "Havana Syndrome," whistleblower documents reveal". Salon. Retrieved September 16, 2024./

2024 "NIC Report" - should be 2023

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Cuba articles
• Mid-importance Cuba articles
• WikiProject Cuba articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles with connected contributors