Talk:Havana syndrome

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.

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 [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)

  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 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)

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 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)

"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/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.

(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 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 nonletal 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)