Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:19, 18 January 2025

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.

Havana syndrome was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 6, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any objections to Good Article process?

I'm thinking of submitting this article to the Good Article process at Misplaced Pages:Good_articles. That process should provide some high-quality, independent input to ensure the article is decent quality. Any objections? Noleander (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Changed title of section from "Chronology of investigations" to "History of ..."

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)

GA Review

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Havana syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 04:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this shortly. IntentionallyDense 04:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The wording here is very repetitive (also known as WP:PROSELINE. There are several parts of this article which could be further simplified.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	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.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	ref list does exist. IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	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 not sure if news articles are the most reliable topic for this. I will note that I did not do a source spot check. There is also several unsourced statements. IntentionallyDense 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hard to assess because of the unsourced info. IntentionallyDense 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Shows as copyvio issues but that is just the quoted material. IntentionallyDense 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems appropriate but I am unsure. IntentionallyDense 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable as it will ever be. IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	no copyright issues. IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some comments below. IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	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 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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 04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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).

In contrast, we can look at the at the online Brittanica encyclopedia article on H.S. .... that article is not constrained by WP:MEDRS, so the author was able to craft a concise, flowing readable-prose article, and they don't have any WP:PROSELINE issues.

That said, we can put our heads together and see if there is some path forward that minimizes the WP:PROSELINE issues without violating other, weightier guidelines of WP. Noleander (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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 00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• The bare URLs and plaintext citations need to be fixed as a consistent citation style is required for GAC. IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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 04:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Images

• I found this image which may be interesting to incorporate into the article if possible:

  

  IntentionallyDense 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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:LEAD As 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 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination, please fail this review

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)

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 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My review

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 17:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Claims made lack citations

Final paragraph of first section that summarizes conclusions completely lacks in citations and authoritative sources. Petepetey (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's normal to not have citations in the lead. The citations appear in the body of the article. If there is a specific statement that you think isn't supported this is the place to bring it up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• 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