Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

feel free to rename Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has, and it's an improvement, but I think we should replace the words "suspected sonic attack" to just about anything else which would objectively describe the problem without implying that one of the theories ("sonic attack") is the reality (I know "Health problems of several people with different but overlapping symptoms who are linked to the American and Canadian embassies" is too long.)ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 CUBAN EMBASSY SCARE?Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 20:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

medicinal sources

Why is it that alternative explanations need medical sources but everything else does not?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

not all eat the right kind of Falafel or Jaffa Oranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Because making a claim about how things affect the human body falls under WP:MEDRS, something at a higher standard than say, someone is sick, someone got shot, or someone thinks a movie was good or bad.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Such as what the US state department does as well? There are a lot of medical claims being made why is it that the wind farm explanation is the only one that needs medical proof?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Was the State Dept. making a specific medical claim or were they talking about a hypothetical sonic weapon? I think the latter but I haven't read those thoroughly. I didn't add the tags, by the way, I'm just answering a generic question about why medical claims generally need medical RS. I think I'll ask User:Flyer22 Reborn, who has a lot more experience with this kind of thing, whether those tags are approrpiate. For example, the one added to the patients own reported symptoms is likely not necessary. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Commented on my talk page. The vast majority of the content currently in the article does not need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer. I have removed all the med tags, I can't see any justifications for them. I think someone's been overeager.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Microwave auditory effect

Surprised nobody has mentioned the microwave auditory effect. I imagine they could be beamed from some distance away, possibly from the interaction of several small transmitters. On the other hand, perhaps it was just cicadas, hysteria, or some other unintentional cause. 92.3.76.113 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. We are not here to offer our own speculations. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• France24 news has reported on Pompeo`s statement May 23 2018, attributing the frequencies to potential "listening devices". Interoperability across platforms is proven technology, but not explicitly mentioned by French mass-media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Page moves

Northnomad and Tdl1060, regarding this and this, one thing to look at is WP:Common name. Anyway, I agree with Tdl1060 that "reported" was not neutral. And Northnomad's argument that "suspected" was not neutral might be true as well. We usually don't have "reported" or "suspected" in our article titles, that's for sure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't one succinct common name that reliable sources are using for the article subject. As such, "Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana" is a title that does not advance a particular POV as to what caused the illnesses is, and who, if anyone, is behind them. Both of these are currently unknown, and it is not appropriate for the article title to be worded in a way that makes implications regarding the validity or lack thereof of any of the myriad of theories that have been put forward.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that the latest title, "Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana" is an improvement. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I support the latest title too. This is all quite mysterious, but sonic means are far from the only method proposed.--Pharos (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Health related incidents" is far too vague. The article refers to a specific series of incidents during a specific period of time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

How about something like "Suspected embassy attacks"? That emphasizes the wholly inconclusive knowledge about what happened while still communicating the fact that it has been suspected of being an attack. The state department maintains it was an attack, last I heard. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I like that. Perhaps a bit more specific though: Suspected embassy attacks in Cuba Or maybe Embassy attack accusations in Cuba ?? RobP (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As there have been no responses, I renamed the article to Embassy attack accusations in Cuba. RobP (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

This article stops in its tracks Jan 10, though several developments or discussions have taken place since then. See Ian Sample Fresh row over mysterious illness affecting US diplomats in Cuba The Guardian 24 February 2018Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added info from this article. Also added material from other recent articles. While I was at it, I took the opportunity to restructure the article. Events and Reaction material were not logically collected in the two sections, so I hope this is better. Also, lead should be a summary of article, but had material presented only there. Attempted to rectify this issue as well. RobP (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

After looking at this some more, it seem likely this entire thing was mass hysteria. So going with that, Embassy attack accusations in Cuba seems like a much better name for this article going forward. RobP (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, you and others need to be keeping the WP:Article titles policy in mind instead of just making up titles. Editors should not keep moving this article based on their personal preference. We also have the WP:Requested moves process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This was being discussed in the section above, so I dispute it was based on a personal preference. RobP (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, I am aware that it was discussed in the section above. I'm clearly in that section. I see editors having agreed on a title, but not on the one you proposed. And I do not see that you offered any WP:Reliable sources for the title you used. So, yes, the new title is based on your idea/preference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

By section above I meant the Page Move section, not THIS one. RobP (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RobP, late response: What makes you think that I wasn't talking about the #Page moves section when I specifically stated, "I am aware that it was discussed in the section above. I'm clearly in that section."? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Attacks and UN Convention

Breaking news 23rd/24th May 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, requesting next years budget from Congress, mentioned the China incident and his assessment that it is "consistent" with the Cuba incidents. This shall surely be extensively written about in the coming months, and it is only natural that the possibility of UN Conventions having been breached shall be a point of discussion. The clincher here is whether or not ANY component or source(s) of the radio was in an orbital state, i.e. in space, as MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD have signed up to the UN Convention against weapons in space, and the earlier "COPUOS"; as the convention EXPLICITLY mentions victims "mental" state. Yep, they had psychological damage covered since the 1950`s. It does apply to people both in space and on earth. If there are any "GPS enabled" devices involved, that may be a stretch. There have not been any reports that the Cuban incidents were influenced by satellite, but the technology has been available since the 1950`s, hence the Conventions. Most of the main stream media have not touched this as it opens the door for criticism of the illicit Israeli space program, and their illegal WMD, amongst other breaches. However, the recurrance of symptoms experienced in Cuba having now been put to the congressional record as having been experienced in China changes that (at least as per official sources). I mean, the Congressional records of the United States are highly credible, verifiable and certifiable; perhaps moreso than the DNS as a source even! French media have speculated on Pompeo`s statement as though the frequencies may have been emitted from a "listening device" but did not expand outside near-field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

China ?

Create Embassy attack accusations in China ? Was it an embassy? 204.38.4.80 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Microwave weapons

Microwave Weapons Are Prime Suspect in Ills of U.S. Embassy Workers: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.36.92 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to mention the microwave auditory effect, there's also however a lot of speculation and facts that are possibly outside of the article's scope. The title is also sensational, in the same: "Asked about the microwave theory of the case, the State Department said the investigation had yet to identify the cause or source of the attacks. And the F.B.I. declined to comment on the status of the investigation or any theories.", "'Based on what I know,' he remarked, 'it will remain a mystery.'", etc. We could also of course mention that some consider microwave attacks plausible (and who), like this article does. —PaleoNeonate – 03:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dr Hoffer has a major paper coming out in about a month, here is a preview: https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-cbs-morning-apos-host-121918395.html -- in short, not microwaves but directed energy such as ultrasonics. And not brain injury but inner-ear damage. Either way, some sort of neuroweaponary seems to be the consistent message. Hoffner is calling it the Havana Effect. -- GreenC 18:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong thing? I don't see any mention of a Hoffer there. It seems to be solely about Les Moonves' Resignation and others caught up after the #metoo movement. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, as a reminder to editors, take care when writing that you don't randomly introduce people into the article without being clear who they are. See these changes [1]. While I'm not saying that my changes were perfect, I found it incredibly jarring when 4 individuals were suddenly named, only who who had ever been mentioned before, discounting the mention of the Frey effect. This lead to the obvious problem that I had no idea who these people were, or why I should care that they thought the theory was plausible. I mean I could sort of guess that the Frey person was probably the same person who the Frey effect was named after, but that still left two random individuals. And as it turned out, this was actually more than just a minor isse. I sort of assumed that the other 2 would most likely be scientists as well. (With the slightly possibility of them being someone from the state department.) As it turns out, one of them is a lawyer representing some of those affected which means they're not an unbiased source. Funnily enough, the only person named there who's was mentioned before i.e Tillerson (although frankly wasn't needed since anyone familiar with current American politics would recognise their name) doesn't even seem to belong. It's fine to mention someone again, e.g. Smith, without needing to give any context to who they are again. Yes readers who only read that section can be confused, but it's also problematic to keep mentioning who someone is again. (Similar to the way it isn't necessary to wikilink something each time it occurs.) But if you're going to introduce someone for the first time, at least give more than just their family name. I mean even giving a longer name without any description will give the reader some clue this person isn't someone mentioned before they forgot or didn't read about. (This is for articles only, it's obviously fine to just mentioned someone like above since it's assumed the reader if they are interested will read the source.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe this rebuttal to the microwave theory (published in the Washington Post) should be added. RobP (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The latest findings, reported widely in the news today Dec. 6 2020, are unequivocal and should be regarded as conclusive: the syndrome is the result of microwave energy.

Only unconfirmed is whether the microwave incidents are deliberate or accidental. Hopefully further disclosures from official experts will present whether the contemporaneous affliction—with an essentially identical scope of syndromes—by Canadian personnel in Havana will weigh the likelihood of two different states' representatives in two separate buildings, whose governments just happen to be 5-eyes (Canada, US, UK, Australia, and NZ) intelligence partners, could be troubled by two separate malfunctioning microwave ovens in exactly the same manner, and both malfunctioning domestic cooking units being capable of leaking MW energy in the same direction in such copious amounts to penetrate any number of walls/floors/ceilings. JohndanR (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lets see some of this wide reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is under Talk:Havana syndrome#December 2020 Geogene (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)