Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies[edit]
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Regarding MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
| The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence: "In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic." |
| Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist?
Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
| This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing impasse as to who should be listed as the founders for Tesla Inc. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. Another argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel should also be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". Bearing this in mind, which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox section? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
| Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
| I noticed that a contributor has changed the lead section of the Liverpool article just recently. The Liverpool lead section now only includes Liverpool's local authority population and the population of the official city region. Having looked at the Birmingham Leeds and Edinburgh articles, I notice that their lead sections make reference to the wider metropolitan area.
To quote the Birmingham article lead section: "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 4.3 million, making it the largest outside of London." The citation is worldpopulationreview.com To quote the Leeds article: "The city is part of the fourth-largest built-up area by population in the United Kingdom, West Yorkshire Built-up Area, with a 2011 census population of 1.7 million" The citation is ONS Census 2011. The WY Built-up Area is out of date and is not calculated any more. But I am wondering if this needs to be in the lead section as an editor has removed mention of Liverpool metropolitan area from its lead section. To quote the Edinburgh lead section, "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 912,490." The citation is OECD. I am sure there are many many examples on wiki where city articles make reference to a wider 'urban region' or metropolitan area. Should we be aiming for consistency in these articles? I have also started an RfC on the Leeds, Birmingham and Edinburgh articles. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
 Should this photograph be removed from the Israel-Hamas war#7 October attack section? 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
| There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
Version 3.1:
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)
| Which political position should be indicated in the Free Democratic Party's infobox?
Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the current title |
| Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following sections should be used in the Food and health section?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Governor General of Canada
| Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Western media outlets (The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ), name it the "Israel–Gaza war";.
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ? If so, could this draft work ? In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[7] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[8] El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[9] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[10] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[11] Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
| An IP user added a description like 'geographiclly located in Northern Europe' in the lede. (1, 2, 3, 4) I think it violates "Lithuania solution", the consensus which is made in the previous talk. (#RfC - The geographic locale of Estonia) I request other users' opinions for this issue. Do you support or oppose to add this description? 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
There are two primary questions.
07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Hi editors, this is regarding wether the article should include the quote from Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida or not. The history of the quote has been disputed on the talk page, since there are no consensus between Merzostin and Nitekuzee, RfC seems to be the best course of action. In light of the source and evidence, it should be determined wether to:
Option #1: Keep The Quote Option #2: Remove The Quote |
There are several editors in disagreement about how to state the result of the battle. Which option fits best? (Options picked from all previous main-space versions of the result section)
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
| Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist?
Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
| There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
Version 3.1:
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of XXXX criteria
Should the following criteria be added as additional criteria in WP:TornadoCriteria?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following sections should be used in the Food and health section?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of best-selling Sega Dreamcast games
| There was some dispute over what the cutoff for inclusion should be. Other pages listed on Template:Best-selling video games have a minimum of 1 million copies sold/shipped for inclusion. However, it was argued here that this page should have a lower minimum due to the shorter lifespan/low performance of the console. Should the minimum requirement be 250,000 or 1,000,000?2601:249:9301:D570:2871:2734:7DEE:FBF4 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Jed Mercurio be listed in the Infobox of this page as a showrunner? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Which lead image is clearer?
|
|
| Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist?
Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
be removed from the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of Legal Insurrection for courtroom reporting of legal trials?
|
Talk:List of states with limited recognition
| Should we remove Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:True North Centre for Public Policy
| Should True North be described as "far-right" as it is described in multiple sources? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
| There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
Version 3.1:
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
| The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence: "In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic." |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists
| Should a "list of leaders"-type article like list of president of xxx, list of vice president of yyy, list of prime ministers of zzz, or similar officials also includes those who are designated as "-elect"? Ckfasdf (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)
| Which political position should be indicated in the Free Democratic Party's infobox?
Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the current title |
| I think it's time for us to have this discussion.
I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one. Specifically, I propose that the current version " |
Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
I would like to restart a previous RfC on calling the operation a Hamas victory in the infobox. In the interim, multiple other sources ([1], [2]) have supported this position. No consensus was reached in the past RfC however I think the decision then was erroneous. Most of the opponents had no compelling arguments except essentially appeals to emotion that the attacks were "terrorist" and that it would somehow be immoral to call "terrorists" winners. That RfC was further tainted by an e-mail canvassing situation. I believe that the closer erred in his judgement of no consensus.
|
Talk:Governor General of Canada
| Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel
What should the result section of the infobox say? Leaving out some possible options here, other suggestions are also welcome.
|
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
| Should the nickname "Genocide Joe" be included on a list of nicknames used for Presidents of the United States? 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
| On replacing neo-fascism with post-fascism in the ideology section of the info box (both are in the lede). Please read RfC2 and the below post, which is effectively option 4. SUPPORT/OPPOSE for option 4 but wider discussion is welcome and needed.
Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding antisemitism?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict?
|
| Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist?
Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
| Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Female finishers be recorded separately for the Barkley Marathons? |
| There is ongoing discussion about how to best present the content of the Insider investigative report on a Russian connection to Havana Syndrome. Two versions have been proposed, and we seek wider community input on which should be included in the article. The discussion has raised concerns about the due weight of content relating to allegations of secret weapons use by Russian military intelligence's GRU Unit 29155.
Version 2.1:
Version 3.1:
Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
| The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence: "In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic." |
Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)
| Which political position should be indicated in the Free Democratic Party's infobox?
Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following sections should be used in the Food and health section?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding antisemitism?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict?
|
Wikipedia style and naming[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
| Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
be removed from the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
| Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
| The purpose of this RfC is to determine the consensus for how creations in violations of general sanctions such as WP:ARBECR should be enforced. Awesome Aasim 04:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Should there be a new R5 criteria for incorrectly formatted redirects to DAB pages? Redirects to disambiguation pages with malformities qualifiers such as Foo (desambiguation), Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) and Foo (Disambiguation), this excludes redirect using the correct WP:INTDAB title namely Foo (disambiguation) or any title that has useful history. Redirects with incorrect qualifiers that don't target disambiguation pages can be deleted under G14.Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the Wsection. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be. A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates[edit]
Should the 2020 consensus to remove |residence= from the Infobox person template be overturned? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia proposals[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the Wsection. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be. A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Currently, the status quo for events listed on the main page is to use the present tense, even if the event in question has definitively ended. I didn't really notice this was an issue until yesterday when I noticed that the main page said that the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 is visible through parts of North America. Knowing that it was not currently visible and double checking that the article referred to the event in the past tense, I changed this to was visible. [12] I did not realize that this is against the current consensus at WP:ITNBLURB which says that these events must always be described in the present tense. If one is interested in further background, I encourage them to read this discussion here (scroll down to errors).
I think that this status quo is misleading to readers because it cases like this, we are deliberately giving inaccurate and outdated information. I believe this is a disservice to our readers. The eclipse is not visible anymore, yet we must insist that it is indeed visible. I think that we should also be consistent... If the article for a blurb is using the past tense, we should use the past tense on the main page. Therefore, I propose that events listed on ITN that have definitively ended should be described in the past tense if it would otherwise mislead readers into thinking an event is ongoing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
Should the 2020 consensus to remove |residence= from the Infobox person template be overturned? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
| The purpose of this RfC is to determine the consensus for how creations in violations of general sanctions such as WP:ARBECR should be enforced. Awesome Aasim 04:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding antisemitism?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict?
|
Unsorted[edit]
User names[edit]
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports[edit]
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
Monkeyeatmybannana69[edit]
The Snake Squad[edit]
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-dismisses-report-russia-behind-havana-syndrome-2024-04-01/
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Havana syndrome: Report links mystery illness to Russian intelligence unit". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
guardian-reportwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
Dobrokhotovwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
:3was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
SpiegelMarch2024was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
us-not-movedwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Chasan, Aliza (2024-04-17). "Senators call for renewed Havana Syndrome assessment after 60 Minutes report - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2024-04-24.