Misplaced Pages

Talk:Earthquake prediction: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:20, 4 March 2017 editJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction: "Tentative" is the word. Which is to say: not yet accepted.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:11, 7 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,943,949 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(148 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Earthquakes |importance=high}}
}}
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 9 |counter = 9
}} }}
{{WikiProject Earthquakes |class=B |importance=high}}
{{archives}} {{archives}}
] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring. ] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring.


== "Difficulty or impossibility" proposal ==
==RfC on Earthquake prediction ==
{{archive top|Q1: The consensus is that 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction should be discussed in the article. There is no consensus regarding what depth the coverage should be, although it should not dominate the article. ] (]) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "]" section, that "{{tq|it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible.}}" As I noted then, that section has been seriously hacked. In its <s>current</s> <u>recent</u> form it makes a bald assertion that "{{tq|Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible}}", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: "{{tq| However, these theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed.}}" I believe the effect of this on most readers is that their eyes glaze over, and they move one without the slightest understanding.
Q2: Consensus is that Feund, Heraud and QuakeFinder should be befiely discussed in this article and that the coverage should make it clear the theory has been debunked.
I propose restoration of the "Difficulty or impossibility" section to its previous location (following the notable predictions) and extent, more or less as seen in .


In its previous incarnation this section came ''after'' the notable quakes section, so that instead of lecturing to the reader that prediction of quakes is impossible, the reader is first shown that the record of earthquake prediction is disappointing. This section then addressed ''why'' that is the case, mentioning both that prediction may be impossible, or merely "fiendishly difficult". Although the latter is alluded to in the section title, in the <s>current</s> <u>recent</u> version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.
Q3: The consensus is that Heki, Pulinets and TEC variations should be mentioned, but only when acompanied by citations to reliable sources. If there is reliably sourced evaluation of these then that should be included in our coverage. There is no consensus about what depth the coverage should be.


Whether earthquake prediction is even possible is the most significant aspect of this topic. It warrants adequate treatment, and is a fitting conclusion to the article. ~ ] (]) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Q4: There is unaminous support for continuing to include coverage of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions in this article.
:I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). ] (]) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


::Why, thank you, Jerry. I was thinking we should wait a bit in case anyone wanted to object, but there's no harm done, as this in no way impairs any discussion. I'll adjust my comments to match. ~ ] (]) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Q5: The clear consensus here is that the question was poorly formatted, beyond that there is no consensus for excluding theories regarded as fringe from this article solely on the basis that they are fringe science.
:::Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. ] (]) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


Q6: Consensus is that there is no "right of rebuttal" and that all content must be judged in accordance with ] and ]. ] (]) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)}} :::Thanks to you both! This section makes much more sense now. I could probably still quibble with the grammar and presentation, but would like to see how the current (restored) version is received by others before contemplating any modifications.] (]) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


== Brain bender ==
Participating editors in this RfC are invited to !vote and/or briefly comment on the general question of whether the scope of this article is a mainstream scope or fringe scope. Also, in separate sections, editors are invited to !vote and/or briefly comment on whether certain specific items should be included. Please reserve extended discussions to the threaded discussion section at the end. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


WP is not supposed to be repository for graduate students' theses. It would be nice if the average interested person could simply read this and understand the main points. ] (]) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
:Jerry has today revised the ordering and numbering of his "questions". My "general comment", applicable to all of these "questions", and intended to be prefatory, is now under Question #5. Newcomers might want to check that before commenting in detail in the specific sections. ~ ] (]) 23:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


:On the other hand, as writers, we need to provide clear and coherent text that summarizes appropriate sources. That has been done here. The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals. You wouldn't want to define plate tectonics in every earthquake article, for example. ] 23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
===QUESTION #1, on ]: Shall 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction be discussed in the article?===


{{ping|BeenAroundAWhile}} Brain bender??? Graduate student theses? Are you saying that "{{tq|the average interested person}}" can ''not'' "{{tq|simply read this and understand the main points}}"? Where the hell are you coming from? Well, perhaps from ], where you said: "{{tq|Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand ....}}" That is where you made a number of questionable edits. (Which I explained to you, and then reverted.)
* '''Yes''': These items should be included. They are essential to an understanding of the viewpoint of the VAN group, which is the topic of their section in this fringe article. It meets notability criteria because it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources independent of VAN, including popular newspaper reports as well as scientific journals. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
* '''Yes, of course''' - They are notable fringe science. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Same thing here. On the 30th you made thirteen edits to this article. Four or five are rather trivial, hardly worth troubling about. But several of your edits are quite troubling. Let's examine them. (Your edit summary in parentheses.)
* '''No, as they are <i>not notable</i>'''. While "they", if referring to VAN, might be notable albeit fringe, neither their "natural time analysis" method nor the ''alleged'' prediction of the 2008 EQ are notable. "Natural time" has been discussed previously at great length, but it has not been shown to be notable; it is effectively unknown in mainstream seismology. The 2008 EQ is quite non-notable (outside of Greece), and its inclusion here is solely because VAN claim it as a successful prediction based on "natural time". But the prediction itself is dubious, based on an ambiguous and non-peer-reviewed paper posted at the arXiv pre-print server. Jerry claims support from newspaper reports, but for scientific matters those are not reliable sources. Note the following from ]:
::{{quote|if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Misplaced Pages is not" rules come into play. ... The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."}}
: ~ ] (]) 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


* 01:06 (Not italicized in the source.)
* '''Yes, they are notable'''. The minister of the government who had handled the 2008 warning, awarded Varotsos recently for his contribution, as the President of Greek Democracy. Natural time , in addition to all other publications. AA-] (]) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|the ''next'' strong earthquake to occur in a region.}}
:'''Flat out false'''. "next" '''is''' italicized ''in the source''. Did you even check? Or do you just make up reasons as you go along?


* 01:07 (→top: It is or it isn't. We shouldn't hedge )
::The President of Greek democracy is hardly the arbiter of what is or is not scientifically notble. But more to the point: "AA", the "Anonymous Athenian", and evidently the same anonymous editor from Athens (Greece, and home of VAN) a.k.a "IP202", is a ] whose sole effort on WP is to remove all material that is (in his view) "negative" towards VAN, and to give visibility to all of VAN's rejoinders as to why the criticism is false. He is a non-neutral, partisan promoter of VAN, whose comments here should be given no weight in this discussion. ~ ] (]) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC) }}
> {{tq|'']'', which <s>can be defined as</s> the probabilistic assessment of ''general'' earthquake hazard}}.
:Again false. It is ''not'' "either or", as there is more than one definition of "earthquake forecasting"; it ''can'' be defined differently. But the lede of this article is not the place to thrash out that kind of detail.


* 01:08 (Copy edit.)
* '''Sure.''' Notability doesn't apply to an article's content, as per ]. Of course, as per ], they don't deserve ''much'' discussion - mention "natural time" and link to the section of the ], and state the established details of the alleged prediction. It's a couple of lines. --] (]) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|Prediction can be <s>further</s> distinguished from ]s, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a <s>real-time</s> warning of seconds to <s>neighboring</s> regions that might be affected.}}
:At this point in the text "earthquake prediction" has just been distinguished from earthquake forecasting. It is then ''further distinguished'' from ]s. Which, by their nature, can give warning only on the order of seconds, not minutes, hours, or days. Furthermore, they can ''only'' warn ''neighboring'' regions, because such systems are ''real-time'', and in the immediate area of the earthquake the quake has ''already happened''.


* 01:09 (→top: Meaningless. Every time period is made up of seconds.)
::There is plenty of other material that is equal or greater weight and notability. Why should VAN be more special than the other material? If this is allowed, then all the other material (some of which was here before) should be restored. ~ ] (]) 22:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|provide a warning <s>of seconds</s> to regions that might be affected.}}
:::So, what exactly is as noteworthy as the claimed earthquake prediction? Presumably it's already listed somewhere? But yeah, I'd probably be okay with restoring equally noteworthy items.--] (]) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
:Bullshit. "Every time period" can also be seen as centuries, or fractions there of; so what? The normal and ordinary usage here is an implied ''on the order of'' some few seconds, distinguished from whole minutes or hours. If you failed to understand this a better corrective would be to make "on the order of" explicit. Simply removing "of seconds" leaves the sense wide open to broad, and incorrect, interpretation, and the reader vulnerable to misinterpreting the meaning.


* 01:09 (Fix tense.)
::::The ''1973 Blue Mountain Lake'' quake was considered by many to be the first successful earthquake prediction in the United States (even though the theory it was based on was later determined to be incorrect), and, coupled with the informal and quite happen-chance "Hollister prediction" a year later, were very notable for fostering a belief that EP "{{tq|appears to be on the verge of practical reality}}". ''Whitcomb's "hypothesis test" of 1976'', though scientifically a null-result, had some very notable sociological results, and gathered much attention in the popular press (at least in California, which is at least as populous as Greece, no?). A 1976 prediction in ''South Carolina'' was deemed successful, and why should we suppress it? Similarly for claims of ''successful predictions in 1978'' (which, unlike the VAN "predictions", were actually announced prior to the event). ''Brady's 1981 predictions'' were VERY notable, as, even though the ] announced it was "{{tq|unconvinced of the scientific validity}}", it seemed that there was great scientific weight behind it. They failed, and economic loss due to reduction of tourism was estimated at one hundred million dollars. (If I recall correctly, this prompted the USGS to review how predictions are handled.) In contrast, the 2008 Patras/Pirgos earthquake is significant here only in that VAN claim this as validation of their "natural time analysis". Whether they even made a prediction is doubted, and there is no showing (other than their claim) that "natural time analysis" had anything to do with it. ~ ] (]) 03:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|<s>was</s> <u>had been</u> no valid short term prediction.}}
* '''Yes'''. As argued so far, the notability argument seem to me out of context. ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:Fix? The original version is a close paraphrase of the source (in Wang et al., 2006, p. 787): "{{tq|there ''was'' }}{{tq| no official short-term prediction"}}. For all that you might disagree with Wang et al.'s sense of tense I thnk we should stick with the source.


* 03:15 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Simplify for the non-expert, please)
::Can you support your ''opinion'' with some reliable sources? Can you show that "natural time" has ''any'' scientific significance, except as ballyhooed by its proponents? Any why it should be given more weight than other material? ~ ] (]) 20:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
* 03:16 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Doesn't make a lick o' sense.)
:Two edits that tagged the following sentences with {{tl|huh}} ("clarification needed"):
> {{tq|In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0{{huh}} earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."}}


> {{tq|In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.}}
* '''Question'''. Jerry argued that "natural time" and the ''alleged'' 2008 prediction be included because (in adition to being "{{tq|essential to an understanding of the viewpoint of the VAN group}}") they meet the "{{tq|notability criteria}}", while Robert opined (without any support) that they are ''notable'' fringe science, and ] editor "AA" claims notability on the authority of the President of the Greek Democracy. But tronvillain says notability doesn't apply, and Jon says it seems "out of context". So does ] apply here, or not? (Are we possibly confusing it with ]?) If it does not apply, then Jerry's and Robert's statements of notability are, well, inapplicable, and any requirement to "discuss" these items in the article needs a different basis. So: is ''notability'' applicable here, or not? ~ ] (]) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:WTF? It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Where ''precisely'' do you have a problem? Is the use of "M" instead of "magnitude" not simple enough? Or (heaven forbid!) do you want ''more details''? We could hyper-link those, but judging by some of your other edits you are death on "over-linking".


* 03:19 (Needs to be written in a way that everybody can understand.)
===QUESTION #2, on Freund, Heraud and ]: Shall these items be discussed in the article?===
> Added <nowiki>{{Confusing|reason=the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}</nowiki>
:'''What jargon?''' You have not provided any specifics, nor pointed to any particular sections. From your two preceding edits it might be inferred you think that ''not'' "{{tq|everybody can understand}}" the use of "M", "≥", and "magnitude". (Which I grant, as just one child, or one idiot, is sufficient to negate "everybody". So what?) But these are '''not jargon''', and are '''in no way "{{tq|comprehensible only to an expert}}"'''; they are comprehensible to many whose only expertise comes from reading a newspaper. As Dawnseeker has said: "{{tq|The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals.}}" (I say: ''some competence is required''.) Even so, you have shown ''no instances'' of anything, jargon or otherwise, "{{tq|comprehensible only to an expert}}", let alone that the article is "replete" with such instances.


For all of the above reasons (and because I am disinclined to take further time and trouble to save your trivial edits) I am going to revert the entirety of your edits, including the tag (on the basis it "did not belong when placed or
* '''Yes''' These authors have published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. The ] article has existed since 2009, and its notability as a stand-alone article has never been questioned. Accordingly, I believe the information should be included. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. Currently, I suggest that Freund and Heraud are attracting at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. ] (]) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
was added in error"). If you want to restore the tag, fine, but be prepared to show that "{{tq|the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}". ~ ] (]) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
* '''Yes, of course''' - They are notable fringe science. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
* '''No''', these authors are '''not notable'''. QuakeFinder is a private company that is collecting public donations in order to collect more instances of the now discredited Fraser-Smith Corralitos "event"; it appears they have yet to attempt any predictions, nor are likely to. The ] article is hardly more than a stub, largely promotional (and, contrary to Jerry's statement, has been questioned re WP:SPA and WP:PROMOTION issues), and derived largely from company provided materials.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:Freund and Heraud (and also Pulinets and Heki, below) are definitely fringe, and NOT notable. Freund's and Pulinets' theories, despite extensive publication, are ''not accepted by mainstream scientists''. For those of us not familiar with the seismological literature we have had the benefit of an expert (see ]) who has explained why. He concluded ({{diff2|749375626|05:43, 14 Nov}}):
::{{quote |There is literally no convincing evidence from the Freund/Pulinets and other EM people. If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Misplaced Pages, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece.}}


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:Jerry has chosen to ignore this, apparently on no other basis than he just doesn't like it. ~ ] (]) 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002130801/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
*'''Yes, but Briefly''', the article should mention that it is a debunked fringe theory and move on. - ] (]) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
*'''Yes''', they ''are'' notable. Not convincing for their theories yet, is another thing. For sure they are part of this article. AA-] (]) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Yes, briefly, debunked'''. There is no other way to combat public ignorance. ] (]) 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Yes, briefly, debunked''', as noted by ] and ] ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Suggestions?''' I could see a briefest of mentions (''not'' a "discussion", unless in a footnote), to the sole point that these folks are "debunked". But a little problem: while Hough can be cited that VAN are debunked, I know of no RS published statement that precise for Freund and these others. If any one has any suggestions as to how they should be mentioned, please enlighten us. I would suggest that in any event the ] article is the more appropriate place, as getting into this level of detail in this article would (on the basis of WEIGHT) require similar details at all the other sub-topics. Which would bring us back to the complaint that the article is too long. ~ ] (]) 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
===QUESTION #3,on Heki, Pulinets and ]: Shall these be discussed in the article?===


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* '''Yes''' These authors have also published extensively, and their work has been covered in the popular press. This had been covered briefly in this article at one time, but the material has been deleted long ago. I recovered the old material and used it to create a minimal summary at ]. I believe the information is notable enough in this context, that it should be mentioned here. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. Currently, I suggest that Heki and Pulinets are attracting at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. ] (]) 19:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
* '''Yes, of course''' - They are notable fringe science. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
* '''No''', as (again) '''not notable''', and for the same reasons as just cited in Question #2. Note that coverage in the popular press is ''not'' the basis for judging acceptance by mainstream scientists. In particular, that is ''not'' the basis for judging the "{{tq|proportion of prominence}}" of a viewpoint within the applicable field. That VAN is given too much prominence ''relative to mainstream thinking'' is NOT mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence relative to VAN. ~ ] (]) 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119050306/http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument to http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument
**IMO you are confusing " acceptance by mainstream scientists" with our notability guidelines. If something is widely disussed in popular press, chances are many will come to wikipedia for answers. And if mainstream says "it is bullshit", wikipedia must say so, not just stay mum. ] (]) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf
:::I think you're right, in that I'm getting a bit fuzzy on this (as we all are), and I agree that we should at least mention subjects that readers may be looking for. The long-running issue (not mentioned in the RfC) is whether such views warrant a "fair" representation as potential means of prediction. Or (more likely) just b.s. ~ ] (]) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055905/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427234807/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602192133/http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751 to http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429162009/http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf to http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/ioangrl98.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/pepilamia99.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603121040/http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf to http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161347/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
*'''Yes''', if this was commented on by mainstream science. ] (]) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::"If", yes. I don't believe Heki has gotten to the point of being even mentioned., Pulinets is largely rejected by mainstream science, though he has an extensive following, and I believe "TEC" is no longer a serious contender. But the real issue (scientifically) with all of these methods is they are all about ''possible'' earthquake precursors, but '''none''' of them have panned out. Nor have any of them (to my knowledge) actually made or claimed any successful predictions. ~ ] (]) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', if it has been significantly commented on, even in prominent popular literature, mainstream or not. BUT citations required, possibly plus appropriate evaluations of fringe status etc. ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
===QUESTION #4, on ]: shall this be discussed in the article?===


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' Inasmuch as this is a recent incident with important implications for regarding the sociology (as opposed to the technology) of EQ prediction, I believe it should be discussed here. In the existing article, this topic is restricted to a footnote. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC) A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. The l'Aquila case, and the related prediction by Giuliani, have attracted at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. Including this material would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN in the existing article. ] (]) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' - The case has been covered by reliable news media. We shouldn't ignore it just because the case may have been stupid. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


== Left out new method based on gravity waves ==
* '''Already IS discussed in the article'''. (Are we done?) Okay, ''presumably'' what Jerry meant is that it should not be "restricted" to a footnote. But he also added a comment that including material about Giuliani's "prediction" "{{tq|would tend to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN}}", a theme he espouses at several other places. In the first place, let us note that Giuliani is (again) '''already included''' (]). Second (as I have noted elsewhere), the "undue prominence given to VAN" is ''relative to mainstream opinion'' (also discussed below)), and is NOT mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence.


The largest earthquakes can now be detected via gravity waves. This gives relatively accurate determination just about instantly (speed of light) when measured at a suitable distance. Suitable distances far enough for the equipment to have some time to process the result before the normal earthquake arrives, but otherwise rather close. It's something like 1000 km. ] (]) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:Regarding Robert's comment: There are {{big|MANY}} (and that is woefully ''under''emphasized) "important implications" of successful, or unsuccessful, prediction of earthquakes. It is simply unfeasible to even attempt covering them all, and this particular case of the legal entanglements involved in prediction are quite tangential to the main topic. As it is, the L'Aquilla prosecutions ''are'' discussed, to what I believe is suitable extent. If anyone believes that this case so notable, and so important, that it requires further discussion I would suggest writing it up in its own article. ~ ] (]) 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


:You are confusing earthquake ''prediction'' – which is about anticipating ''future'' earthquakes, that have not yet happened – with earthquake ''warning'', which is about events that have ''already happened'', but at a remote location. Also, your "{{tq|can now be detected via gravity waves}}" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: "{{tq|But much work remains before gravity signals can be considered a reliable tool in the crucial minutes after a big quake.}}" ~ ] (]) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
* '''Yes''', there was even a multi-national publication after, and because of, the L'Aquila events. Notable for social implications.-AA-] (]) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


== Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN ==
::What part of '''Already IS discussed in the article''' do you not understand? ~ ] (]) 00:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:::What part of this answer calls for this personal attack? "IS discussed" does not automatically mean it should stay there forever (hence Q#4 I guess). ] (]) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
::::How about: where someone needs to get their attention refocused on the obvious? As to not staying there forever, no one has said anything of the sort, so how is that relevant to the discussion? ~ ] (]) 23:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


In Physics Today November 2010 issue the following review of Hough's book is published by Roger Musson: "My main reservation with the book is that it is rather US-centric, as even the author admits. ... Briefly mentioned is Greece's VAN project ... that classic case - it led to a great debate in the 1990s among seismologists about whether earthquakes could be predicted - deserved a more detailed exposition". The simple phrase "''Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked" (Hough 2010b p=195)''" included in the VAN section of the article is not justified and thus is to be removed.--] (]) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Yes''', a notable development directly related to the subject with significant implications. ] (]) 18:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:In 2012 Roger Musson also discussed the VAN project in "The Million Death Quake: The Science of Predicting Earth's Deadliest Natural Disaster". saying "Events in 1999 largely sank VAN in Greece as a credible system". This refers to both a M 5.9 quake near Athens that the VAN group failed to register a prediction for (but claimed that they had predicted it anyway) and their prediction of a larger quake to occur shortly afterwards in central Greece that never happened. He doesn't dismiss the approach completely, but says that "If anything successful comes out of VAN in the long run, it will probably come from Japan". ] (]) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::How are the L'Aqulla '''prosecutions''' a "{{tq|notable development}}" in the science of earthquake prediction? The '''prosecutions''' relate to this subject only as a consequence of getting it wrong. They come under the heading "Evaluating earthquake predictions" > legal liability (one of several subheads) > an instance of. Rather ''incidental'' to the main topic. And as such it is '''already covered'''. As to expanding it (though Jerry has not made any suggestions), the '''argument''' for that is "{{tq|to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN}}". Is that a valid basis? ~ ] (]) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:''Seismology'' is rather US-centric, and even more specifically California-centric (because of how it developed), but that in no way "justifies" removing Hough's assessment of VAN. Hough is a respected seismologist, who states clearly (albeit bluntly) what many other seismologists say more obliquely. Considering both other sources (e.g., the ICEF report) and the limited circle of VAN supporters it seems quite reasonable that Hough has fairly stated the mainstream consenus. There is considerable evidence that VAN should be considered ]; that is, "{{tq|an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field}}", and therefore "{{tq|must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.}}". Your "polishing" of the VAN claims (here and also at ]) thus amounts to "]", and I am considering whether all of your edits ought to be removed on that basis.
* '''Yes''' in terms of the points and reservations already iscussed above. ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


:If there is ''recent'' work by or regarding VAN you think should be considered by all means please bring it to our attention. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
===QUESTION #5: Is the scope of this article mainstream or fringe?===


EyeCont: Your edits, here and at ] (and these are the totality of your editing to-date), show a definite tendency towards removing content critical of VAN, and adding content – usually from the small coterie of VAN supporters – that attempts to support ("polish") their results. This amounts to a taking of a side, a violation of ]. As the "VAN method" is a ] view rejected by mainstream science ("debunked", even), these edits also constitute ]. For these reasons I am going to revert your recent edits.
* '''Fringe''': I believe this article is about fringe ideas and theories. The associated mainstream article is ], which clearly and succinctly states the majority opinion of seismologists, that EQ prediction has not been demonstrated. In this article, it is appropriate for views relating to the minority, to "receive more attention and space", and that relevant and notable {{tq|''controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.''}} ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - This question is not useful. All existing methodologies for earthquake prediction are fringe science. This article should both discuss the fringe science as fringe science and present the mainstream view that earthquake prediction is not currently feasible. The article should cover the concept of earthquake prediction inclusively. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Please note: where you see possible problems the preferred approach for addressing them is not removal of content, but tagging, with comments on the Talk page. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Bad question'''. I agree with Robert that this question is not useful, but for different reasons. However, it is '''not''' fringe, and for the same reason it is '''not''' mainstream: neither is applicable, as ''earthquake prediction'' (EP) itself is ''not'' a theory, view or belief in the sense of ] and ] (a.k.a. ]). Experts – or for that matter, clowns, quacks, and the man-in-the-street – may have views ''about'' EP, such as whether it ''is possible'', or ''not possible'', or even useful, but EP itself is a topic, not a theory.


I restored the version that updates the literature. Please be specific on justifying your changes, point by point.--] (]) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
:That the article touches an ''a few'' theories or beliefs that are deemed "fringe" – that is, contrary to well-establshed mainstream views – is immaterial. As currently treated in this article, earthquake prediction is the ''scientific study'' of matters pertaining to EP. Note that is by scientific study that the mainstream views are determined and fringe views rejected, and the ''study'' of something should not be confounded with the things studied.


::And I will again revert them.
* '''General comment'''. All of these questions are poorly formulated, and presented so one-sidedly, without any mention of the background or relevant issues, that no one just passing by here can hope to have any basis for an ''informed opinion'' on any of these. Note also that (shades of the Red Queen) Jerry is asking for votes first, and discussion afterward.
::You are not simply "updating the literature". You are removing content that is critical of VAN, and adding questionable content that promotes VAN, in a manner that (as I just explained) violates ] and ]. I have reverted your "Bold" edits per what we call the ] (WP:BRD); it is now for ''you'' justify your edits. Your subsequent restoration of your edits, without discussion, amounts to ]. Also, your additional removal of the terminal punctuation from all of the {citation} templates corrupts the citations, and thereby violates ].


::As I said before: where you see problems in the article you should ''tag'' them, so they can <u>be</u> examined and discussed. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
:I also note that Jerry is not genuinely requesting ''comments'' here. He has already made up his mind, and is seeking direct '''affirmation of a position''' without any serious or informed discussion.


Every edit has been justified.
:I will comment on the other "questions" when I have time. ~ ] (]) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
# - neither 2.8 nor 2.6 have been published, as written and by J. Johnson
:'''Bad question''' I tend to agree with J. Johnson above that it seems to me that the individual starting this RfC might be just seeking affirmation of his own personal beliefs, which isn't really what RfC's are supposed to be used for. I also agree that it is at best dubious to describe earthquake prediction as fringe or not fringe. Certain methods of earthquake prediction may be fringe or not fringe, but as the lede of the article currently states, there have been no practical methods yet discovered. But the broad concept of earthquake prediction is no more or less fringey than the broad concept of ]. In both cases, there are methods which qualify as fringey, but in neither case is it really useful to attempt to paint all methods, including some which don't exist yet, with this broad of a brush. ] (]) 16:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
# - there is no such number in the specific page of the book
# - the 2013 Tectonophysics paper and the 2020 Applied Sciences paper consitute literature update
# - a consensus has been achieved among several editors, which has been published from March 3, 2017 until November 16, 2017, but J. Johnson violated this consensus
#


J. Johnson acts under ] of the article and violates NPOV. FRINGE is his own point of view. See "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics" part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series", Springer 2011, edited by Harsh K. Gupta, in the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" which ends as follows, just before its summary: "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain" natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data". In view of the above I am restoring the updated content together with adding the excerpt from "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics".--] (]) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Clarification needed''' - ''what edit conflict is to be resolved by this question?''. Research of prediction of anything is legit unless it is proven it is impossible. At the same time, some and even all methods of this research may be debunked. So, again, what is the problem? ] (]) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
::Good question. I suspect Jerry had in mind some of the "balancing" material previously introduced, including the rebuttals allude to in Question #5. ~ ] (]) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


:That chapter in the Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics is written by Uyeda and others, so is not independent of them. These additions seriously lack any views of seismologists/geophysicists who are not part of the rather small group of VAN supporters. That independent view is really needed or all those extra citations do is tell us that people who have supported the VAN method, continue to support the VAN method, which is hardly a surprise. ] (]) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
* '''Fringe''' - currently, given that no method or theory of earthquake prediction appears to actually work. If someone manages a degree of reliable prediction, it won't be fringe anymore. Still, as per ], {{tq|This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.}}. --] (]) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:It's not ]ership to insist on adherence to WP policies and practices; it ''is'' edit-warring to keep repeating questioned edits. The determination that VAN is fringe is ''based'' on the nature of its promotion (by small group of proponents that cross-cite a lot), considerable criticism in the mainstream scientific literature, non-observance, non-acceptance as a viable technique by the scientific community, and explicit statements by seismological authorities ("{{tq|resoundingly debunked}}"). The determination made here is not my – or anyone else's – "own point of view", it is the consensus of the editors, including input from some real, mainstream seismologists. On the other hand, ] show that you are a ] (editing only this article and ]), whose edits either promote VAN, or remove content critical of VAN, distinctly demonstrating non-neutral violation of ].
::Please note: the study ''of'' some "thing" is ''not'' the same as the "thing" it self. The ''subject'' of earthquake prediction is – in part! – ''about'' certain theories, methods, and views, ''some of which'' are fringe. It is also about actual predictions (failed or successful), and ''about'' the evaluation of such predictions, '''none of which is fringe'''. Note also that a method or theory is NOT fringe simply because it fails. "Fringe" is where a small group argues that something is successful (alternately, even unsuccessful) ''contrary to'' majority opinion. The real issue here is the treatment of fringe topics ''within'' the article, but the extremely poor formulation of the question misses that. ~ ] (]) 23:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:Regarding your specific points:
* '''Not fringe''' at least in principle. There is no reason why some form of data gathering, analysis and synthesis could never be developed, in the light of which the rational expectation of earthquakes in particular places, times and forms could be influenced. Whether that has yet happened, or whether the article reflects it properly, are separate questions. ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


::1. Off-hand I don't recall if the original VAN 1981 paper is available, but the "2.6" claim has been reported by a reliable source. Which is cited, but if you find the linkage not clear enough just tag it, and I will remedy that.
===Question #6: In articles about fringe ideas, is there a "right of rebuttal" for the beliefs of proponents?===


::2. I believe the false alarm rate of 89% came up in 2016. It may have been a calculation (which, incidentally, we are allowed to). If you really want to insist on the point: tag it, and I might look around for the data source.
* '''Yes''': With the important caveat that the ''fringe proponents'' must meet notability guidelines. If this is the case, then the beliefs of the proponents must be accurately and completely represented, within space limits and due weight guidelines. This includes the presentation of their replies to mainstream criticisms, even if those replies have not been specifically further addressed by mainstream debate. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


::3. Your "literature update" shows only the same old proponents refining the same old crap; there is nothing to show increased acceptance in the mainstream. (And the ''Applied Science'' journal is published by ], whose peer-review has been questioned.)
* '''Comment''' - This question is not usefully worded. However, the article should cover both fringe theories and the mainstream criticism of those theories. ] (]) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


::4. Perhaps you could point to what consensus you allege I "violated" in 2016? And as you seem to be quite familiar with the past history here perhaps you would reveal under what name(s) you have previously participated here.
* '''No'''. Again I agree with Robert that the question is "not usefully worded" (i.e,, poorly formulated). But I disagree that the article ''should'' cover fringe theories, and certainly not all of them. Note Jimbo's comment (paraphrased) at ]:
:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages ....


::5. The source cited here is Geller, not Cosmos. We are not required to second-guess why Geller trusts that Cosmos is a true report.
:The criterion for including ''any'' theory, whether endorsed by nearly all, or just an extremely small minority, is ''notability''. ] requires that coverage given to a fringe view is ''proportionate'', without giving undue weight or promotion. Jerry's assertion that "{{tq|the beliefs of the proponents ''must'' be accurately and completely represented}}" (emphasis added), is misrepresented, as the sentence at ] he relies on only says '''may''' receive more attention and space, and only in "{{tq|articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint}}".


:Jerry's assertion that this "{{tq|includes the presentation of their replies to mainstream criticisms}}" – a "right of rebuttal" – is totally unsupported. He wants to allow proponents of fringe views – specifically, VAN – a point-by-point rebuttal of all criticism. Such proponents claim that such "balance" is needed, but that is actually ], and violates NPOV in giving an impression that VAN has disproven all such criticism. ~ ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC) :Your quote from the 2013 encyclopedia article, that "{{tq|seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data}}", is rather amazing. ''Since 1981'' "VAN" as been claiming an amazing role for SES data ''alone''. That has ''still'' not come about. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


Regarding the specific points 1, 2, and 5, J.Johnson did not provide any concrete source to substantiate content critical of VAN, thus fully justifying my deletion of the corresponding WP text. As for point 4: Everyone can verify that at 06:30, 23 November 2017 at “VAN seismic electric signals” J.Johnson deleted “Natural Time” for “lack of notability” which has been inserted since 3 March 2017 after a consensus achieved among several editors (see ). J.Johnson characterizes this VAN material –comprising several tens of papers in well known refereed journals- as “fringe” although it has been cited more than thousand times by researchers worldwide during the last 18 years, i.e., after 2002. To the contrary what seems to be “fringe” is the Criticism of VAN, because the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors, although have published a lot of criticism during the 1990s, they did not write any paper with content critical of VAN after 2002, i.e., during the last 18 years (cf. ICEF report in 2011 mentions one only criticism of VAN in 1996). Thus, in view of the above, we restore the previous content with the updated literature, and do hope that this time J.Johnson will consent to mention also the work of VAN during the last two decades. Otherwise, it would be obviously unscientific and unfair to mention in the WP article solely the criticism of VAN during 1990s.--] (]) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - If we are discussing matters which are sufficiently notable and/or have sufficient content for separate articles, then the subjects should be discussed at greatest length in those articles, possibly including independent academic responses and potential responses to those responses. If they are not sufficiently notable or lack sufficient content for separate articles, then there is no reason to believe that ] would grant them much attention here, the main article on the broad topic. ] (]) 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


:I've reverted again as there is no consensus here to make these additions. As to the 5 specific points, I would urge you to tag 1 & 2. JJ the RfC linked above seems pretty clear that "natural time" should get mentioned, although that is all that it asks for. The Geller quote is what it is - people can judge that for themselves. As to more recent criticism, I just came across . Otherwise I stand by my earlier comments. ] (]) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Fringe proponents have no special right to the last word. When dealing with a fringe belief, the article should (briefly) lay out what that belief is (and if necessary some brief history) and then explain the level of acceptance by the mainstream. Additional 'He said, She said' doesn't serve the reader. - ] (]) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


::Mike: Thanks for the link. I haven't been keeping up with this, and that looks like an excellent source. I suppose "natural time domain" could be mentioned, but it doesn't rate more than a sentence, as, aside from "VAN" and their groupies, it doesn't have any mainstream notability, or even presence. As far as I can tell, it's just mumbo-jumbo. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Bad question''' Our core content policies assign no "rights" to authors whatsoever. However I do understand the intention. And the answer is still ''']'''. Per our content guidelines, ''any bickering of this kind may be covered in wikipedia only if and to the extent of how it was covered in reliable sources.'' Clearly we cannot fill wikipedia with "rebuttals" of kind "They <sceptics> are wrong because they ignored the fact that Mars was in Virgo the day it happened", even if they sound full scientificized. ] (]) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:EyeCont: you have not ''asked'' for any sources ("concrete" – whatever that is supposed to mean – or otherwise) for that content, you just proceeded to delete it. That is NOT justified. You have also deleted content (such as "resoundingly debunked") that ''is'' sourced, showing that your basis for deletion is not really lack of sourcing, but content critical of VAN.
*'''No''' - What? No. See ]. Along other things, {{tq|"A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."}}--] (]) 19:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:That there has been very little criticism of VAN since 2011 is because, as Susan Hough has said, most consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked", and therefore no longer notable enough to warrant comment. If the VAN method, and "natural time", are indeed notable, it should be easy to show they are used by mainstream seismologists. So '''show us''': where, ''outside of a small group of VAN proponents'', there is anything more than a vanishingly small mention of "natural time domain", or ''any'' indication that anyone is using VAN "seismic electric signals" to predict earthquakes.
* '''Well sorta-kinda''' "Right" puts it too strongly by far. There are plenty of topics of fruitloopery that we could never consider any defence of. But the mentioning of views of those that support it might be notable in suitable contexts and then the question is '''''not''''' their rights, but the encyclopaedicity of the items, their validity, context, and value to the reader etc. Consider as an analogy homeopathy. Some argue that it is homologous with vaccination, and because the reader might well wonder why this is invalid, to mention it makes sense, if only to point out why it is exactly opposite to homeopathy, being eg dosage dependent, typically at microgramme levels of active component. And the logical errors that arise as soon as one accepts the idea that succussion and few-or-no molecules in the product are important. They need to be raised if only to rout them ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


:Attributing "Criticism of VAN" as arising solely from "{{tq|the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors}}" is factually incorrect, and even asinine. Describing it as fringe is utter BULLSHIT. But we can hardly expect any better from a ] editor (with a possible COI) who is ] for the encyclopedia. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
===Threaded discussion===


@Mikenorton: I understand that you reverted as there was no consensus here to make these additions. By the same token, however, I revert again since J.Johnson had previously reverted it (see point 4) without any consensus just by claiming lack of notability and in addition without providing concrete sources as I asked for (regarding specific sources for the points 1, 2 and 5).
* '''Background Information''' In this RfC, we are requesting comments on the proper application of policies such as ], ] and ] within the scope of this particular article. Specifically, according to ]: {{tq|An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.}} Some editors (specifically, ]) feel that this article is about a mainstream idea, namely that earthquake prediction has not been demonstrated, and may be impossible. Accordingly, these editors say: it is undue weight, or false balance, to present the evidence to the contrary which has been developed by advocates of earthquake prediction. Such evidence, they argue, should be reserved to specific articles about specific EQ prediction methods, such as the article about ].
:That's not how ] works, You made substantial changes and have been reverted. It is up to you to reach consensus with other editors in this discussion, which you have failed to do. Rather than making large-scale changes, come up with some proposals. ] (]) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


@J.Johnson: Concerning your unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time, I am not going to comment on. I would like, however, to urge strongly the WP editors and WP readers to have a look on the ISI Web of Science to visualize the international impact of VAN research & natural time and compare it with that of the VAN critics (mainly Geller et al, though Geller claims that “Geller is widely recognized as one of the world's leading seismologists” in his official site https://www.rjgeller.com/).--] (]) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
:Other editors (specifically, ] and an anonymous IP editor) argue that this article is largely or entirely an article about fringe scientists who continue to believe that EQ prediction is possible. Accordingly, these editors say, it is appropriate to give more extensive coverage of the views of those fringe scientists. This would include information which tends to cast doubt on the mainstream narrative. The most important guiding principle should be this passage from ], which explains: {{tq|In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.}}
:JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Misplaced Pages, suggesting that is your '''only''' purpose here. It's clear that you are acting as an advocate for the VAN method and that you believe that the VAN group are not being treated well here. That does indicate that you have a strong POV. ] (]) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


:These "{{tq|unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time}}" you are not commenting on (ha) don't exist. Likewise for "international impact": no one is using SES or "natural time domain" to predict earthquakes, and as far as I can see no one writes on these except for Varotsos, Skordas, Sarlis, and their co-authors. Who do keep churning out papers (with lots of cross-citations) full of mumbo-jumbo, but all their citations have little impact, and less notability.
:This controversy has led to acrimonious debate about this article's section on VAN, and whether information such as their use of a method they call "natural time" since 2001, or their claims of a successful "prediction" of an EQ in Greece in 2008, should be included in the article. For possible text, see the lede of the article on ].


:Your view that the VAN critics are "{{tq|mainly Geller et al.}}" and "{{tq|almost exclusively Geller and co-authors}}" is, as I said before, factually incorrect. It is also curiously similar to a view held be a previous anonymous VAN supporter here, who was linked to the University of Athens (and thus to Varotsos, Skordas, and Sarlis). So I will point out to you: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare.
:It has also been noted, however, that other aspects of the article are also effected by the same controversy. For example, whether information in articles such as ] and ] should be summarized in this article, or whether the information on the] has been adequately summarized. If the consensus of this RfC is to include this information, it will be based on summaries of these other articles. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
::If, as the above comment seems to indicate, the ] is the primary topic of discussion of this RfC, then, maybe, it would be in the best interests of all involved to close this RfC and start a separate one regarding how much detail to give to that theory in this article. Personally, I would myself maybe consider having the main body of this article be about the development of the concept of earthquake prediction and the fact that at present no workable model has yet apparently been produced for the same. Specific questionable methods relating to specific earlier predictions may be discussed in the material regarding the history of the concept, and/or discussed at limited length in a section on theories which have not received much acceptance. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


:And as you have already been advised: ''alleged'' issues with the content are best addressed by tagging them, not with large unilateral edits. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Hello {{ping|John Carter}}, I think that this: {{tq|...consider having the main body of this article be about the development of the concept of earthquake prediction and the fact that at present no workable model has yet apparently been produced for the same.}} is an absolutely wonderful suggestion. It would parallel the structure of the ] article, which is also a history of ancient flat earth cosmology, and its gradual replacement by spherical earth models. At the end, there is a brief discussion of modern flat earth societies, with a link.


As EyeCont has been too bashful to respond, I have proceed with some edits that address some of his points, as well as some other outstanding deficiencies. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
:::If we adopt a structure like that here, the first advantage is that it would make it clear that this is a mainstream scope article, as JJ says it should be. As such, in general there would be less weight given to discussions of particular failed methods, failed predictions, and rumors of predictions, and more discussion of why the quest has been largely abandoned. In reading Geller and other mainstream seismologists, I see an argument that EQ prediction ''may'' be impossible, but also an argument that even if it is possible in some theoretical sense, it is not '''cost effective''', which makes it impossible in any practical sense.


EyeCont: with your tagging yesterday of the two VAN related sections with {{tl|verifiability}} (with no further explanation than a link to a comment of yours here a month ago), and also your edits yesterday to ] ({{diff2|943707891|here}} and {{diff2|943706838|here}}), it seems necessary to remind you of what I said just above: '''if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare.''' Note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, and may result in a block. (See ].)
:::Even if the article is re-written in that way, there will still be a debate about whether to mention VAN's 'natural time', their 2008 prediction, Freund, Pulinets, and l'Aquila. So I hope we can settle this now.


Also, as a ] account with a demonstrated non-neutral viewpoint your edits here, and especially your repeated attempts to add the same material, are very suspect. As Mikenorton said on 5 Feb: there is no consensus here to make these additions.
:::As per JJ's criticism of me below, I agree that I haven't done an adequate job of explaining why it's important to settle the questions about QuakeFinder, TEC and l'Aquila now, together with the question about VAN method. I will discuss this below, where JJ's discussion raised the issue.


When you add the verifiability tag you are expected specify what claims are disputed. You have not done so, only pointing to your comment above (@ 14:02) where you mention Sarlis et al. 2008 and Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008. (Are those the claims you dispute?) That lack, plus your edits at VAN method, suggest that you are not acting in good-faith.
:::I'm hoping to avoid the confusion of closing and re-starting the RfC. But I'm discouraged about the low participation. Many editors who have contributed to earlier discussions, have been silent.


For all of these reasons I am going rollback your recent edits. I strongly suggest that if have any ''bona fide'' edits – or better, ''suggestions'' – that you discuss them here first. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
:::As an alternative to closing the entire RfC, I wonder if you think it would make sense to close questions #5 and #6? For whatever reason, I see a snowball consensus that they are not well-formed or necessary questions. ] (]) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


At J.Johnson: My bona fide suggestion (following your own strong suggestion) is as follows by recalling the five points I explained in detail more than a month ago: Since a consensus had been achieved among several editors, published from March 3, 2017, until November 16, 2017, I now restore exactly this version, as edited by Jerry Russel (talk/contribs) at 22:36, 3 March 2017. In this version, I tag points 1 & 2 (as recommended by Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020). In view of the fact that these two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN) and should be deleted, I am tagging the two VAN related sections with {verifiability} and also your edits to VAN method. If you consent to the above, we can start bona fide discussion on each subsequent addition from either side until a new consensus will be again established.--] (]) 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
====About Questions #1 thru #4: The organization of this RfC, and how to get information====


A community consensus has been achieved back in 2017, indeed. The discussion can start from this point and beyond.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''comment''' JJ complains: {{tq|Jerry is asking for votes first, and discussion afterward.}} The organization of this RfC follows several that I've seen lately, in that the !voting section is separated from the discussion section. This, I believe, is for the convenience of the closing editor and other editors interested in quickly reviewing the results of the RfC. There are sometimes specific word count limits on the !vote section, though I expect that won't be necessary here. Of course any participant is welcome to discuss in the threaded discussion session, either before or after voting. Also, votes can change based on new insights gained during discussion: there is no penalty for voting early, and then changing the vote later.


<hr>
:JJ also complains that there is a lack of {{tq|"any mention of the background or relevant issues"}}. Actually, each of questions #3 through #6 is provided with a link, right in the question headline, to an article or article section which provides sourced content on each topic. If there are questions after reading the linked information, please ask! ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
EyeCont's rollback wiped out some of the changes I made addressing the very points he complained of, and lost other improvements made by other editors. This needs attention, but unfortunately I am rather occupied of late (off-pedia as well as on), so someone else needs to take point on this. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


== Earthquake memory in time and space ==
::By "background or relevant issues" I mean in regards of previous discussions and the issues in ''this'' article that bear upon the questions. Simply waving your hand at (<s>say</s> <u>to cite as an example</u>) ] says absolutely ''nothing'' about the professional hazards of making earthquake predictions. We are not mind-readers, nor should we have to drag out of you what you really mean, and why, as if this were a game of "Twenty Questions". If you cannot ''present'' a case for your views the rest of us are not required to build it for you. ~ ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


While it is useful to know I am not sure it assists the article.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:::JJ, I would suggest that perhaps you are making things too complicated. By reviewing the provided links, any editor should be able to see that the information is notable, well sourced, and highly relevant to the topic. (Or if they think not, I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would change their mind.)


:Some thing where I might agree with you, but more declaratively: that material does ''not'' "assist" the article. And very amatuerish. That is the kind of material that should not be allowed. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:::If anyone wants to go deeper into previous discussions, there is obviously a wall of text available for reading in the archives of this talk page. If I make a list of links, I would risk leaving out something that someone might feel is important.


== Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability) ==
:::But reviewing your comments, and those of other editors -- I do see that there's one point which needs to be made, and which I didn't make clear in my initial comments. This is the issue of due weight, relatively, between the various EQ prediction methods. A persistent criticism of the existing article is that the VAN section is too predominant, while in fact it is not so much more notable than other methods. Currently, I suggest that Freund, Heraud, Heki, and Pulinets are attracting at least as much attention as VAN, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. It is undue to give VAN so much attention, while omitting these others completely.


There are two excerpts tagged in the article regarding verifiability. A suggestion was made on February 3, 2020 at 14:02 which has not been properly addressed. These excerpts are:
:::I will amend my remarks above, to include this perspective for new visitors to the page. ] (]) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
# "of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" )
# "but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )
I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by ] on
February 5, 2020 at 13:50) and, in view of the fact that the above two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN), I suggested that they should be deleted.--] (]) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


== Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
::::As I said just earlier, that VAN has UNDUE prominence ''relative to mainstream opinion of VAN'' is NOT mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence. And the attention these "theories" (VAN doesn't really have a theory) are getting is in the popular press, not in the mainstream journals.


This is a literature update that corresponds to the following addition to the last but one paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals" or to the second paragraph
::::But it would increase the chances of some kind of resolution if ''this'' discussion should stay focused on your failure to mention the '''background or relevant issues''' of your questions. Perhaps what is complicated for you is identifying previous discussion of these matters. But leaving that out leaves anyone who might want to respond in an uninformed stated; thus it is incumbent on ''you'' to provide such background. E.g., simply linking to, say, ], does NOT show what you claim, only that there is an article on that topic. You have not shown ''how'' the existence of an article on the L'Aquilla quake requires that ''existing'' mention in this article of the prosecutions be given greater prominence. ~ ] (]) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":


{{tq|In 2013, the SES activities were found to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.}}
:::::I agree that any undue prominence of VAN related to mainstream opinion of VAN is not mitigated by giving other fringe theories more prominence. But I don't see any shortage of text related to mainstream opinion of VAN in the article.


The above cited papers are the following:
:::::The problem as I see it, is the undue weight given to VAN relative to other, more or less equally notable, fringe theories. This is what would be mitigated by giving more weight to the other fringe theories, in this article which I say is largely related to fringe theories. ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity", Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125, Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V,
* Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662, doi:10.3390/app10020662
* Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN 1951-6401


If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--] (]) 08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Jerry, in my previous comment here I said {{hl| it would increase the chances of some kind of resolution if this discussion should stay focused}} on the "background and relevant issues" issue. (That, and the organization issue, being what you opened this section with.) That was meant as a polite but STRONG SUGGESTION.


== Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" ) ==
::::::But having introduced ''another issue'' (on VAN prominence), you just had to continue, so now the issue of VAN prominence is being discussed in three (?) different places. Please note: '''discussing more than one issue in a place''', or '''discussing an issue in more than one place''', makes the discussion '''exceeding hard to follow'''. Your lack of rhetorical discipline is a large part of why these discussions get so blown all over the landscape they never get resolved.


The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":
:::::::JJ, the topic of this section is "the organization of this RfC, and how to get information." You are the one who shifted the topic to "my failure", and specifically my alleged failure to justify the need for greater prominence for the L'Aquila prosecutions. Are you suggesting that you can raise an issue in one thread, and you expect me to go answer in a different thread?


{{tq|More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made sources.}}
::::::::How did ''I'' "{{tq|shift the topic}}"? I take the topic of this particular sub-thread to be properly (and hopefully), as you opened it, regarding my criticism of (a) "organization" and (b) "information". Regarding the latter, you asserted that you provided links; I cited your linkage to the L'Aquila article '''as an example''' of how such a link, alone, is unhelpful. But possibly you do not understand the meaning of (or simply overlooked?) "say"? Very well, I will amend that to make it clearer it was cited as an ''example'' of inadequately specified information. And perhaps ''you'' will keep in mind that talking ''about'' a process, such as provision of information, should not confused with actual argumentation of such information. As to this sub-sub-issue of due weight and VAN prominence, that is what ''you'' have raised. Or do you dispute that?


* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations", Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID 12636655
::::::::As to raising an issue in one thread, and expecting an answer elsewhere: isn't that what you are doing? In a general sense, that comes back to the "organization" issue. ~ ] (]) 22:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature", Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID 14524749
:::::::::As I am not a mind-reader either, I chose to work on the example you provided, which I then generalized to the other topics. I took your complaint as a license to add background information to my original statements, regarding application of due weight. Then I explained what I did, here. Yes, each step in the discussion leads to some drift. It doesn't bother me much, and it's happened routinely in every online forum I've ever seen. If it bothers you, you need to be more scrupulous in setting an example, and avoid topic drift in your own remarks.
:::::::::Yes, in the organization of this RfC, I ask for discussion to continue separate from voting. This is not unusual for recent RfC's, but it is a departure from ordinary conversational practice. Accordingly, I felt I should explain the organization in the prefatory comments. Does this make sense? ] (]) 19:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--] (]) 09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Again: How did ''I'' "{{tq|shift the topic}}"? You have not answered that. And I submit that (e.g.) ''you'' introduced the issue of VAN prominence into ''this'' discussion, without any showing of how it is relevant ''here''. For you to say that ''I'' should be "more scrupulous" in avoiding topic drift is just a cheap rhetorical ploy to divert attention from your own driftage. ~ ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


== Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
::::::As to your view that fringe theories should given weight that is proportionate to ''other fringe theories'': that is fanciful, and entirely novel. Lacking any showing of plain text in NPOV that requires that, this particular line of argumentation can be outright rejected. ~ ] (]) 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":
:::::::So your theory is that you (as owner of the article?) may arbitrarily include or omit information on fringe theories based purely on their own whim, without any regard to their prominence in the sources, or their relevance to the topic? ] (]) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


{{tq|On the other hand, the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) edited by Harsh K. Gupta, ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".}}
::::::::Your last comment is nonsensical. You are trying to impute to me this "theory" of arbitrarily including or omiting information based on personal whim (etc.), with an insinuation that I actually do this. Well, well, isn't this exactly the kind of topic shifting you just inveighed against? And likewise for your frankly pathetic attempt to raise an issue of ownership? While I have always tried to answer all of your ''questions'', if these kinds of ''arguments'' are the best you can do then it would seem pointless to waste any more time on this. ~ ] (]) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


:::::::::So you agree, then, that the weight given to one fringe theory should be judged by its predominance in the sources, relative to other fringe theories? ] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC) The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--] (]) 10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


== Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
::::::::::More drfitage! Perhaps you meant to add your comment somewhere else? At any rate, hardly related to "The organization of this RfC", so perhaps best to not respond lest I be accused of egging you on. ~ ] (]) 00:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:
:::::::::::Yes, sometimes it is best not to respond. ] (]) 01:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


{{tq|A rebuttal to this complaint, which insisted on the accuracy of this prediction, was published on the same issue. }}
====Discussion on Question #1: VAN method, 'Natural Time' and the 2008 EQ prediction====


*Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010). "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 91 (18): 163–163. doi:10.1029/2010EO180004. ISSN 2324-9250.
'''Reply''' to JJ's !vote: In reality, there is abundant mainstream discussion about these topics, both in the Greek popular press and in the international scientific press. While I believe the article sections at the provided links should be sufficient to demonstrate this fact, anyone looking for additional information about 'natural time' is invited to peruse the 138 links provided by the anonymous editor 'IP202' in this talk section: ]. I checked a small random sample, and found them to be as IP202 claimed: scientific peer reviewed articles by a wide variety of research groups other than VAN, who reference and discuss VAN's 'natural time' thesis and put it to work in their own endeavors.


If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--] (]) 10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The 2008 quake prediction has also been discussed in the scientific literature, and I am not relying on the popular press for evaluation of the prediction, but only for evidence of its notability. The citations are in the ] article.


== Comments on EyeCont's proposals ==
In other words, with respect to the ] criteria cited by JJ: the notability of this fringe theory may indeed be verified by independent mainstream sources, and accordingly I submit that the "Misplaced Pages is not" policies should not exclude this content.


I haven't had time to look these through in detail, but I'm not sure that adding so many extra citations to the Van method in this article, with no other views expressed will lead to any sort of balanced article. My impression, and it has to stay as that for obvious reasons, is that the mainstream earthquake prediction/forecasting community are just ignoring the VAN method. What this article needs is views from uninterested third parties that show some sort of general acceptance of the method (or otherwise), so if you have some of those, they would be good to see. ] (]) 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The only true statement in JJ's !vote is that the 2008 prediction has not been widely reported in the popular press outside of Greece. As far as I know, this is correct. But is ''international'' press coverage a requirement for mention of an item at Misplaced Pages? What percentage of content would disappear, if this requirement was enforced across the board? ] (]) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


:Significant space has been given here for inline criticism (in fact criticism pervades the whole article). Critique without the answers addressing it is biased but the specific article is not the right place for the history of VAN method scientific debate. As duplicates between this article and VAN method article should be avoided, I propose migrating the debate there. This will result to a clean-up here. The method can be presented in a summary followed by the mainstream seismology view and a link for further reading in VAN method article.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
'''About IP202, the Anonymous Athenian''' JJ has tagged AA/IP202's !vote here as SPA, and said that his view should be discounted. ] is an essay, not policy. It says that {{tq|The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Misplaced Pages's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.}} In this case, AA has made two very good points which should be considered by the closer. One is that VAN has recently received a message of congratulation from the president of the Greek republic; the other is that the Natural Time method was favorably reviewed, and deployed, in a recent paper by Rundle, Turcotte et al. ''Rundle and Turcotte are American seismologists who are mentioned prominently in Susan Hough's book.'' While JJ is correct that VAN's scientific standing cannot be judged by the Greek governmental endorsement, nevertheless this does lend weight that should be considered in evaluating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


::I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the ] article on its talk page, rather than here. I've just realised that I removed that page from my watchlist some time ago, when things were getting heated, so I've only now realised that EyeCont has proposed similar changes to both articles. That location is definitely the best place to sort things out and we should just have a summary in this article. ] (]) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:The "essay-is-not-a-policy" argument is usually invoked where one is cross-wise to the general sentiments expressed in "Misplaced Pages's communal norms, policies and guidelines".
::If this is the case, then why is there any difference between essays and policies? Answer: essays are often controversial. In this case, the primary purpose of the SPA essay (to the extent it's based on policy) is to prevent !votes from being overwhelmed by SPA's recruited by off-site campaigns. Also, I would agree that any bias on the part of SPA's should be duly noted by the closer. However, the essay also makes the point (which I've quoted) that good points raised by SPA's, and good sources provided by SPA's, cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that they are provided by SPA's. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


I just came across by Daniel Helman (2020), which contains an analysis and critique of the VAN method. To quote from the conclusions:
:I agree that the closer should consider how much weight is lent by the Greek President's message: some what less than zero, as it shows the evident lack of weightier sources. And: claiming (implicitly) that Hough's "''mentioned prominently''" validates Rundle and Turcotte's "favorable review" of "natural time" is rather round-about. If you are going to invoke Dr. Hough you really shouldn't tippy-toe around her authoritative "{{tq|most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked.}}" Which is pretty much in line with what Dr. Vidale told us. ~ ] (]) 00:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:"The main question that interests the reader is "Does the VAN method work?" This may be seen as encompassing three questions - (1) whether predictions are predictive; (2) whether predictions issued using this method are actionable; and (3) whether other groups using this method are successful. The answers, unfortunately, are: (1) it is not clear whether they are predictive. The VAN group has done poorly in hosting their data publicly. Raw datasets and a list of predictions including misses and false positives are not present publicly. The updated time-series method describes medium-range predictions that then trigger short-term prediction algorithms using local seismic data, and in principle, this seems a plausible approach to prediction, i.e. via overlap of methods. Mechanisms for SES generation are physical and testable. The updated VAN method remains an unvalidated hypothesis. (2) Predictions issued using this method are not actionable beyond increased local seismic monitoring and increased awareness of earthquake safety. Predictions ought not be assumed correct—with the caveat that increased local seismic activity may be taken as precursory but outside the framework of a validated scientific process. Thus it is up to the relevant governmental body to make decisions in the absence of scientific confidence. Unfortunately the data are not present to make any stronger recommendation. (3) It is not clear whether the high rate of false positives has been overcome in trials in Japan or elsewhere". ] (]) 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::Political sources vs. scientific sources are weighed on different scales. The Greek president's remarks certainly contribute to the general prominence of the topic, although scientific sources are obviously preferred for determining the scientific credibility. The Greek president's remarks are here: http://www.presidency.gr/?p=12041
::As to the alleged lack of "weightier" scientific sources, the Rundle & Turcotte reference is just another one in a rather long list. It does stand out as a strong endorsement by two American seismologists.


The above VAN criticism by Helman mentioned by ] has been recently shown (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/583/htm) that does not stand.--] (]) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::Hough also mentioned that VAN are now analyzing EQ patterns as well as SES signals. And as we discussed below, her quote (to be exact) was {{tq|'''as a prediction method''', most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked.}} She goes on to discuss whether there is any statistical validity for forecasting, which she seems to leave as an unresolved question.
::You also regularly misquote the ICEF report on VAN, which concluded that {{tq|subsequent testing has failed to validate the '''optimistic''' SES prediction capability claimed by the authors}}, again leaving open the possibility that some less optimistic capability might exist. ] (]) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


:Not true. That article was simply pointing out that the VAN group is now using a parameter named beta rather than kappa as its predictor. Still, there is no public hosting of their datasets. And it is still not clear whether their work is helpful for EQ prediction. ] (]) 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Oh, boy down another gopher hole!
:::Unless you can show that my quotation is not in accord with the original, you are just making a baseless accusation, which looks like a personal attack. I suggest you strike it. Your distinction, that the ICEF assessment applies only to ''optimistic'' capabilities, but allows ''less'' optimistic claims, is quite fanciful (and frankly, I am impressed your imaginative reach), but derives from ''your interpretation'' of the source, not the source itself. Likewise with your fine-parsing of Hough's "as a prediction method": are you suggesting that VAN is debunked only as a ''prediction'' method, but ''not'' as a ''forecasting'' method? That shows a fundamental misread of her paragraph – ''your'' misread.


:: Daniel S. Helman - Education Division, College of Micronesia-FSM, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia / WHOIS 119.252.119.106 - State of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Possible ]   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:::While we are here, I will point out to anyone else that gets this far that your "long list" is probably the one IP202 supplied in the last RfC (]), and that the reason Rundle & Turcotte stood out is because about half of those references were by the proponents themselves, and the rest are not very notable. And at some point I did show that "natural time analysis" has virtually zero mention in the mainstream seismological journals. ~ ] (]) 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
::::JJ, I suggest that your accusation that I was trying to "tippy-toe around" to somehow avoid Hough's statement about VAN, was where the topic drift began. However, since you raised the issue, I feel it was appropriate to respond here, and I will respond again.
::::If the qualification '''optimistic''' in the ICEF report is meaningless, then why did they include it? Similarly, if Hough meant to say that VAN has been resoundingly debunked '''as a forecasting method''', why didn't she say so? Why did she include the qualifying phrase '''as a prediction method'''? And if you were not meaning to mislead anyone by omitting these qualifications that appeared in the sources, would you have any objection to including them in our article? ] (]) 17:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


== Politics ==
'''Reply''' to JJ's question {{tq|So does notability apply here, or not?}} I found this very helpful essay ] which clarifies that Misplaced Pages has notability guidelines such as ] which are applied to determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable that the encyclopedia can have an article about it. Within articles, the due weight guidelines are applied to determine the appropriate degree of prominence for a topic. However, the essay explains:
{{tq|Sometimes, Wikipedians arguing on talkpages will indicate that a particular fact or section of an article is not "notable" enough for inclusion. While this wording is fine colloquially, it should be kept in mind that notability at Misplaced Pages technically does not apply to singular facts but rather to article-worthy subjects. Some editors will go as far as to say that because a subject is not "notable" that it should only be discussed in an off-handed or extremely summative way. Such arguments are actually conflations of notability with the undue weight portion of our neutral point of view policy...}}


A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.
The essay gives the criteria for notability vs prominence as follows:
# It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.
# There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.
# The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.
# Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.
   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


== Machine Learning ==
notability: {{tq|substantial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.}}


Is acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Prominence: {{tq|depth of coverage of the idea or fact in reliable sources, principally secondary ones.}}


I removed the paragraph cited with the above, More, should be replaced by the one .   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Very similar! But, notability requires sources independent of the subject, while prominence can be judged based on secondary sources in general, even if they're not fully independent. Notability is a binary judgment, while prominence is judged on a continuum.


== Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash ==
====Discussion on Question #2: Freund, Heraud and Quakefinder====


Recently, an edit was made which added the text "However in a 2021 paper coauthored by 37 researchers in the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, the main scientific objective of which is to investigate possible correlations between electromagnetic perturbations and the occurrence of major earthquakes,<ref>{{Harvnb|Martucci|Sparvoli|Bartocci|Battiston|2021}}</ref> it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective,<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2020}}</ref> the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by ]."
'''Reply to JJ''' It is true that the QuakeFinder article followed a typical trajectory, similar to many other Misplaced Pages fringe articles. It was originally written by an SPA who was presumably linked to the company. The article was flagged as such, and was cleaned up by a seasoned Misplaced Pages editor. At that point, the tags were removed. Over the years, several editors made various contributions. Most recently, I visited the article, checked some of the sources, repaired some errors, and updated with current events.


This is essentially an appeal to authority to say what has already been said, namely "that earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed". I reverted the passage and added the Martucci et al (2021) reference to the subsequent paragraph. I did this because
JJ claims that I somehow misrepresented the article history, but I did not. What I said was: {{tq|its notability as a stand-alone article has never been questioned.}} And that is a fact. It has never been flagged for notability issues. And rightly so, as anyone can verify by looking at the reference list for the article.
* These references are not a secondary source, nor have the primary sources been evaluated in the literature. If they had, we would be citing those discussions.
* The number of authors is not relevant.
* The possibility of EM perturbations accompanying major earthquakes is mentioned elsewhere.
* Natural Time Analysis is already mentioned in the VAN section. Any additional discussion needs to be done either there or in its own section. Mentioning it in this place without explanation is confusing.
] (]) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


* The Martucci 2021 reference is a secondary source to Natural Time Analysis.
JJ argues that these scientists are not sufficiently notable to mention in this article, because their work is not accepted by mainstream scientists. He quotes John Vidale, who said: {{tq|If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Misplaced Pages, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece.}} I am not sure what Vidale means by "dignity", but Misplaced Pages has extensive policies for dealing with this sort of situation. We make it clear that the claims of fringe scientists are rejected by the mainstream. However, we do not solve the problem by suppression and censorship of the information in articles which are primarily about fringe topics. Misplaced Pages is ], meaning that we do not remove content simply because some people (even professional seismologists) find it offensive.
* There exist a multitude of authors dealing with earthquake prediction, from a variety of universities and research institutes.
* The focus here is on the "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event" argument, not EM.
* ] is a distinct Misplaced Pages article. The method applies to diverse time series and not only to EQ time series or VAN method alone. In other words, NTA answers the question under discussion, quoted above.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


JJ says I am "ignoring" Dr. Vidale, based on "I Don't Like It". First of all, I don't disagree at all with Vidale's position that the vast majority of seismologists find EM precursor evidence unconvincing. I believe Misplaced Pages should put their viewpoint front and center. Secondly, I don't see how I can be accused of "ignoring" Vidale, when I have so extensively engaged him in conversation. And I don't understand how my views can be dismissed as ] when I have so diligently offered policy-based arguments. Surely this is a misrepresentation.


Dear ], it's been a few days since my reply. I would appreciate if you can find some time to study the above. Regards,   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Please note that Vidale's comments apply equally to all EM-based theories and methods, including VAN as well as the others. So, on what basis do we judge that VAN is so notable that they should practically dominate the article, while Freund and Heraud are so non-notable that they should not be mentioned at all?? VAN is, admittedly, the "most touted and most criticized", that is, the most sensationalist and the most likely to be criticized as charlatans. But does that make them more notable (by Misplaced Pages guidelines) than other scientists who work professionally and diligently, without sensationalism? ] (]) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
:For any pasers-by still hanging-on here: this discussion is recapitulating a point that came up just a week ago at ] (above, and now closed), including Jerry's statement that he "{{tq|d'nt know if Dr. Vidale's explanation is correct or not}}". Rather than answering my question as to ''why'' he did not accept this expert's explanation (on various aspects of this topic) he simply closed that discussion.


== Redirection ==
:::I meant to be expressing uncertainty about Vidale's explanation for the reason why there is relatively little criticism of the work by Freund, Heraud, Heki and Pulinets in the peer reviewed literature. Vidale suggested it is because most seismologists don't follow the work closely, and don't feel it is very promising, or worth the trouble of offering a rebuttal. I believe another factor in the situation might be that there is nothing actually wrong with the work, and thus nothing to specifically criticize. It just hasn't produced any demonstration of practical, useful results yet (and might never produce such results.) That is, apart from Heraud's very recent work, which hasn't yet been published in peer reviewed form. ] (]) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello, this is Xiaohan Song a student from Stanford who created a wiki page for the ] as my course project. Would you like to make the earthquake cycle term redirect to this new page?
::::To be "expressing uncertainty about Vidale's explanation" is to disagree with it. What ''you'' believe about the situation is <s>inconsequential</s> <u>has absolutely zero weight compared to mainstream scientific opinion</u> (do ''you'' have a PhD in this field?), and has ''no basis'', other than your own, non-expert opinion. Your speculation – because you have no basis for ''knowing'' – "{{tq|there is nothing actually wrong with the work, and thus nothing to specifically criticize}}" is contradicted by Dr. Vidale's comments. As you seem to have forgotten them, let's do a quick review: Heki's claim of ionospheric precursors "{{red|did not stand close scrutiny}}"; Heraud's claim has (currently) "{{red|miniscule chane of being correct}}"; Heraud's results "{{red|are quite unlikely}}": Freund's results are "{{red|given minimal credence by mainstream scientists}}", and his "{{red|theory has failed}}". On what basis do you interpret all that as "{{tq|nothing actually wrong with the work}}"? (More comments at 18:36, 13 Nov. 16:35, 14 Nov., and 17:08, 15 Nov.). ~ ] (]) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::If what I think is of no consequence, why are you so determined to engage me in a debate about it? Why do you care about the basis of my opinion? But I will tell you: in my opinion, such as Freund, Heraud, Heki and Pulinets have better qualifications than Vidale to have an opinion about geophysics. Accordingly, I am not willing to dismiss the possibility that they are correct, and the ''possibility'' that Vidale is wrong. And, I strongly disagree that uncertainty is the same as disagreement.

::::::Okay, I agree that what you think has consequences, but only because ''you'' think it is worth something, and proceed to act on that basis. And I care because that results in promotion of fringe views. Nonetheless, your entirely baseless ''opinion'' that the others have better qualifications than ''Dr''. Vidale is still just a very poor rationalization for not accepting Dr. Vidale's comments regarding the ''mainstream's assessment'' of their ''work''. The ''possibility'' of Dr. Vidale, and everyone he knows in the earth sciences community (seismologists, geologists, AND geophysicists) being wrong is exceedingly low, but even such a possibility in no way changes the ''current'' mainstream consensus. ~ ] (]) 00:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Dr. Vidale did not specifically address the question of mainstream geophysicist opinion. And I point this out because I just bought myself a copy of Susan Hough's book. She paints a rather different picture than one would presume from your comments about geophysicists. She says {{tq|At the 2007 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) meeting in Italy scientists from countries around the world presented talk after talk purporting to show correlations between various electromagnetic signals and earthquakes.}} The few papers skeptical of such correlations were not received warmly, she says. And: {{tq|At the 2007 IUGG meeting few card-carrying seismologists even showed up, a fact that did not go unnoticed— or unremarked on— by the scientists in attendance.}} She talks about Freund as the founder of an entire field called "Freund physics" and indicates that Freund's followers call themselves "Freundians." Sounds to me like, at the very least, a "significant minority" as framed by Jimbo's famous comment: it's easy to identify Freund as a prominent representative of his school. ] (]) 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::::Dr. Vidale did address the question of the mainstream view of earth scientists, which does include geophyscists.

::::::::And it seems to me you are not accurately depicting what ] is saying. E.g., she says (p. 135): "{{tq|In the minds of some, ... "Freund physics" is alive and well in the earth, represents the long-sought key for earthquake prediction.}}" And on the next page: "{{tq|In the minds of some Freundians ....}}" She proceeds to a critique of "Freundian physics" (you seem to have slid right over "{{tq|The trained seismological eye looks for, and fails to see, any evidence that anyone can identify a precursor before an earthquake happens ...}}"), and ends the chapter asking why it fell to the seismologists "{{tq|to be cast in the role of skeptic in so many earthquake debates}}". (And note: she is geophysicist.)

::::::::You seem to be very selective about what you pick-up on, and how you interpret it. Like the 2007 IUGG meeting: did it occur to you that many seismologists skipped it because it was too, ah, peripheral? Or that those present were the worse for not having expert seismological input? Or that that was nearly ten years ago, and interest in Freund has since waned? Or that we don't judge notability by how many people show up at meetings? ~ ] (]) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Hough's book was published in 2010. Academic publishing schedules being what they are, news of a 2007 conference should be treated as current as of the publication date. I see no evidence that the situation has changed since then. The level of interest in Freund's work (as judged by rate of scientific publications) seems to be increasing, if anything.

:::::::::I agree that Hough is critical of the practical value of Freund's theories. I didn't mean to be trivializing that. My point is, that her evaluation serves to establish the prominence of Freund's work under ]. ] (]) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

:Jerry: despite your "extensive engagement" with Dr. Vidale, and despite your disavowal of any overt disagreement, you still do not ''accept'' what he has explained to us; you keep pushing to ''give various fringe theories more weight'' (prominence).

:::Correct. While I accept Vidale's assessment that all these EM theories are fringe, I disagree with the conclusion that therefore they should be omitted from this article, or that VAN's arguments in response to their critics should be omitted. ] (]) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

::::Your disagreement is noted. That is (in part) what we are arguing about. ~ ] (]) 22:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

: You also continue to confound (despite my strenuous efforts) "fringe" and "notability". Please note: VAN and Heraud (etc.) are both ''fringe'' because their views are rejected (or simply ignored) by the vast majority of seismologists, but VAN is more ''notable'' by dint of the ''extensive debate'' on their views in the 1960s (as documented in the Lighthill volume and two journal special issues). While working "{{tq|professionally and diligently, without sensationalism}}" is laudable, it in no way makes these "other scientists" more notable or less rejected. ~ ] (]) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

::OK, here you are offering an objective criterion. I can't point to any equivalent to the Lighthill volume or the GRL special issue, when it comes to the others. (I'm not sure which 2nd journal special issue you mean.) Freund and Heraud have not attracted the same level of sustained, systematic criticism in the scientific literature.

::I agree it's important not to confound "fringe" and "notability". Above, you made the argument: {{tq|Freund's and Pulinets' theories, despite extensive publication, are not accepted by mainstream scientists.}} Aren't you the one who is confusing fringe with notability here? Freund and Pulinet's extensive publication record, which is discussed widely in many other reliable sources including the popular press, is what establishes their notability. The fact that there are no debate volumes seems beside the point to me.

::The entire concept of "notability", as applied to determining article content, is problematic. ] says: {{tq|The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.}} So we should be talking about '''noteworthiness''', not notability. And for that, we are back to ].

::] says: {{tq|Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.}} In this case, ''published, reliable sources'' would include publications such as the Hayakawa 2015 textbook, publications by independent scientific groups, the popular press, and even the proponents themselves. ] (]) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

:::You keep citing "the popular press", but that has absolutely nothing to do with scientific prominence. As to Hayakawa: "one swallow does not a summer make". He and the ''very small minority'' of seismologists that have published in support of VAN are still fringe.

:::As to the rest of your comment: it seems you still confound "notability" and "due weight". And if you are going to invent a new term you should define it, so I don't have to guess at what you mean. ~ ] (]) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

::::I didn't invent the term "noteworthiness", it comes right from the notability policy. The notability guideline says that we should not apply notability guidelines to determine content coverage within an article. Instead, it says article content is determined by due weight.

::::I know this sounds crazy (or at least, confusing), but I'm not making it up. I'm only quoting the guideline. ] (]) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::More like inaccurate, as "noteworthiness" does not occur in in ]. And rather insignificant: what you quoted (above) was the ''single use'' of "noteworthy", and that a parenthetical use with no definition. I see no distinct usage of "noteworthy" (or "noteworthiness") in Misplaced Pages, nor have you shown any. If you think there is something special about this term you will need to demonstrate it. ~ ] (]) 00:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::"Noteworthiness" is the noun form of the adjective "noteworthy"; that is, the property of being noteworthy. Surely you can recognize that it is a different grammatical form of the same word. The guideline goes on to say that noteworthiness is determined by due weight and other content policies. This is presumably why it has relatively little usage in content discussions, as basically synonymous with ]. ] (]) 01:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

* '''Suggestion''' JJ asks for suggestions, above, regarding what exactly should be said about Freund. As to a critical secondary source, I think Hough's book is pretty good. She devotes much of a chapter to Freund, gives reasons why most seismologists are dismissive, and concludes that Freund is "not entirely out to lunch" (but, presumably, mostly out to lunch.)
:I feel that the theory and the reasons for mainstream criticism could be summed up in a short paragraph, less than 500 characters. This would be less than 2% of the existing article size, and less than 1% of the article size that would call for splitting. I expect that the exact text will evolve collaboratively, based on the guidance from the RfC. ] (]) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

::How about 2% of the space given to Precusors? Or no more than 10% of the coverage of the Corralitos event? And within that, what is the proportion between Freund and all the stuff he keeps spewing out (how can we even summarize what ever he stands for in a single sentence?), and Heraud, who appears to have published ''nothing'' on his theory, method, or any claims of prediction? As to QuakeFinder, it seems they are only ''promising'' to go out and ''look for'' precursors; how do they rate ''any'' mention here? And if we mention them, do we have to mention their competitors? And mind, the "guidance from the RfC" would the ''briefest mention''. How would ''you'' do this? ~ ] (]) 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
:::JJ, in retrospect I think I should have written some proposed text right at the beginning. But since I didn't do that, I've been feeling reluctant to do so now, while the RfC is still open. Let's wait and see if any last-minute comments come in. ] (]) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

====Discussion on Question #4, L'Aquila EQ prosecutions====

'''Comment''' JJ says that this material is already included in the article. In my opinion, text hidden in a footnote is not part of the article text per se. At a minimum, I would like to see the footnote text brought into the article. Beyond that, I think that JJ has made an excellent suggestion: that this topic is notable enough that it could and should be written up in a stand-alone article. The section in L'Aquila earthquake is a good start, but an even more extensive discussion could be useful & encyclopedic. ] (]) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

:Your "], on the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake prosecutions, was specifically: '''shall this be discussed in the article?''' You didn't ask for ''more'' discussion, or that the discussion should be in the main text (as opposed to a note or box), nor did you explain why your alleged "{{tq|important implications for regarding the sociology}}" of EP requires greater discussion; you just asked ''shall this be discussed''? Nor has there been any substantive discussion of this on the talk page, so your question was premature. And given the tendency of all your questions to balloon (and your tendency to hyper-analyze statements you don't agree with) it would be mercy all around to decide this question on the very simple, straightforward basis that it ''is'' "discussed". ~ ] (]) 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
::On the contrary, I hope that whoever closes this RfC will weigh in on the question of whether tucking material away in a footnote, is equivalent to discussing it in the body text of the article. Otherwise, JJ, I suppose you will be arguing that all the other topics addressed in this RfC would also be covered adequately by footnoting. As to the view that the pre-RfC discussion was inadequate, I agree that we didn't generate an entire wall of text about it. But, your opposition to any expansion of the coverage outside the footnote was clearly expressed. ] (]) 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

:::If your issue is ''how prominently'' the L'Aquila prosecutions should be mentioned, or the extent of any discussion, then you should have said so in your question. As it is, you started at one level, asking if they should be discussed, and inviting comment without any explanation. Then, having gotten some affirmation, you reveal that you really want ''more'' discussion. There has been ''no'' discussion here (nor, as I recall, elsewhere) as to how much discussion, or how much prominence, this ''incidental'' matter warrants. That is switch-and-bait. As to this growing pile of text, that is entirely the result of your mis-formulated question. ~ ] (]) 23:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

====How can Questions #5 and #6 be expressed in a more useful way?====

*'''comment''' Both Robert and JJ are complaining that these questions are not useful, or not posed in a useful manner. But, at least question #5 is inspiring a spirited debate! Robert and JJ agree the question is useless, but for completely different reasons! Meanwhile, I still seem to be the only one who understands that these are the crucial policy questions whose outcome informs all the others.

:Everyone agrees that theories or topics such as "natural time", VAN's 2008 prediction, QuakeFinders, TEC variations, and the L'Aquila prosecutions, should be covered in articles devoted to those respective topics. And, everyone agrees (more or less) what a neutral presentation looks like in those articles. Also, everyone agrees that all this detail would be totally inappropriate in a general, mainstream article like ].

:The question is, how do we apply NPOV principles to an article like this? Is this article more like a list, dedicated to summaries of fringe topics? Or is it more like an essay from a general point of view, on why any and all fringe viewpoints are wrong? JJ accuses me of having made up my mind about this. And, it's true I do have an opinion. But if I"m overruled by the consensus, I would obviously need to respect it.

:Although the RfC is already open, I'm open to any suggestions for how to re-word these questions to express the issues better. I may come up with some ideas myself, as the discussion progresses. I'll propose any re-wordings here, before making any changes to the officially posed RfC questions. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

::The questions '''have already been''' "officially posed". Changing them after discussion has started changes what the answers refer to. If you want comments on different questions you should start a different RfC. ~ ] (]) 00:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Too late now to make any more changes. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

====Discussion on Question #5, is this entire article fringe scope? ====


*'''Reply to JJ''', whose argument above is that EQ prediction cannot be described as fringe or non-fringe, because it is a topic, not a theory. Please consider the Arbcom ruling in the pseudoscience case, which said:

:]

:{{tq| Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all <s>articles</s> pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.}}

:This ruling implies that '''pages''' are either "relating to pseudoscience and fringe science", or they aren't. Also, the sanctions are enforced by '''topic bans''' which also are relating to '''topics''' which either are fringe, or they aren't. So, I would argue that the language I used in this RfC question, is used within the community. And my argument is that it's reasonable to pose the question on a page-level basis; and this applies not only to applicability of arbcom enforcement, but also regarding proper application of due weight and NPOV policies.

:Perhaps there are some articles which are neither fringe nor non-fringe, but specific topics or sections within the article might be characterized as such? But in this case, there are no known short-term EQ prediction technologies which are not fringe, so this is a moot point. The entire article is fringe scope. As such, it is improper to say that some sub-topic should be excluded purely because of its excessively fringe-ish nature. ] (]) 20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

* '''Rejoinder'''. It is quite unclear what your argument is here, which is not helped by your link to a section mostly struck out. It seems you have searched high and low for some relevant text, coming across this ten-year old Arbcomm case involving some edit-warring behaviour where ''incidentally'' they referred to "{{tq|pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science}}". It seems also that you do not understand that ''<b>relating to</b>'' something – that is, to be ''connected'' to something – is not the same as ''being'' something, or having a certain quality or character. As I said above, ''earthquake prediction'' can be taken as the scientific study '''of''' a certain topic, which topic covers a number of fringe ''views'' and ''theories'', but those few subtopics do '''not''' thereby make the broader topic and viewpoint "fringe".

:I suggest that instead of searching for questionably relevant text you embrace the primary core policy of ], and the content guideline regarding ], with particular attention to ], ], ], and especially ]. ~ ] (]) 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

::JJ, I'm sorry you're finding my argument unclear. When I say the article is "fringe scope", I mean it is "relating to fringe science". I have never meant to say that the article is supposed to represent fringe ideas uncritically.

::Although the Arbcom case I referred to is ten years old, nevertheless it is still in force. I do not understand how anything in the old Arbcom case, or anything I'm recommending, contradicts primary core policies. I think what's going on with all the strike-through text is that Arbcom adopted standard provisions for discretionary sanctions in approx. 2012. At that time all the earlier discretionary sanction regimes which had been adopted on an individual basis for the various topics, were replaced by the standard sanctions.

::] discusses theories where "the only statements... come from the inventors or promoters of the theory." That is manifestly not the case for any of the theories we are addressing here: they are also discussed in scientific journals written by independent sources, and in the popular press. It goes on to discuss sock puppetry, shilling, and use of self-published materials, as examples of unwarranted promotion. None of that is applicable here, either. Even with IP202, he's certainly an SPA but there has been no proof of shilling on his part.

::The conclusion of ] states that {{tq|A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.}} That, I am arguing, is the case with respect to the topics mentioned in Questions 1 thru 4: all have been discussed as alternative positions in high-quality reliable sources. ] (]) 01:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:::And I am sorry that you still don't understand that ''relating to'' some fringe ideas does not make this ''topic'' fringe.

:::I emphatically dispute your "{{tq|manifestly not the case ...}}". I allow that VAN has been "{{tq|discussed as alternative positions in high-quality reliable sources}}". However, what you blithely skipped over is that those sources are generally ''dismissive'', and that (in the main) the only ''positive'' statements about VAN comes from "{{tq|promoters of that theory}}" (or a very small band of supporters). Sure, ''strictly speaking'' ] does not specify "positive", but I think that is the sense. And there is: "{{tq| The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, ''not the proclamations of its adherents''.}}" (Emphasis added.) ~ ] (]) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

::::My reading of the policy is the opposite -- that they intentionally did not specify "positive", and that negative statements by opponents do count towards establishing the noteworthiness of the fringe position. It seems to me that with respect to VAN, at least, your position is that the negative reviews of VAN in the Lighthill and GRL volumes is the most important factor that establishes their noteworthiness. ] (]) 18:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::I dispute your reading. But it seems we are straying. Before getting into a specific rebuttal of VAN's notability, how does this relate to whether the entire article is "fringe scope"? ~ ] (]) 22:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::To recap: your initial position was that the article could not be said to be "fringe scope" because EQ prediction is a topic, not a theory. I replied by showing an arbcom case that used the term "fringe related" to describe articles and topics. You denied the relevance of the Arbcom case, and told me I should study NPOV and PROFRINGE instead. I said that I didn't see any contradiction between NPOV and the Arbcom ruling and vocabulary, and pointed out that the criteria in PROFRINGE does not preclude discussing fringe theories in articles about fringe topics. I'm satisfied that the entire discussion to this point has been on-topic.

::::::As we both seem to agree that VAN is sufficiently noteworthy or notable to include in the article, I don't know what you would be debating if you were to offer "a specific rebuttal of VAN's notability", or how it would relate to our discussion of whether this should be considered an article related to fringe theories. ] (]) 19:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::::I still deny that a totally ''incidental'' use of a term by Arbcomm has any bearing on the topic here. And I question how VAN's notability bears on the question here of whether the entire article is "fringe scope".

:::::::And that is all I have time for today. ~ ] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''clarification''' Staszek Lem asks above, what specific content issue I was trying to address with this question. I was hoping that some ground rules could be established for this article, which could then be generalized across the various issues that come up. Perhaps it would have helped to provide specific examples. But in general, Jimbo's famous comment (quoted at ]) that {{tq|"if a viewpoint is held by a tiny minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages... except perhaps in some ancillary article.}} The policy goes on to state that in such ancillary articles, the viewpoints of said minorities {{tq|may receive more attention and space}}, whereas in articles of general interest, it is undue weight to devote much space to the minority viewpoint. What I was hoping for, was some kind of guidance as to whether this is an "ancillary article" where more attention and space to minority views is warranted, or whether it is a general science article. ] (]) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''further clarification'''There may be a way-station between articles such as ] which are clearly 'general science articles', and ] which is pretty clearly an ancillary article dedicated to a fringe topic. This article is also in many respects like a general science article, but one which deals quite extensively with fringe theories. As such, perhaps Jimbo's distinction between "significant minority views" vs. "tiny minority views" is important? Jimbo's original quote was {{tq|"If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides."}} By that rule, "significant minorities" would appropriately be mentioned here (proportionately according to ]) while "tiny minorities" would not be mentioned here. I would say that Freund and VAN (including their recent work) meet the definition of a 'significant scientific minority': not only is it easy to name the prominent adherents, but there are also extensive discussions in reliable sources, textbooks have been written, and apparently there are entire scientific conference sections dominated by proponents. This is how discussion question #5 relates to content questions #1 through #4. ] (]) 19:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

::Your "{{tq|apparently there are entire scientific conference sections dominated by proponents}}" is from Hough's mention of the 2007 IUGG conference,right? But do you have you any sources showing that, aside from the aficionados speculating on possible precursors they ''hope'' to find, there is any significant ''mainstream'' opinion in support of these theories?

::Just to take this back to the question asked ("is this entire article fringe scope?"), I don't know if it has occurred to you that if (e.g.) VAN is ''not'' "fringe" (as you argue), that would show that the ''entire'' article is ''not'' fringe. Thus, answer to the question is "no". QED. ~ ] (]) 23:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
:::I've seen other reports of EM proponent meetings, for example meetings warmly welcoming Giuliani as presenter. But, I absolutely agree that VAN SES and Freund are fringe. I agree that there is little mainstream support for these theories. Nearly all professional seismologists dismiss the EM theories, any support from Hough is very tepid indeed. A significant coterie of geophysicists are looking for EM precursors, but I doubt that they make up more than a minority of all geophysicists.
:::I am talking about the difference between a '''significant''' minority vs. a '''tiny''' minority, but both types of minorities are fringe. VAN's 'natural time' is starting to get a small amount of mainstream support, but it's just another variant on parent-daughter methods. ] (]) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

::::Your "{{tq|meetings warmly welcoming Giuliani as presenter}}" undoubtedly refers to Giuliani's much bally-hooed presence at the 2009 AGU meeting. (At the Italian Misplaced Pages's section on this gets twice as much coverage as the rest of his biography.) Somewhere I've seen a statement that he was "invited by the prestigious" AGU, as if the AGU itself was endorsing him with a crown of laurels like some kind of hero. Not so! He was invited by Pulinets or someone (I forget who) to join some panel; there was no implied endorsement, let alone any official accolade. Any suggestion otherwise is misleading, and a violation of NPOV. ~ ] (]) 23:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::Our original discussion of this, with links to sources documenting my claim that Giuliani was warmly welcomed, is here: ]. A warm welcome is not the same thing as an official accolade or an endorsement. ] (]) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::Yes, thank you for that link. And I note that your ''source'' (singular!) is the ''Guardian'' article, which was rather over-blown, implying a much "warmer" reception, across all of the AGU, than is otherwise documented. There is ''no'' evidence Giuliani "{{tq|aroused intense interest and debate}}" (unless perhaps in one session, in one small room). And considering what has been left out, that "intense interest" might have been jeering and booing. It seems that the only source of this is Giuliani himself, as related to the Guardian's reporter, adroitly phrased and entirely unverified. ~ ] (]) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

====Discussion on Question #6, right of rebuttal ====

*'''Reply to JJ''' I do not mean to imply that "Right of rebuttal" should include "right of inclusion". That is, if an issue, theory or topic does not merit coverage for whatever reason, it can be omitted without incurring the "right of rebuttal".

:Also, "right of rebuttal" is not a "right of refutation". It is not to be presumed, or indicated in any way, that the fringe view is correct and the mainstream view is wrong.

:But, NPOV in discussion of fringe topics does require that the views of the minority with respect to controversies which are discussed in the article, should be included and put into perspective with respect to mainstream views. It is ] to argue that only the early views of proponents of fringe theories can be mentioned, while their later views developed in response to mainstream criticism are deemed irrelevant. In fact, it is those later views which are more prominent in the literature written by the proponents, and which thus are required to be included for neutrality. ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

* '''Rejoinder'''. Jerry, this is the first time you have mentioned any "{{tq|right of inclusion}}" or "{{tq|right of refutation}}". But you have not provided any definition of these concepts, or how they differ from "right of rebuttal", so there is no basis for understanding whatever distinction you are trying to make.

:Your argument re earlier and later views of fringe proponents is wholly unfounded. I suspect it arises from your objection to including some of VAN's earliest ''claims'' of EP. While the claims themselves proved false, that they were ''made'' is a ''fact'' that goes to their credibility. E.g., they claim "thirty years of success", but that claim can be sustained only by revising their initial claims; leaving that out misleads the reader as to their actual success. But in this regard we have strayed beyond the stated scope of the question. ~ ] (]) 00:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

::JJ, I think my use of the terms "inclusion" and "refutation" are consistent with common English usage. A typical debate consists of initial affirmative statements from the sides, followed by "rebuttal" statements in which the sides attempt to answer each others' initial arguments. The initial arguments, combined with the rebuttals, make up the total set of viewpoints presented by the proponents. A "rebuttal" becomes a "refutation" when some judge decides that the rebuttal has been successful, i.e. that one side has prevailed in the debate.

::By "inclusion" I mean that as editors, we make a decision whether some topic ought to be mentioned or included at all in the article. Or perhaps we might decide that a topic or theory should be included only with a link to an ancillary article, nothing more.

::I am not advocating leaving out VAN's early positions, especially not where to do so would mislead the reader. What I am saying is that it is a violation of NPOV to omit their later positions. ] (]) 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:::I think your new terms are not consistent with my dictionary. At any rate, if some new terms, finely distinguished, are necessary to understanding your claim you really need to explain them up front.

:::If your issue is specific to certain "later positions" of VAN it would facilitate discussion to cite them. ~ ] (]) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

::::Checking the online dictionaries, I see that some do treat "rebuttal" and "refutation" as synonymous. But, reading the full definitions carefully, the subtle difference I'm suggesting does emerge. Misplaced Pages, for example, says a "rebuttal" is {{tq|the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed...}} and an essay at vocabulary.com says {{tq|"the word can really apply to any situation in which an argument is put forth and someone disagrees, and explains why".}} Whereas, typing "refutation" into Google yields their Google dictionary definition, {{tq|The action of proving a statement or theory to be wrong or false."}}

::::Hindsight is always 20/20, and perhaps it would have helped if I had mentioned the difference between "inclusion", "refutation" and "rebuttal" earlier. But the way the discussion went is this: You've stated many times in earlier discussions, "there is no right of rebuttal". I presented an argument that according to NPOV, there is. You replied (among other things), there is no right of refutation; and John responded, there is no right of inclusion. On those aspects, I'm agreeing with both of you.

::::But I still say that NPOV requires that if there is a debate, it's important to present both sides. And if the mainstream has declared a winner, we make that clear too. Or, we have the option of omitting the entire debate, on the basis that it is not sufficiently noteworthy for the article. But, it's not fair (and not neutral) to present the mainstream position alone, as if the fringe position doesn't even exist.

::::The topic of "later arguments" vs. "early arguments" seems extensive enough to me that I'm going to open a new discussion section about it, below. But perhaps not until tomorrow, I'm out of time for today. ] (]) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::That seems to be your core sentiment: that "{{tq|it's not fair (and not neutral) to present the mainstream position alone, as if the fringe position doesn't even exist.}}" Which is to say, that despite being thoroughly debunked, you think VAN should still be allowed to present mitigating arguments. VAN was rejected because ''their arguments were rejected''; their arguments are also fringe. Introducing them (such as "saves live") then requires statement of the mainstream point of view ("not!"). Which is exactly what lead to the "undue prominence of VAN" that you keep mentioning. In terms of scientific significance it is correct: a fringe view effectively doesn't even exist. ~ ] (]) 22:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I think that correct application of NPOV includes fairness. That is why I still read Misplaced Pages, and consider it worth contributing to. The mainstream does not get to suppress its critics by pretending they effectively don't even exist.

::::::But, the entire concept of "saves lives" vs "not!" could be omitted from the article, for lack of sufficient noteworthiness, thereby (slightly) reducing the undue prominence of VAN. I thought we had agreed to take that step, by consensus. Are you arguing to bring back that text? ] (]) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::::No, I am ''not'' arguing to bring back that text. I am saying that was an ''example'' of how this "undue prominence of VAN" that you complain about resulted from introduction of "balancing" material.

:::::::I get the idea that you have just exposed your core point-of-view here: that the "mainstream" ''is'' suppressing its critics. That would be an interesting topic to discuss, and particularly relevant in that it seems to be what drives all your other views. But rather more than can be subsumed here under "right of rebuttal". ~ ] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

====Re-ordering the questions====

:I am sorry that JJ and John Carter have the impression that I have an axe to grind here, regarding my personal opinions. I would like to think that I'm trying to resolve content questions, including a long-standing dispute about treatment of the VAN method. But, I can see that putting the policy / opinion questions first, and the content questions afterwards, puts the emphasis in the wrong place.

:Also, I can see that (former) questions #1 and #2 are troublesome to voters! I'm taking one step right away: re-ordering and re-numbering the questions. I hope other participants won't object to this re-arrangement. ] (]) 16:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

::That you have re-ordered the questions, and are asking how to re-formulate two of them, shows that you were not ready to present them. Note also that after others have considered a question or comment, and possibly commented, you need to retain the original form; any revision needs to be clearly indicated. ~ ] (]) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

:::Sorry, this is my first RfC. I wasn't sure whether to keep your general comment with the now question 5, or whether to move it to the top. If you'd like to move it to the top, I'd have no objection. Do you think this section "Re-ordering the questions" is sufficiently clear indication of what I've done? I thought about marking the questions thusly: {{tq|Question <s>#1</s> #5}} but felt that could lead to more confusion than necessary. ] (]) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

::::''Moving things around'' causes confusion, and should be avoided. But if such changes must be done, the use of strike-out text ("<s>#1</s> #5") is strongly recommended to at least indicate what the changes are.

::::Yes, I think my general comment ''ought'' to be at the top, but then I think the discussion should precede the "brief comments" (i.e., the straw poll). But making these changes might be even more confusing, so it might be best to just leave alone. ~ ] (]) 00:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::I think it would reduce confusion if your actual general comment was placed at the top, in place of the advice to look for the comment under question five. Aside from that, I think the new organization is much less confusing, with the content questions coming first. As to "straw poll before <s>voting</s> discussion", one example RfC that I thought went well was ]. ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::But then you have to split John's comment, which would make for more confusion. Allow me to state this more clearly: it is probably better to leave the organization as it is. More meddling will just make the mess worse. ~ ] (]) 00:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::::OK. ] (]) 00:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Good decision. ~ ] (]) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

====Relative noteworthiness of ancient history vs. recent events====

In the context of "right of rebuttal", I stated above that I feel it's a violation of neutrality to omit some of VAN's important viewpoints based on the fact that those viewpoints emerged later in time, or in response to mainstream criticism. JJ asked for specifics, and the most obvious aspect would be the 'natural time' concept and 2008 prediction (question #1 in this RfC). In this general category, I would also include VAN's reply to the argument that the SES are caused by industrial electrical sources, and their reply to the argument that their results are not better than random.

There's a deeper historical issue here as well. This has been touched on in the discussion already, especially with John Carter's excellent suggestion that we should {{tq|"consider having the main body of this article be about the development of the concept of earthquake prediction"}}. In other words, the article should put greater emphasis on telling a story about the ''history'' of EQ prediction. That is, why scientists were optimistic during the '70s and '80s, how those hopes were dashed in the eyes of the majority of seismologists, and why the mainstream view now is that EQ prediction has not been demonstrated, and is probably impossible to accomplish in a practical and cost-effective manner.

If the article were structured to emphasize this historical perspective, I would drop my argument that the topic of this article is predominantly related to fringe theories. Would that perhaps help to break this deadlock of discussion?

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, much less a predictor of future events. Nevertheless, I would argue that the ''current status'' of EQ prediction research is intrinsically more noteworthy than controversies that occurred twenty years ago.

But I also agree that: 20 years ago, the topic of EQ prediction was considered far more interesting and noteworthy from the perspective of mainstream seismologists, than it is today. Thus, according to ] I see some merit in the idea that the situation with VAN in 1996, deserves to be more predominant in the article than their work since 2001.

On the other hand, given the intrinsically great noteworthiness of current research to our readers, I still say it is a great error to omit such information completely from this article. Perhaps a brief summary section could say something like "Although the vast majority of seismologists believe that EQ prediction is impractical or impossible, a few researchers are continuing to work on the problem..." and then a brief link farm to notable methods. ] (]) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

:Your "{{tq|intrinsically great noteworthiness of current research}}" is ''not'' a "given", and I do not see that you have made any such case. That "{{tq|a few researchers are continuing to work on the problem}}" is ''not'' noteworthy. Perhaps if they actually predicted a few quakes, but that has not happened.

:I specifically disagree that "{{tq|the ''current'' status of EQ prediction research is intrinsically more noteworthy than controversies that occurred twenty years ago.}}" Quite simply: it is by the ''past'' that we know the ''present''. The ''present'' mainstream view of EP is based on the '''experience''' gained in the last four decades. To present the '''well-founded''' views of the mainstream as just the declared but unexplained – and therefore "uninteresting" – opinions of some stodgy old-timers does our readers a disservice. To ''understand'' the mainstream view (any view, actually) requires understanding the ''why''. ''Not'' understanding that (which applies to researchers as well as our readers) is to repeat the errors of a previous generation, without learning from them.

:In my original formulation of this article I covered more predictions, and also a series of quotations that ''illustrated the progression'' from the "real soon now" view to the "maybe never" view. Another editor objected to so many quotes and removed them. But if you like the historical perspective they provided we could see about restoring them. ~ ] (]) 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

====Are we done?====

Typically, RfC's stay open for comments for a month. We've only been doing this for a week, so the question "are we done" seems premature. The conversation above has surprised me in several respects, and has led to a deeper understanding of the issues on my part. So, I feel it's been productive in that sense, and I appreciate the time.

I am honestly hoping that perhaps John Carter's remarks (that the article should place greater emphasis on the theme of "history of EQ prediction") will lead to a breakthrough. JJ, do you think there's any chance of that? If so, let's keep the conversation going along those lines, and see where it leads.

I'm not feeling that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the way I posed the RfC, or with the background information I've provided. I'm certainly not feeling like I want to take the advice to drop back to talking only about VAN, and leave the rest for later. And I'm not agreeing that my discussion questions (items 5 and 6) are useless or a waste of time. On the contrary, they have been effective in inspiring conversation and thought. If I were to re-write them today, I could probably do better.

Within those general parameters, JJ, I'm open to specific, concrete and helpful suggestions as to how the RfC could be meaningfully improved. I wouldn't see it as a great loss at this point, if we closed this RfC as "no consensus" and started over with a new one.

If there's still a deadlock, my preferred way forward would be to actively seek wider participation. I took the required steps to open the RfC in a rather perfunctory fashion, and my notifications at NPOV and fringe noticeboards were as short and boring as could be. I could go back to those boards and make a more dramatic appeal for help.

There were many participants in the July RfC, and conversations since, who haven't shown up. Even IP202 has been quiet. All those people could be pinged. Is my RfC being boycotted intentionally? Have we bored everyone to a stupor? I'd like to get some feedback from some of the earlier participants.

At this point, I'm not going to just concede and go back into retirement. <s>I'm ahead in the straw poll,</s> On the first four questions regarding specific content issues, I'm ahead in the straw poll two votes to one. Robert McClenon is an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian, and he said that my position on the basic content questions is "obviously" right. I feel encouraged by his comments. ] (]) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

:Wrong: You are NOT "{{tq|open to specific, concrete and helpful suggestions as to how the RfC could be meaningfully improved.}}" My ''specific and concrete suggestion'' (2 Jan.) was '''pick one question'''. I suggested it again on 7 Jan., but {{diff2|758852269|you rejected it}}.

:Your notion of "{{tq|ahead in the straw poll, two votes to one}}" is a rather fanciful reading of the matter. In the first place, ]: our "{{tq|primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting}}"; straw polls being "{{tq|used to test for consensus}}". So I grant you that on the first three questions Robert did jump right in with cookie-cutter responses in the first three questions of "{{tq|Yes, of course - They are notable fringe science}}", and other similar comments, ''prior to any discussion or presentation of any alternate views'' on the substance of the questions ({{diff2|758901142|04:30, 8 Jan.}}). That was more reflexive than deliberative, more useful in stating the start of a discussion than its conclusion.

:On Question #5 (originally Question #1), on the scope of the article, Robert commented "{{tq|This question is not useful.}}" On that I actually agree with Robert (although for different reasons), and John Carter agrees. Your subsequent reply (]) as to "fringe or non-fringe", where you tried to prove your point based on an ''incidental use'' of the term at Arbcomm, did not address the the issue of the ''nature'' of the Question. It seems a fair assessment that the ''question'' was rejected, 3-0.

:Question #4 is specifically whether the L'Aqula ''prosecutions'' should be "discussed in the article", though in your statement you argue this should be done "{{tq|to mitigate the undue weight given to VAN}}", a view you subsequently base on a novel interpretation of ] that fringe theories must be given prominence proportionate to other fringe theories. A curious idea, but I do not see that there is any consensus on inclusion. Robert said we shouldn't ignore the case. I say that we have ''not'' ignored either Giuliani's alleged prediction (it has a whole section!), nor the prosecutions (which are mentioned in a note).

:On Question #5 (originally #2), on a "right of rebuttal", Robert commented that the question is (again) "{{tq|not usefully worded.}}" He said both "{{tq|fringe theories and mainstream criticism of those theories}}" should be covered, but did not address whether attempted ''rebuttals'' of such criticism should be included. John and I are both "no", which is 2 to 1 ''against'' your "yes".

:Jerry, I have hung in through all this discussion mainly for ''your'' sake, so that you have some feedback on your ''views'', but also as an illustration of ''process''. When you rejected my specific suggestion you complained "{{tq|we would spend two months on the RfC for that one question....}}" I submit that trying to handle six poorly formulated questions in a fortnight has been to no great result, and has been largely a waste of that time. Still, we might gain something from all this if you will recognize the uselessness of starting an RfC without adequate preparation. ~ ] (]) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you for hanging in for the process. Regarding the state of the straw poll, I meant to refer to the four content questions only. I have amended my remark above.

::So here's a brainstorm. How about a new RfC that boils it down to this single question: "What percentage of the space in this article should be devoted to research efforts by the most noteworthy prediction researchers and proponents since the 1990's? Such proponents would include continuing work by the VAN group, involving 'natural time'; work by Freund, Heraud and associates on detecting magnetic signals; work by Heki, Pulinets and associates involving satellite detection of TEC variations. Topics might also include wider coverage of the L'Aquila event, including the related prosecution of Italian scientists." It's like rolling six questions into one. And by focusing on space allocation, it avoids future controversies like "It's already in a footnote, what more do you want?" ] (]) 03:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

:::No, your idea of "{{tq|rolling six questions into one}}" does ''not'' "boil down" all of that into single question. I am rather amazed that you seriously think that squashing all of those sub-topics together would make anything easier to resolve; that usually requires ''dis''entangling matters. As to "{{tq|the most noteworthy prediction researchers and proponents since the 1990's}}, didn't you just convince yourself that "noteworthy" means ]? Which "{{tq|means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects}}." And then you'll be back to arguing that certain topics should be included because they are more interesting or more promising, or the proponents more professional or diligent, or simply because it us unfair that other fringe theories get more attention (none of which are the bases by which we weight viewpoints), which is getting pretty tendentious.

:::I remind you again that Misplaced Pages is ], and the straw poll does not indicate any kind of consensus. Although the 3-0 result on Question #5 looks pretty definite. ~ ] (]) 01:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

::::The participants responded to questions #5 and #6 as essay questions. Aside from my vote on Q#5, I see one comment and two votes for "bad question". Robert McClenon said {{tq|All existing methodologies for earthquake prediction are fringe science.}} John Carter said {{tq|as the lede of the article currently states, there have been no practical methods yet discovered.}} Those might not be votes in my favor, but they're not exactly votes against, either.

::::Regarding Q#6, "right of rebuttal" was redefined by John Carter & MrOllie in a way I didn't anticipate. If "right of rebuttal" means giving the fringe proponents the last word, or more attention than called for by ], then I wouldn't advocate for right of rebuttal either.

::::I'm not surprised that you don't like my suggestion to summarize matters to a single question. But, I think it might make a lot of sense. Do you think it would help if I write up the exact text I would like to include, as a proposal? It seems to me that this would help substantially, as it would clear up a lot of confusion and misconceptions about what I'd like to achieve. ] (]) 01:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::I don't see that "right of rebuttal" was redefined, except as you may have started with a different sense of it, which you did not specify or define. If you "{{tq|wouldn't advocate for right of rebuttal either}}" in the general sense, would you ''accept'' there is any such "right"? In that case, modify your "yes", and we can close Question #6 as as unanimous "no".

:::::It is getting pretty clear about what you want to achieve: greater prominence for "critics" of mainstream orthodoxy. And while it no longer surprises me, it still boggles me a bit that you should honestly think summarizing a bunch of disparate matters into a single question should make any kind of sense, let alone be efficacious. (Have you learned ''nothing'' from all this?)

:::::Specific proposals are usually easier to deal with than a grab-bag of poorly formulated questions. But as you are not proceeding in the spirit of neutral inquiry and assessment, but as an advocate of particular views, you will contend any rejection of your proposals. And we will be romping all across the landscape again. But, sure, run up a specific proposal, and let's see how it goes. ~ ] (]) 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::JJ, I would say that my spirit of neutral inquiry has led me to my view that current earthquake prediction research is not being treated according to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies in this article. The omission of information about highly noteworthy, major research efforts, and the one-sided presentation on VAN, is ].

::::::The response to my essay questions has surprised me, but in retrospect I suppose I should have expected it. Misplaced Pages editors like to see propositions expressed in the exact same language as used in the policy documents. I thought that concepts such as "right of rebuttal" or "fringe scope article" would be useful to discuss, but apparently I was mistaken. And, heaven forbid that anyone should suggest that NPOV involves fairness! Maybe there should be an essay about that.
::::::I've been disappointed by the low participation. I'd been thinking of doing some more publicity work to try to remedy that. But it does seem like it would be more productive to try again with another, more specific proposal. I have some work to do in the meanwhile.

::::::One thing I don't see is any strong editorial consensus against including this material. If I was seeing that, I would drop the stick for sure. ] (]) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::::First of all, please tell me: if you "{{tq| wouldn't advocate for right of rebuttal either}}" with the understanding that does '''not''' mean "{{tq|giving the fringe proponents the last word,}}" or more than allowed by WP:DUE, are we not then agreed on Question #6? And can we then close it?

:::::::You hardly have a "{{tq|spirit of neutral inquiry}}" when each of your questions here starts with an affirmation of your previously held position, prior to any comments or discussion. As I said in my "General comment" under Question #5, you had already made up your mind, and you were not (and still are not) seeking comments so much as '''affirmation'''. Your stance here has ''not'' been one of weighing different views, but of ''advocating'' your established view.

:::::::You claim support of Misplaced Pages policies, but (as I mentioned above, at 23:27, 11 Jan.) your most recent theory that fringe theories should given weight ''proportionate to other fringe theories'' is fanciful, and entirely novel, while many of your other interpretations are very partial, where you cite one part but ignore other parts. Similarly for your often very skewed view of the straw poll. E.g., while you "{{tq|don't see is any strong editorial consensus against including}}" the questioned topics, you seem to have overlooked that there is no "strong editorial consensus" ''for'' including them. The lack of an unequivocal result either way is itself an indication of ''no'' consensus.

:::::::Now please tell us: are we agreed on Question #6? Can we be done with at least that much? ~ ] (]) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Hi JJ, I'm not sure if we're in agreement on Question #6 yet. You had asked for specific examples of my interpretation of the phrase, and I gave specifics in my discussion section above, "Relative noteworthiness of ancient history vs. recent events." In general, my formulation of the concept of a "right of rebuttal" is that it is a violation of NPOV to omit the most recent viewpoints of the proponents of a fringe theory (while including earlier viewpoints), just on the basis that the later viewpoints were developed in response to mainstream criticism. I haven't seen you agree to that general principle, or to any of my examples.
::::::::What I have conceded, is question #5. I have agreed that this article can be thought of as a history of EQ prediction. Thus, earlier events deserve greater prominence than later developments -- because mainstream seismologists have mostly lost interest in the topic. In other words, I concede that this is not entirely a fringe related article. Accordingly, it is now my view that the discussion of all of these 21st-century research projects should be wrapped together into a single paragraph in this article, with a link to an ancillary article.
::::::::For the reasons we've both discussed, I believe we're in agreement that this RfC should be closed as "no consensus"? Should we include the conclusion that the article is not entirely fringe related? ] (]) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

:Sorry, no, under "Relative noteworthiness of ancient history ..." I did ''not'' see any specific examples. Nor do I see that NPOV supports (or that you have supported) this view of yours that "{{tq|to omit the most recent viewpoints of the proponents of a fringe theory}}" violates NPOV. That would amount to "{{tq|giving the fringe proponents the last word}}" (which you just said you not advocate), but I do not propose to debate that here. The question ''here'' is "Are we done?" Apparently you are not, but if you have anything relevant to say on that matter perhaps you could do so with the rest of that discussion.

:Re Question #5, if you are willing accept that the article "{{tq|is not entirely fringe related}}" you could so state, allowing that you now accept a consensus in that regard. But any consensus there is pretty shaky due to the question's poor formulation. I would suggest that you indicate an awareness that a topic itself is ''not'' fringe simply because it examines theories or views that are fringe.

:Re Question #6, I think we do have consensus, that there is no "right of rebuttal", at least as most of us understand it, and even you allow. Again, it would assist in closing if would make a statement to that effect.

:As to the rest: yes, no consensus. But I don't know that we should be closing it, as we are participants. You could propose a closing. Or you could withdraw those questions, a sort of quasi-close, though I think that should have some kind explanatory statement. ~ ] (]) 23:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
::OK, so we don't have consensus after all, not even on question #6. I'm admitting that the topic isn't entirely fringe -- but only because there are many sub-topics in the history of EQ prediction that weren't fringe, at least not at the time. And within the narrow bounds I've defined, I still say that NPOV requires a right of rebuttal. So any closing statement I would write, probably wouldn't satisfy you.
::More importantly, I don't see anything wrong with my questions #1 thru #4. If I were doing it over, I would write it all up in one section, and write it up in advance so that everyone could see my proposal. But that approach could have pitfalls of its own, that I'm not foreseeing.
::Two weeks left before the RfC closes. Plenty of time for more editors to weigh in. ] (]) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

====Call for more participation====

Since it seems that the RfC is going to continue through the month, I am hoping for more participation, especially on questions #1 through #4. Should the contested information be included?

Or, if (as JJ insists) this RfC is fundamentally flawed, how can it be improved? If anyone has read the RfC and intentionally decided not to participate, could you leave a few words giving your reasons why not?

The following is intended to be a comprehensive list of editors who have participated in discussions here, or been mentioned as page editors, since June 2016. If I've missed anyone, I apologize for the oversight.

I'm also planning to post another notice today to the NPOV noticeboard.

{{ping|Sitush}} {{ping|Elriana}} {{ping|Hlektron77}} ((ping|Geogene}} {{ping|Isambard Kingdom}} {{ping|tronvillain}}
{{ping|John Richfield}} {{ping|Mikenorton}} {{ping|Sv1xv}} {{ping|Dawnseeker2000}} {{ping|William M. Connolley}} {{ping|Volunteer Marek}}
{{ping|Jytdog}} {{ping|Staszek Lem}} {{ping|Richard Keatinge}} {{ping|Vidale}}
] (]) 18:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Geogene}} {{ping|JonRichfield}} ] (]) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:IP202 posted on my talk page to state that pings don't get processed by the system unless there is an exact match between the time the ping is posted, and the timestamp on the pinging user's signature. I believe this is probably correct. Yesterday when I created this thread, I posted the list of pings, looked for errors, then belatedly signed the post a minute or two later. I suspect this means that out of all those pings, the only ones that actually went out were to William M. Connolley, Sv1xv, and Geogene.
:So, I am repeating the pings to the rest of the group. If I am mistaken and the pings did go out, please accept my apologies for the extra message.
:{{ping|Sitush}} {{ping|Elriana}} {{ping|Hlektron77}} {{ping|Isambard Kingdom}} {{ping|tronvillain}}
{{ping|John Richfield}} {{ping|Mikenorton}} {{ping|Dawnseeker2000}} {{ping|Volunteer Marek}}
{{ping|Jytdog}} {{ping|Staszek Lem}} {{ping|Richard Keatinge}} {{ping|Vidale}} ] (]) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|JonRichfield}} ] (]) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

:Got the ping but I'm not getting involved with anything where J Johnson has embedded themselves. It is pointless: they just battle on, from one year to the next and grind everyone else into the ground. They need topic banning to clear the log-jam. - ] (]) 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
:: Me too. Sorry Jerry. ] (]) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

:With due allowance for the fact that I missed earlier pings because of accidental miss-spellings, I suspect that I would have skipped this topic anyway. OK, I am no seismologist, but even if I were, has anyone stepped back to look at the page? It is pushing 20000 words (and getting closer with this contribution of mine). This amounts to disruption, and demonstrates that we need a capping mechanism. I probably am overlooking a few hundred exceptions, but cannot remember '''''any''''' "walls-of-text" RFCs solving any serious issue. Policy discourages us from imputing ill intent, but in such a case I reckon this amounts to deliberate disruption, and I reckon that we should have some sort of capping mechanism. Fundamentally RFCs are supposed to elicit comments either to assist with difficulties, or to resolve disputes. By and large they succeed, but in a mess like this one they simply consume resources to the gratification of trolls. This requires (and has long required) some sort of amputation from some authoritative body, followed by a summary pronouncement on an outcome, completely undemocratically, with say a three-year moratorium on alternative outcomes, or at least till some authoritative source can resolve it encyclopaedically, or some alternative that will kill wall-of-text blight. How the bleep is any newcomer to make sense of the foregoing? Just to assess the issues would take more time than most people have. At some point one must appoint a tribunal with one week to pronounce, and shoot all dissenters, right or wrong. ] (]) 06:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

::I agree about the problem. But I think the solution needs to be a little more nuanced. E.g., we could also use pistols at ten paces, or just flip a coin, both of which provide quick and definite resolution, but not necessarily to the improvement of the encycloedia. And any arbitary process not involving experts (or at least those who respect experts) is vulnerable to the strategy of throwing slop on the wall – that is, making constant challenges – until something sticks.

::One approach might be to establish some standards or requirements for RfCs. E.g., have list of required elements: what is the question? is it stated neutrally? what is the background? on what bases should the issue be decided? (And so forth.) Getting that straight ''before'' passers-by start commenting would tend to focus the commentary.

::But the problem seen here is not just the RfC, it is a general problem of ineffective discussion. A problem I encounter (and leading to more wall of texti!) is that some editors take a lack of response to a comment to be permission to proceed. While this is quite reasonable in some cases, it does lead to an implicit burden to respond if one objects. But in objecting to something I feel an explanation is required, which then leads to further debate. This may be necessary to find common ground for resolution, but also leads to a tactic of raising issue after issue. This is the point where some kind of capping might be useful, but I'm not clear on how that might be implemented. Perhaps a moderator to determine which paths need not be visited? At any rate, hopefully there is some way of dealing with the process without directly dictating content. ~ ] (]) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::For better or worse, the RfC process is (IMO) the best means we have for resolving content disputes. Mediation might also be worth a try, but doesn't give as much opportunity for community input. I'd like to thank tronvillain and Staszek Lem for responding to my call for participation by voting in the straw poll, and also thank Sitush and JonRichfield for explaining why they prefer not to participate. I feel that the community input has been very useful. To the extent that an RfC has any definitive outcome, it's determined by the degree of community consensus, and by the weight of policy-driven arguments. While anyone can read through the comments and draw their own conclusions, the closer has the role of creating the summary pronouncement of an outcome. But the quality of the questions does have an impact on the process, and I've been humbled by the extent to which my questions #5 and #6 have been judged to be useless or poorly worded. Nevertheless, the discussion has been interesting (at least to me) and I'm hopeful that the closer will be able to draw useful conclusions. ] (]) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

::: Altogether reasonable, granting in particular that it is not possible to legislate reasonability. However, one criterion has to be that if the topic gets beyond the size where it becomes unreasonable for newcomers to wade through hours worth of largely unconstructive reading just to see what the bovver is about, then it is beyond time to expect anything like reasonable, let alone effective discussion. There are lots of topics, such as in some of the WP guideline topics such as the manual of style, where cliques have excluded constructive progress for years by unreasonable stonewalling in favour of personal taste in ways that reduce the value of WP facilities. At such times the mechanisms should permit us either to think again or to start over by requesting the attention of an appointed panel with authority. ] (]) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

:::::Presumably you mean where the ''discussion'' of a topic gets excessive. Yes, broader and deeper discussions can be harder to follow. Sometimes it can't be helped that a discussion must go deep, but excessive breadth can be addressed. That is why I strongly suggested to Jerry that the RfC should have just one question; running back and forth across six of them is like trying to eat your Thanksgiving dinner in one swallow. I note that many states require that legislative bills (etc.) address just one issue, and perhaps that ought to be a requirement for RfCs. ~ ] (]) 22:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::This might be worth considering as a matter of good sense even if not formally mandated. I appreciate that some people (such as myself) like to get a good perspective of matters which often means that there are items that one cannot cover independently of associated points, but I suspect that it is more frequent that (possibly artificially) isolated points can be dealt with efficiently without distraction. In spite of what I said before I'll go to the top and try to respond to separate points in mutual isolation, but please note that I do so under protest and in a mood of self-exculpation for having skipped most of the discussion. Pity me! ] (]) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Jon, thanks for your answers. As to the call for good sense, I do apologize for having put you through all of this. This was my first RfC. In retrospect, questions #5 and #6 didn't contribute much: I should've stuck to the content questions, and explored the policy issues as they came up. And the information I provided on Heki really wasn't enough for anyone to work with. Probably I should've left that for some other RfC, or maybe never, depending on how the research goes. JJ was telling me to limit to one question, and gosh darn it, if JJ tells me to do something, I'm going to do the opposite! (Kidding, sort of...) But I think three questions would've been just right.
:::::::JJ and I have contributed about 90% of the wall of text here, and I would be open on some sort of cap on comments by the initiating parties to the dispute. But on the other hand, for me the discussion has been interesting & useful, and I don't begrudge the time to read & participate. Perhaps part of good sense is for RfC participants to recognize when discussions have wandered off into detail, and decide to stop reading? Again, one hesitates to legislate good sense. Does anyone think we should start a discussion at talk:RfC? As for myself, again I apologize for having made the RfC too long, and I promise I won't do it again. ] (]) 02:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::It's not so much as trying to juggle ''fewer'' balls, as having a '''single focus'''. Which does not mean that other related points are ignored, but they are covered in a ''structured'' manner, not flitting about as various thoughts come to mind. There is also the very important distinction between a mere request for comments, and ''arguing'' for something. Arguments are also better when structured (consider reading up about the formal logic). But best of all is to do the proper groundwork before hand, sorting out the various sub-issues, premises, etc., to reduce the key issue to a clear, relatively simple statement that doesn't require a large investment from "the jury". These are all matters that should be worked out on the Talk page. But what we have here is an over-quickness to skip over all that discussion stuff and appeal for a straw-poll. Until you have better sense on how to go about this I suggest you swear off all RfCs. ~ ] (]) 21:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Susan Hough <s>quote on VAN</s> quotes on VAN, Freund and co-seismic signals ==

JJ recently added a quote from Susan Hough's book, regarding seismologist opinion of VAN. In context, the complete statement from Hough is: {{tq|As a prediction method, most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked. The remaining question is, if one or more specific predictions appear to be successful, is it because the earth does generate these signals, or because the method manages to benefit from the tendency of quakes to cluster. In short, are the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the method valid, or are they complete hogwash?}} In other words, Hough is making the same point I've been trying to explain for months here. Everyone can agree that the VAN method (based on SES) gives a very high false alarm rate and also suffers from some misses, so it fails as a practical EQ prediction method. But there is still an open controversy about whether there is any statistical correlation between SES and EQ, or whether some isolated predictive successes by VAN are a result of EQ clustering. ] (]) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

:That is '''not''' the "complete statement", as you have omitted the context. On page 195 she is talking about ''short-term forecasts'' generally, and mentions VAN ''as an example''. Following "hogwash" she goes on to say: "{{tq|To answer this question, '''for VAN or AMR or M8''', one needs a basis of comparison.}}" (Emphasis added.) Which is most certainly NOT "{{tq|the same point have been trying explain for months}}". Her point is about the basis for assessing a prediction method, ''your'' point (as far as I can see that you have a single point) is that fringe views (and specifically VAN) are treated unfairly.

:In the case of VAN, the controversy about SES/EQ correlations is '''not''' "{{tq|still open}}", that having been settled back in 1995 or thereabouts. (What you like to call "ancient history".) Your assertion of that is ''false'', and shows a reckless disregard of factual reality. ~ ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

::It's interesting that in three different cases (the above discussion on Freund, this discussion on VAN, and our discussion of co-seismic magnetometer readings) we see different shades of meaning in Hough's book. In this case, "ask a seismologist" might be a very useful exercise. Her email is given at her USGS website. Would you like to contact her, or should I? Are there Misplaced Pages protocol rules for this sort of thing? ] (]) 03:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

:::I suspect it would ''not'' be a useful exercise, as (given your response re Dr. Vidale's comments) you would question or ignore even quite definite statements that you don't agree with. At the very least you really should decide in advance what your question is, and then not belabor the point. And if you want to convince me you have the more accurate viewpoint it will have to a better question than what you have asked so far. ~ ] (]) 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

::::OK, I will wait until we have a chance to discuss further. I'm short on time today, but will return to this as soon as I can. ] (]) 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

{{od}} In her Chapter 15 (starting at p. 191), Hough is discussing reasons why some EQ predictions appear to have been successful, including some by VAN. She goes on to talk about "parent-daughter" statistics, and the elevated probability of another earthquake in the wake of the parent. (Are earthquakes feminine?) She discusses Rundle & Turcotte's Pattern Informatics (PI) method as an elaboration of this basic concept. She says that Turcotte referred to the results of their method as "prediction", but she appears to dispute this characterization. She writes: {{tq|the distinction between forecasting and prediction starts to blur.... The difference between prediction and short-term forecasting might sound like a distinction in semantics, but of course it is much more than that. Whatever precise terms one uses to define a meaningful short-term earthquake prediction, the public has at least a general understanding of what earthquake prediction is about. In short, prediction is saying when and where an earthquake will strike, and how big it will be. Producing a map that shows that future earthquakes are more likely to strike near one of a large number of blotchy measles spots is not what the public understands to be earthquake prediction.}} She then complains that whether PI is any better than simple parent-daughter statistics is "difficult to say".

Hough goes on to argue that forecasts involving a weak short-term probability increase can be useful. {{tq|For example, one wouldn’t evacuate Palm Springs based on a one in twenty chance of a large earthquake but one might reasonably move fire engines outside of fire houses for a few days....}} and furthermore, {{tq|These short-term forecast methods are also important for scientists’ continuing quest to understand earthquake predictability, in particular to evaluate proposed earthquake prediction methods.}}

This is the point where Hough says that '''as a prediction method''', VAN has been debunked. I think the only way to read this, is where "prediction method" means a reliable short-term prediction which might be a basis for evacuating Palm Springs. She then goes on to ask whether the earth does generate SES signals, or whether the VAN method is "complete hogwash". She says that such a question can be addressed by comparing prediction methods such as VAN to parent-daughter methods. She concludes {{tq|In recent years scientists have begun to make such comparisons. They reveal that, occasional bold statements and press releases notwithstanding, we are not there yet.}}

I would be the first to admit that when it comes to stating conclusions about VAN, Hough's writing is not as clear as I would like it to be. It seems to me that she is saying that while VAN has certainly failed as a reliable short-term EQ prediction method, nevertheless the relationship between SES and EQ is still an open question. But maybe she's saying that these unnamed scientists who have just begun to make the relevant comparisons, have completed their evaluation of VAN? If so, where are the results and why doesn't she provide a reference in the notes section? This is why I think it would be interesting to get Hough's personal statement, if possible.

Hough's chapter 10 (starting on p. 125) also covers VAN, Freund, Corralitos, and other aspects of seismo-electromagnetism. On p. 130 she notes that EQ prediction research is more popular internationally than it is in the US or Europe, and also: {{tq|In recent decades scientists who study earthquakes have parted company along disciplinary as well as international lines. As earthquake prediction fell out of favor among scientists who call themselves seismologists it has been embraced more enthusiastically by (some) scientists with expertise in different fields, for example rock magnetism and solid-state physics.}} This supports my view of a split between seismologists and more broadly trained geophysicists, which would include Hough herself.

Freund is singled out as a prominent representative of this school. She says (p. 133): {{tq|Among the torchbearers in this community, solid-state physicist Friedemann Freund stands tall. His research, including laboratory investigations, provide compelling evidence that battery currents can be created when certain rocks are subjected to stress— what has come to be known as Freund physics.}} With reference to the RfC above, I suggest this supports my view that Freund is at least as prominent as VAN, if not more so. After giving a discussion of why mainstream seismologists remain skeptical of Freund, Hough concludes that {{tq|the idea of electromagnetic precursors is not entirely out to lunch}} and that {{tq|Freund physics is not entirely black magic.}}

To be quite frank, Hough's statements seem almost like textbook psychological priming: associating VAN with "hogwash" and Freund with "black magic" and "out to lunch", while specifically avoiding making those actual claims, and offering some good reasons to believe otherwise.

Finally, there is the odd statement that {{tq|Magnetic instruments can and do record earthquakes. But upon close inspection, one finds, without exception, an absence of true co-seismic electromagnetic signals.}} One possible interpretation is that she is saying all the allegations of co-seismic signals are artifacts, such as mechanical vibration of the magnetometer. But if this is what she means, is she unaware Johnston's papers that claim the opposite? Or is she denying them without even acknowledging their existence? Or does she mean something entirely different? None of these three alternatives seems reasonable, so again it would be interesting to ask her what she's trying to say with this rather enigmatic argument. 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I've written this up all in one place, so that if we decide to contact Hough, it's all here in one thread. JJ, if it would make you happier, the material could easily be split out to the other two threads where these matters have initially been mentioned. ] (]) 04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

:Jerry, what is your point here? Are you objecting (for some yet unstated reason) to my citation of Dr. Hough's "{{tq|resoundingly debunked}}" statement? Or are you wanting to argue about it? You are not innocently asking honest questions; that is belied by your questioning of her statement about "magnetic instruments", as I answered that a week ago (at ]).

:Despite your edit summary that "{{tq|this is topic consolidation, not topic drift}}", it is entirely unclear what your topic is, other than Susan Hough. (You have gone beyond the "quote on VAN".) Nor have you shown any reason to contact her, other than your spurious questions. So again: what is your point? Indeed, just what is your ''topic''? ~ ] (]) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:: In case it is in doubt, my opinion is that Freund's and SES claims are utterly without basis in observations that have been vetted by the larger seismological community, and there is no theoretical reason that such precursors should be observable. Anything is possible in the world, including time travel and transmuting plastic to gold, but to present these precursors as having any basis in observation or theory does a disservice to public understanding of science.] (]) 17:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Hello Dr. Vidale, thanks for the clarification. Misplaced Pages has an article on ] which I hadn't seen before. In the RfC above, Staszek Lem argued that Freund should be mentioned, briefly, and debunked. He says {{tq|There is no other way to combat public ignorance.}} Do you agree, or do you feel it is better to avoid mentioning Freund entirely in this article?

:::JJ, my topic for this section is now Susan Hough and her book, and whether we should contact her for clarifications and/or dialog. We had been discussing her in three different sections relating to three different topics: this section, on the VAN quote; above in the RfC, on her statements about Freund; and at ], about her statements about co-seismic signals. My proposal is to consolidate the discussions here. To further clarify my intent, I have updated the heading for this section. Do you agree to this consolidation, or would you insist on resuming the three conversations independently in their original locations? ] (]) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

::::So now you want, what, a book review?? All this because I quoted her?

::::What is your precise question here, and where are you going with this? I don't know why you want to consolidate the SM discussion here – you asked a question, I answered it, and how does it go any further unless you dispute it?

::::BTW, I suggest that you do ''not'' contact Dr. Hough, as you seem to wanting to argue the points. But if you do, it's entirely on you; there is no "we" about it. ~ ] (]) 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::I have no firm opinion about whether Freund should be called out for criticism. Given his penchant for spinning arguments in esoterica in which no one in the world is following the discussion, then declaring victory because no one care to unravel it, maybe better to not mention him at all.] (]) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::That's pertinent to ]; perhaps you could say as much there? ~ ] (]) 23:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::Dr. {{ping|Vidale}}, I wonder if you think there would be any value in contacting Dr. Hough for clarification of her remarks in her book? At Misplaced Pages, we are supposed to summarize and paraphrase our sources, rather than quoting them directly. Hough spends most of a chapter in her book discussing Freund -- laying out his theories, discussion seismologists' criticisms, and ultimately concluding that he is "not entirely out to lunch". This is rather enigmatic, but basically I think it's clear enough to work with. Regarding VAN, I'm claiming that Hough's qualification that it has been debunked '''as a prediction method''' leaves open the possibility that there is still some controversy in her mind about whether SES might be useful in short-term forecasting, where the goal is to achieve a modest improvement in the probability estimate provided by parent-daughter methods. But I'm self-aware enough to know that I might be reading things into her words, and I wouldn't want to misuse her quote here if that's not what she meant. Also, she says that there are no "true" co-seismic electromagnetic signals. I'm not sure whether she is saying that the claims of magnetometer readings are artifacts, or whether she means that ULF magnetic signals that don't propagate well are not truly "electromagnetic", or whether she's just not aware of Johnston's work which purports to show that these co-seismic signals do exist.
::::::I'm prepared to send Hough an email myself. But if it comes from a group here including well-known experts, there's perhaps a better chance of getting a substantive response? Or do you agree with JJ, that there's really not a well-formulated question worth asking? ] (]) 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::My impression is that occasionally (twice?) co-seismic EM signals have appeared. No precursory signals proven connected to earthquakes have been seen, although a signal (or instrumental malfunction) before the Loma Prieta earthquake was puzzling. I seriously doubt Sue was attributing any power to SES signals. Personally, I don't see the point of great care in describing methods extremely unlikely to have geophysical relevance, which are mostly likely junk science. ] (]) 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

::::::::Indeed. I suspect that Pham et al. (2002) pretty much blew away any vestigial possibiity that "SES" were in any way seismic. Jerry: your "{{tq|leaves open the possibility}}" is just grasping at straws. It is ''quibbling''. You have quite overlooked that VAN's significance was based ENTIRELY on being a successful ''prediction method''. A point which Hough mentions, but you seem to have missed. ~ ] (]) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify this on Jerry's question, co-seismic EM signals do not support earthquake prediction. Pre-seismic EM come before an earthquake and mechanisms proposed on the observations do not consider any co-seismic EM signals as part of the preparation process, more than they are useless. Pre-seismic electrics and EM are said to be generated by the preparation processes in several steps, the first of which seems to be the emission of SES, followed by the emissions because of smaller earthquakes occurring around the main fault to be ruptured, and finally the main fault itself, before the earthquake. It is not always expected for SES or EM to reach the surface, and in EM this is usually due to the depth of the source of EM or being underwater, more than the magnitude of the eq(s). Magnetics have better reach to the surface and SES follow specific paths. Read Susan Hough under this.-AA-] (]) 07:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

:Yes, some people ''say'' there could be pre-seismic signals, and come up with all sorts of imaginative mechanisms. But Malcom Johnston's (et al., 2006) observations of the Parkfield quake pretty much blows away all such speculation: "{{tq|No significant changes in local magnetic field occurred .... Nor were changes in magnetic and electric field in the ULF band observed....}}" And very specifically: {{quote frame|No electric field disturbances of the form proposed by Varotsos ''et al.'' (1993a,b) and Nagao ''et al.'' (1996) to precede earthquakes were observed above the instrument noise on the various electrodes. This noise level is more than an order of magnitude below the signals reported by Varotsos ''et al.'' (1993a,b).}}
: Writing at a professional level tends to leave out obvious inferences, so for everyone who may missed it we have Hough's pithy summary: ''resoundingly debunked''.

:Jerry's ''assertion'' (''not'' a question!) that "{{tq|there is still an open controversy}}" ''about'' SES quite begs the question of whether such "signals" even exist. Our most authoritative evidence is: they do not exist, except as random industrial/cultural noise. ~ ] (]) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

:: Arguing back to 20 years ago about industrial noise is a self-opinion, after all the publications since. Did I say somewhere, when I speak on EM or magnetics, that I refer only to VAN?-AA-] (]) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:::''Not'' "self-opinion", but from a reliable, ''authoritative'' source, with a much more solid scientific foundation than VAN ever had. ''Or any other claim'' for "EM or magnetics". As to this recurring dismissal of "old" science: VAN's claim they could exclude industrial noise is also circa 1996 ("20 years ago"), while "{{tq|'''all the publications since'''}}" would include Pham et al. (2002, tracing SES-like signals to industrial sources; citations in the article), Johnston et al. (2006, quoted above), Park, Dalrymple & Larsen (2007), and Kappler, Morrison & Egbert (2010: "{{tq|no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors}}"). Notably: <b>''no''</b> "{{tq|publications since}}" by VAN. VAN was soundly criticized, they never satisfactorily answered the criticism, and since then have been ignored. ~ ] (]) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:::: During the RFC I have brought here a very recent publication by eminent USA scientists, which is based on natural time analysis, and I believe it drew attention. JJ's claim that nowdays VAN method is ignored is just his opinion. Here are three publications during the last two years (2015 & 2016) that report very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals before major earthquakes in Taiwan, China and Japan.
::::*
::::*
::::*
:::: -AA-] (]) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::That, of course, is ''your'' "opinion" as a partisan advocate, not a neutral weigher of views. ''My'' opinion is based on the statement of our guest expert that "{{tq|'''no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them'''}}", which certainly sounds like "ignore". (<small>See {{diff2|749311871|18:36, 13 Nov}}. For extended comments see ].</small>) Dr. Vidale went on to say: "{{tq| It is not hard to get very unlikely results published even in good journals just by being persistent enough to eventually get 2 or 3 uncritical reviewers}}". Which would seem to apply to your references: they are ''speculative'', with tentative and uncorroborated findings (and the second ''assumes'' that "SEMS" exist). They barely mention Varotsos et al., and certainly do not show that VAN actually predicted any quakes, nor answered any of the very devastating criticism of VAN. That mention seems more like an echo chamber, where the proponents keep mentioning everyone in the field to build up their h-index, and make it seem like there is lively development. I think they are "{{tq|full of sound and fury, signifying nothing}}" (Shakespeare).

:::::If anyone has any doubt of all that just refer to Dr. Hough's statement: "''' resoundingly debunked'''." ~ ] (]) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::: We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria. But, pre-seismic electromagnetics are there. From all over the world, not just Greece. Dr. Vidale's "<small>If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Misplaced Pages, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece.</small>" comment was not that careful. I have doubts he follows the literature and I think he just expresses his opinion.-AA-] (]) 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Does "all" include Panayiotis Varotsos? Has he retracted his various claims of prediction?

:::::::Your second sentence is, at best, wishful thinking. And your third sentence is specfically and definitely contradicted for the central San Andreas Fault by Johnston et al. 2006, ''which I just quoted'' (above).

:::::::The rest of your comment is a slur. It is uncivil, totally uncalled for, and does nothing to forward this discussion. ''Dr.'' Vidale has a PhD degree in seismology, and is quite active in the field, which is vastly more than we can say for you. And he certainly does follow the ''mainstream'' literature (though likely not all of the secondary tier journals). Whereas it appears that you don't even follow the discussion at hand. ~ ] (]) 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

== "Difficulty or impossibility" section ==

Cannot make any sense. WTH is "on decision-theoretic grounds"? How " self-organized criticality" implies an (im)possibility? Stc. ] (]) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

:The "study of the reasoning underlying an agent's choices", and trivial to wikilink. Matthews uses decision theory to determine "{{tq|how accurate earthquake predictions must be to server as a reliable basis for action.}}" Pretty interesting paper, actually, and not beyond the competency of a layman who is willing to give it proper attention. ~ ] (]) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

::My issue with this section is that it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible. One version of an explanation could be, "Like most systems that exhibit self-organized criticality, the physical systems that produce earthquakes are slowly driven non-equilibrium systems with extended degrees of freedom and a high level of nonlinearity. Such systems do not behave deterministically. Instead, the behaviors follow some statistical distribution surrounding a long-term critical state. As such, individual events are intrinsically unpredictable. Only the relative probabilities of many possible events can be known." Or something like that.

::A more simplistic way of describing one problem with prediction is, "Earthquakes occur on large scale faults, but are controlled by the mechanics of rocks and grains on a microscopic scale. Each system/fault is made of so many grains over such a large area, each interacting with the grains and fluids surrounding it on such long timescales that we can never fully model the behavior of the system. Simplified equations that model sections of fault and groups of grains fail to capture the full range of possible outcomes. In order to fully model the system, we would need to build a model as complex as the system itself, essentially recreating the entire system down to the subatomic level. But we already have such a model in the system itself. Therefore studying the behavior of that system is the best we can ever do." At least that's my understanding. If I'm wrong, then someone definitely needs to make this section clearer. And possibly edit the ] article as well. ] (]) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

:::Of course it's not clear: that section was seriously hacked, now being only a fifth of the original. As you may recall, that section originally followed the list of notable predictions – most of which, it should be noted, are demonstrated failures – and began with:

:::{{quote frame|As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing. Even where earthquakes have unambiguously occurred within the parameters of a prediction, statistical analysis has generally shown these to be no better than lucky guesses. The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years, was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s, and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can not be predicted, which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal.}}

:::Three paragraphs followed with a half-dozen possible reasons for this general failure, but only "self-organized criticality" and "decision-theoretic grounds" survived subsequent editing. It should be noted that all of these possible reasons are speculations concerning an undeniable ''observation'': the total lack of skillful, repeatable prediction of earthquakes. They bear upon the question of whether EP is merely "fiendishly difficult", or intrinsically impossible. But the "pessimism" (as Uyeda and Varotsos call it) that EP is unlikely in the near term (contrary to the ''optimism'' still expressed in the popular media that it may be just around the corner) arises not from these speculations, but from the continuing disappointment of such hopes.

:::There are two central questions here: 1) why earth-scientists are generally pessimistic about EP, and 2) whether prediction is "fiendishly difficult or intrinsically impossible". In its current form this section ignores the fist question, and its treatment of the latter question is abysmal. As to corrections: I suggest restoration of the original. ~ ] (]) 22:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::(A) If it was "seriously hacked, why don't you restore it? As I see, the text you cited has refs.
::::(B) Even this text does not explain what the heck is "decision-theoretic grounds". Without specifics it is just a useless gobbledygook pseudoscientists love to pepper their text with. ] (]) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::A) Because i) I don't believe that "having refs" is sufficient for including material, ii) I didn't want to get into the heavy discussion that would be attendant on a bold Revert, and iii) there is all this other discussion that needs attending to. But perhaps you favor restoring the original?

::::::B) We can't fully explain every hard or unfamiliar word for those that can't be troubled to look them up. Which is why we have wikilinks: they take you to the explanations. (Perhaps you failed to notice that "decision-theoretic" is wikilinked?) And you should note that your insinuation that the author cited is a "pseudoscientist" skirts ]. ~ ] (]) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

::::: In Greece traditional seismologists have made the prediction of the "non-earthquake" using similar argumentation, based on impossibility. After public warnings for an anticipated earthquake, they have reassured people publicly that no large event was going to occur (). L'Aquila showed this can be considered a criminal action.-AA-] (]) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

] and ], critical systems show anti-persistency (an earth system is doing its best to relax the stresses and avoid the earthquake) and persistency (earthquake is unavoidable). Both have been shown to take place before an earthquake, and explaining models are available. Whereas they are not prediction methods, such publications rebut impossibility.-AA-] (]) 03:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
:Whatever you say, pleas keep in mind, you don't have to convince me or Elriana. Misplaced Pages talk page is not an idle discussion board. We are working on article improvement. Now, how your uttering translates into the article text (with references, of course). ] (]) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:: We will have to wait for Elriana to add the content. She has revealed the main pillar of claiming impossibility for earthquake prediction.-AA-] (]) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:Once again the anonymous Athenian SPA sends the discussion right off the rails. The ''issue'' Elrianna raised is that this section "{{tq|{{hl|does not make clear}} to an uninitiated reader {{hl|*why*}} predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible.}}" To which she added two ''samples'' of possible explanations. '''Note''': the issue is NOT whether earthquake prediction is possible or impossible; it is '''why''' many (perhaps most) earth scientists '''think''' it is impossible. Arguing that those scientists are wrong ''does nothing to clarify'' why they think otherwise. Opining about L'Aquila is entirely irrelevant, and is just distraction. ~ ] (]) 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:: I will be happy to see Elriana add the content with the explanations of positive and negative points of view, and remove weaselings.-AA-] (]) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::Further demonstrating your misapprehension of the issue, and your single-purpose pov of interpreting everything as "positive or negative" re prediction and VAN. You are not making any useful contributions here, and it has been long evident that you are ] for building the encyclopedia. ~ ] (]) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::: might help the section, as well as ''"An earthquake takes place so deep inside the earth that instrumentation cannot reach the fault areas. So we rely on physics that provides ways to reach these depths."'' that has been said before. I will wait for Elriana, for more.-AA-] (]) 21:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::No. The diff you point to espouses Uyeda's pov that prediction has failed because it has been left to seismologists. It does ''not'' clarify '''why''' some scientists (not just seismologists) think prediction is impossible.

:::::Your text is inane. ''Of course'' "{{tq|we rely on physics}}". That is how seismologists and geo''physicists'' have explored the earth's interior. Apparently you are not familiar with that field. ~ ] (]) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::: Impossibility should be shown scientifically, not brought here as a scientist's quote. Let's begin with some physics .-AA-] (]) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::'''You <i>still</i> don't get it.''' We are <big>NOT</big> trying to "show" impossibility. The question is '''why''' some scientists ''believe'' in the impossibility of prediction. This is about the ''basis'' of belief, not the validity of such a belief. If you can't grasp that, and can't stay on topic, perhaps you should find some less demanding task. Preferably elsewhere. ~ ] (]) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::: The title of the section should change to '''Possibility''', from impossibility. Impossibility is a minority view, from scientists without background on the field, unable to publish responding to papers like the highly cited above. Quotes making wrong impressions should be removed.-AA-] (]) 05:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::No, that change should ''not'' be made. That section treats the issue that arose after it became evident that (despite massive OPTIMISM) skillful prediction of earthquakes was a bust, and the question was whether prediction had failed because it is exceedingly ''difficult'', or because it is intrinsically ''impossible''. Many – by now, probably ''most'' – scientists believe the latter. Your disparagement of them as "{{tq|without background the field}}" is simply ''your'' opinion (and what do we know about ''your'' background?) and utterly untrue; it constitutes a personal attack. Your argument demonstrates nothing but the poverty of your argument, and your continuing partisan advocacy. ~ ] (]) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::: A section on pessimism should have the tilte '''Pessimism''', ''not impossibility''. Then the explanation of pessimism that is being persistantly thrown away <sub>(that tradtional seismologists do not accept non seismic precursors as physical quantities)</sub> will at last be part of the article. Of course '''impossibility is a tiny minority view''', I see no source citing its growth (quite the opposite, wondering only on Misplaced Pages being misused to shape opinion for some years now). The title of the section should not lure the reader to minority conclusions. The POV quotes from one point of view only, expressing the extreme minority pov, should either be balanced or removed.-AA-] (]) 02:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
:
:::::::::::"Pessimism" and "non-seismic precursors" are the ]s of the extremely tiny minority view (i.e., ''fringe view'') of Uyeda (endorsed by Varotsos), the latter term referring explicitly to "electromagnetic &amp; geochemical phenomena". (We discussed Uyeda's views last August, ].) That Uyeda's views are readily shown to be false is rather irrelevant here, as your purpose seems to be only to churn controversy. That is disruptive, so I am going to ask you, nicely: please desist from your single-purpose advocacy of a resoundingly debunked point of view.

:::::::::::Attempting to engage in useful discussion with you has proven futile. Given ], that "{{tq|The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it}}", it seems pointless to continue. I will remind you that being ignored is not implicit approval to proceed with any changes to the article. ~ ] (]) 22:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::Pessimism term is used for mainstream view in the lead section. Impossibility is a 1996-1997 myth, unsupported nowadays. There is no rebuttal, even answer, to recent publications like the one above on critical phenomena. Personal attacks is not argumenting. Recent publications on the topic are welcome.-AA-] (]) 09:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::Impossibility is not a "myth", and it is not confined to "1996-1997". Most of the chaos theory and decision theoretical arguments that I have heard and read for the intrinsic impossibility of accurately predicting earthquakes were developed while I was in college and graduate school (2001-2011). The reason I have not written some great explanation with loads of references is that I have not been working in that field since ~2008, and I have not kept track of the references or the scientists writing them since that time. The idea that the systems involved in earthquakes are intrinsically too complex to predict with any model simpler than the systems themselves is a widespread concept. Even seismologists and geophysicists who do not agree with that argument are aware that it exists. Many who work on the earthquake 'forecasts' for organizations like the USGS do believe there is a fundamental limit on how good those forecasts can get. It is not about pessimism. It is about understanding the complexity of the system, and acknowledging that some physical processes have statistical distributions rather than being fully deterministic. We deal with this issue in other fields, from weather forecasts to nuclear physics. The inclusion of the idea of prediction impossibility should not be controversial here. ] (]) 01:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Impossibility is rebutted ], the way you support it, exactly because critical phenomena have been shown to behave quite the opposite from what you describe, during the last stages of earthquake preparation, and detailed models have been proposed on this, up to the micro-scale, based on both experimental and field data. Please try to write about complexity and models in our article section, by all means ask an expert, and I will be here to help giving the advance of last decade on the field.-AA-] (]) 06:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::: No. The only way to "rebut" impossibility is to successfully predict earthquakes. We have not reliably done that. The USGS agrees, btw: https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9830/3278 . And whether or not prediction is impossible is not the point of this discussion anyway. Whether I, personally, agree or not is irrelevant. The idea that prediction may be impossible is taught in introductory seismology classes and mentioned in textbooks. It is a widespread idea that has influenced the distribution of funding and increased the focus on forecasts rather than prediction in the last couple of decades. Therefore the idea needs to be mentioned in this article and, as per wikipedia standards, the concepts should be explained as clearly and succinctly as possible. ] (]) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Agree. ~ ] (]) 00:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I'm going to agree also, that the purpose of this particular section is to describe and explain the belief that EQ prediction is impossible. Other sections of the article discuss various theories about means of predicting earthquakes. Thus, the article as a whole does cover all viewpoints. ] (]) 04:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

==Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction==

Please do it, by all means. Misplaced Pages is interested in what traditional seismologiosts believe and teach. Misplaced Pages is also interested in latest decade's findings on the opposite.-AA-] (]) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

:You're a bit arrogant presuming to tell us what "Misplaced Pages is interested in". And while the ''topics covered'' by an encyclopedia (such as WP) may be guided by reader interest, we do not "balance" mainstream scientific opinion to suit fringe points of view. More particularly, we are ''not'' interested in "{{tq|the latest decade's findings on the opposite}}", because ''there are no such "findings"'' that rise to any degree of scientific credibility. Your constant nattering on this point is disruptive to the development of this article. ~ ] (]) 00:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::The RfC above proposed introducing some specific information into this article, regarding research of the last decade or two. I'm optimistic that eventually the RfC will rise to the top of the queue at AN/RfC, and we'll be able to proceed with that. Meanwhile, AA, might I suggest that we bring the article on seismo-electromagnetics up to date while we're waiting? I'm intrigued with the article references you've been posting recently, but I am still finding it difficult to find the time to do as much reading as I'd like in this area. If you post the basic facts, I'll clean up the English grammar and try to address neutrality issues, and then maybe JJ and Elriana can do quality control. I hope this will be considered cooperation, rather than tag teaming? As a final step, I envision that appropriate summaries might appear in this article, subject to due weight considerations & consensus process. ] (]) 04:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

:::Jerry, the "specific information" you want to introduce via the RfC is, in the '''first''' place, '''not''' very specific. You asked whether several resarchers, two theories, a claim of a prediction, and a company should be "{{tq|discussed}}", but (aside from the claimed prediction) not much in the way of "specific information". '''Second''', all of that is fringe, being largely ignored (where not outright rejectd) by mainstream scientific opinoin. (And you may be jumping the gun in one case, as it appears nothing has been published yet.) ''Any mention'' in this article (where more pertinent sub-topics are not mentioned) amounts to promotion of fringe. If you feel they really warrant mention, do so in the more narrowly focussed seismo-electromagnetics article.

:::As to AA's "{{tq|latest decade's findings on the opposite}}" – or, as you put it in this section's header: "Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction" – that is essentially an empty topic. Sure, back on 11 Feb. (bottom of the previous section) AA cited three "{{tq|very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals}}". As I noted then, those papers were very ''speculative'', with tentative and uncorroborated findings, and one ''assuming'' "SEMS" exist. Even AA allowed that: "{{tq|We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria.}}" There simply are no findings, recent or otherwise, that EP is possible along any lines that have been proposed; this heading asserts a statement that is false. ~ ] (]) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::::I gave links to the specific information and references located in the sub-articles, such as seismo-electromagnetics. The closer's job is to sort out what policy-based consensus can be drawn from all the reams of commentary about that RfC. So let's chill out and wait for someone to take on that job from an uninvolved perspective.
::::My section heading mentions "possibilities" which might very well be tentative. They discuss probabilities, not certainties, which means they might properly be included in a discussion of short-term forecasts. The literature of the "optimists" defines "prediction" rather differently than the mainstream. All this can be made clear in our article, in very few words. ] (]) 02:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

:::::Taking a guess at what "possibilities" you might have mind (perhaps the sources AA cited in a previous thread?): it's not they ''might be'' tentative, but that they very well ARE tentative. That is why they are not yet accepted by mainstream science. They ''claim'' they ''might have'' seen a precursor, but that is hardly new. Plenty of people have reported ''possible'' precursors, and they have been doing so for decades, but none have worked out as useful ''predictors''. ~ ] (]) 00:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

== More notable predictions? ==

Above in the RfC, JJ and tronvillain discussed a list of additional EQ predictions that might be included in the article. Last November when I was considering whether to retire from editing this article, I reviewed the old talk pages, and I felt that the materials were deleted without anything like an adequate discussion. I would support bringing much if not all of this back. I considered copying it back in myself as a gesture of goodwill, but I felt that to do a good job I would need to review at least some of the references and consider neutrality issues. It was more work than I felt able to take on at the time. But, basically, I do think much if not all of this should be in the article.

The material was removed I think sometime in 2014, here is a link to a pre-removal version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Earthquake_prediction&oldid=588172086

] (]) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

:I am in favor of bringing much of that back, but I think there should be discussion on it. And better if we hold off on that until the RfC is settled. ~ ] (]) 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
== RfC close requested ==
I requested an uninvolved and experienced editor to close the RfC, now that it's been expired from the active list by the bot. See:
]

] (]) 06:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

:I just noticed the little edit war that occurred over the weekend between JJ and AA, regarding JJ's proposed "no consensus" close. Obviously, I completely disagree that there was no consensus on questions #1 through #4. I will post to AN/RfC, noting that this edit war occurred, and pleading for someone to come and perform a proper uninvolved closing. ] (]) 17:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::Oh, so you've both already been there too. No worries, we're nearing the top of the wait list. ] (]) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

== RfC implementation ==

Many thanks to {{ping|Thryduulf}} for closing our RfC.

To begin the implementation, I've restored the longstanding content about VAN's natural time hypothesis and their 2008 alleged prediction to its state before JJ deleted it last December. And, I've brought the text on the L'Aquila EQ prosecutions out of the footnote and into the body of the article.

I'm not quite sure what to say about Freund Physics, or the TEC material. I think it would be best to bring the ] article up to date first. That article is really in sad shape, beginning with the non-existant Harvard style sources section. Once we have a consensus on the unbiased story for that article, we'll be better positioned to create a summary for this article.

Since my vacation from Wiki editing in December, I've realized that I certainly do have other priorities in my life. I'm just a layperson in this area, not an expert. Left to my own devices, I will get to this eventually. But it won't be quick.

AA, I have the impression that you follow this field very closely. Could you please help broaden Wiki's coverage of seismo-electromagnetics to give better coverage of the field outside of VAN? I am sick and tired of having JJ complain that you're an SPA, but you don't do much to counteract that impression. It doesn't have to be this way. If you're shy to make contributions in the article text (and I can understand why you might be) then make proposals on the talk page there, and we can discuss.

{{ping|Elriana}}, I have the impression that you also know a lot more about this topic than I do. Please don't be shy! ] (]) 23:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:11, 7 February 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEarthquakes High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects 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.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

/Archive 1 contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised 20 June 2012) prior to restructuring.

"Difficulty or impossibility" proposal

We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "Difficulty or impossibility" section, that "it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible." As I noted then, that section has been seriously hacked. In its current recent form it makes a bald assertion that "Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: "However, these theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed." I believe the effect of this on most readers is that their eyes glaze over, and they move one without the slightest understanding. I propose restoration of the "Difficulty or impossibility" section to its previous location (following the notable predictions) and extent, more or less as seen in this verision (Aug. 2014).

In its previous incarnation this section came after the notable quakes section, so that instead of lecturing to the reader that prediction of quakes is impossible, the reader is first shown that the record of earthquake prediction is disappointing. This section then addressed why that is the case, mentioning both that prediction may be impossible, or merely "fiendishly difficult". Although the latter is alluded to in the section title, in the current recent version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.

Whether earthquake prediction is even possible is the most significant aspect of this topic. It warrants adequate treatment, and is a fitting conclusion to the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). JerryRussell (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Jerry. I was thinking we should wait a bit in case anyone wanted to object, but there's no harm done, as this in no way impairs any discussion. I'll adjust my comments to match. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. JerryRussell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! This section makes much more sense now. I could probably still quibble with the grammar and presentation, but would like to see how the current (restored) version is received by others before contemplating any modifications.Elriana (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Brain bender

WP is not supposed to be repository for graduate students' theses. It would be nice if the average interested person could simply read this and understand the main points. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, as writers, we need to provide clear and coherent text that summarizes appropriate sources. That has been done here. The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals. You wouldn't want to define plate tectonics in every earthquake article, for example. Dawnseeker2000 23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Brain bender??? Graduate student theses? Are you saying that "the average interested person" can not "simply read this and understand the main points"? Where the hell are you coming from? Well, perhaps from Talk:Richter_magnitude_scale#Recent_copy-edits, where you said: "Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand ...." That is where you made a number of questionable edits. (Which I explained to you, and then reverted.)

Same thing here. On the 30th you made thirteen edits to this article. Four or five are rather trivial, hardly worth troubling about. But several of your edits are quite troubling. Let's examine them. (Your edit summary in parentheses.)

  • 01:06 (Not italicized in the source.)

> the next strong earthquake to occur in a region.

Flat out false. "next" is italicized in the source. Did you even check? Or do you just make up reasons as you go along?
  • 01:07 (→top: It is or it isn't. We shouldn't hedge )

> earthquake forecasting, which can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard.

Again false. It is not "either or", as there is more than one definition of "earthquake forecasting"; it can be defined differently. But the lede of this article is not the place to thrash out that kind of detail.
  • 01:08 (Copy edit.)

> Prediction can be further distinguished from earthquake warning systems, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a real-time warning of seconds to neighboring regions that might be affected.

At this point in the text "earthquake prediction" has just been distinguished from earthquake forecasting. It is then further distinguished from earthquake warning systems. Which, by their nature, can give warning only on the order of seconds, not minutes, hours, or days. Furthermore, they can only warn neighboring regions, because such systems are real-time, and in the immediate area of the earthquake the quake has already happened.
  • 01:09 (→top: Meaningless. Every time period is made up of seconds.)

> provide a warning of seconds to regions that might be affected.

Bullshit. "Every time period" can also be seen as centuries, or fractions there of; so what? The normal and ordinary usage here is an implied on the order of some few seconds, distinguished from whole minutes or hours. If you failed to understand this a better corrective would be to make "on the order of" explicit. Simply removing "of seconds" leaves the sense wide open to broad, and incorrect, interpretation, and the reader vulnerable to misinterpreting the meaning.
  • 01:09 (Fix tense.)

> was had been no valid short term prediction.

Fix? The original version is a close paraphrase of the source (in Wang et al., 2006, p. 787): "there wasno official short-term prediction". For all that you might disagree with Wang et al.'s sense of tense I thnk we should stick with the source.
  • 03:15 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Simplify for the non-expert, please)
  • 03:16 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Doesn't make a lick o' sense.)
Two edits that tagged the following sentences with {{huh}} ("clarification needed"):

> In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."

> In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.

WTF? It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Where precisely do you have a problem? Is the use of "M" instead of "magnitude" not simple enough? Or (heaven forbid!) do you want more details? We could hyper-link those, but judging by some of your other edits you are death on "over-linking".
  • 03:19 (Needs to be written in a way that everybody can understand.)

> Added {{Confusing|reason=the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}

What jargon? You have not provided any specifics, nor pointed to any particular sections. From your two preceding edits it might be inferred you think that not "everybody can understand" the use of "M", "≥", and "magnitude". (Which I grant, as just one child, or one idiot, is sufficient to negate "everybody". So what?) But these are not jargon, and are in no way "comprehensible only to an expert"; they are comprehensible to many whose only expertise comes from reading a newspaper. As Dawnseeker has said: "The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals." (I say: some competence is required.) Even so, you have shown no instances of anything, jargon or otherwise, "comprehensible only to an expert", let alone that the article is "replete" with such instances.

For all of the above reasons (and because I am disinclined to take further time and trouble to save your trivial edits) I am going to revert the entirety of your edits, including the tag (on the basis it "did not belong when placed or was added in error"). If you want to restore the tag, fine, but be prepared to show that "the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Left out new method based on gravity waves

The largest earthquakes can now be detected via gravity waves. This gives relatively accurate determination just about instantly (speed of light) when measured at a suitable distance. Suitable distances far enough for the equipment to have some time to process the result before the normal earthquake arrives, but otherwise rather close. It's something like 1000 km. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing earthquake prediction – which is about anticipating future earthquakes, that have not yet happened – with earthquake warning, which is about events that have already happened, but at a remote location. Also, your "can now be detected via gravity waves" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: "But much work remains before gravity signals can be considered a reliable tool in the crucial minutes after a big quake." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN

In Physics Today November 2010 issue the following review of Hough's book is published by Roger Musson: "My main reservation with the book is that it is rather US-centric, as even the author admits. ... Briefly mentioned is Greece's VAN project ... that classic case - it led to a great debate in the 1990s among seismologists about whether earthquakes could be predicted - deserved a more detailed exposition". The simple phrase "Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked" (Hough 2010b p=195)" included in the VAN section of the article is not justified and thus is to be removed.--EyeCont (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In 2012 Roger Musson also discussed the VAN project in "The Million Death Quake: The Science of Predicting Earth's Deadliest Natural Disaster". On pages 171-174 saying "Events in 1999 largely sank VAN in Greece as a credible system". This refers to both a M 5.9 quake near Athens that the VAN group failed to register a prediction for (but claimed that they had predicted it anyway) and their prediction of a larger quake to occur shortly afterwards in central Greece that never happened. He doesn't dismiss the approach completely, but says that "If anything successful comes out of VAN in the long run, it will probably come from Japan". Mikenorton (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Seismology is rather US-centric, and even more specifically California-centric (because of how it developed), but that in no way "justifies" removing Hough's assessment of VAN. Hough is a respected seismologist, who states clearly (albeit bluntly) what many other seismologists say more obliquely. Considering both other sources (e.g., the ICEF report) and the limited circle of VAN supporters it seems quite reasonable that Hough has fairly stated the mainstream consenus. There is considerable evidence that VAN should be considered WP:FRINGE; that is, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field", and therefore "must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.". Your "polishing" of the VAN claims (here and also at VAN method) thus amounts to "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories", and I am considering whether all of your edits ought to be removed on that basis.
If there is recent work by or regarding VAN you think should be considered by all means please bring it to our attention. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

EyeCont: Your edits, here and at VAN method (and these are the totality of your editing to-date), show a definite tendency towards removing content critical of VAN, and adding content – usually from the small coterie of VAN supporters – that attempts to support ("polish") their results. This amounts to a taking of a side, a violation of WP:NPOV. As the "VAN method" is a fringe view rejected by mainstream science ("debunked", even), these edits also constitute unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory. For these reasons I am going to revert your recent edits.

Please note: where you see possible problems the preferred approach for addressing them is not removal of content, but tagging, with comments on the Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored the version that updates the literature. Please be specific on justifying your changes, point by point.--EyeCont (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And I will again revert them.
You are not simply "updating the literature". You are removing content that is critical of VAN, and adding questionable content that promotes VAN, in a manner that (as I just explained) violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE. I have reverted your "Bold" edits per what we call the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD); it is now for you justify your edits. Your subsequent restoration of your edits, without discussion, amounts to WP:Edit warring. Also, your additional removal of the terminal punctuation from all of the {citation} templates corrupts the citations, and thereby violates WP:CITEVAR.
As I said before: where you see problems in the article you should tag them, so they can be examined and discussed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Every edit has been justified.

  1. predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8" was never published by VAN - specific citation (not Misplaced Pages editor's claim) is needed in order to restore the sentense - neither 2.8 nor 2.6 have been published, as written and "corrected" by J. Johnson
  2. but also a false alarm rate of 89%" - such a claim has been never published - there is no such number in the specific page of the book
  3. 2020 update - the 2013 Tectonophysics paper and the 2020 Applied Sciences paper consitute literature update
  4. restore of non-consensus delete of Nov 16, 2017 - a consensus has been achieved among several editors, which has been published from March 3, 2017 until November 16, 2017, but J. Johnson violated this consensus
  5. The authenticity of the source (Geller 1996, page 223) i.e. "a Cosmos news (an electronic bulletin board) story dated June 20, 1995" cannot be checked. Such a bulletin board had not existed. Geller says: "A Greek colleague kindly sent me translations of some news stories. According to a Cosmos news..."

J. Johnson acts under WP:OWN of the article and violates NPOV. FRINGE is his own point of view. See "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics" part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series", Springer 2011, edited by Harsh K. Gupta, in the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" which ends as follows, just before its summary: "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain" natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data". In view of the above I am restoring the updated content together with adding the excerpt from "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics".--EyeCont (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That chapter in the Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics is written by Uyeda and others, so is not independent of them. These additions seriously lack any views of seismologists/geophysicists who are not part of the rather small group of VAN supporters. That independent view is really needed or all those extra citations do is tell us that people who have supported the VAN method, continue to support the VAN method, which is hardly a surprise. Mikenorton (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not WP:OWNership to insist on adherence to WP policies and practices; it is edit-warring to keep repeating questioned edits. The determination that VAN is fringe is based on the nature of its promotion (by small group of proponents that cross-cite a lot), considerable criticism in the mainstream scientific literature, non-observance, non-acceptance as a viable technique by the scientific community, and explicit statements by seismological authorities ("resoundingly debunked"). The determination made here is not my – or anyone else's – "own point of view", it is the consensus of the editors, including input from some real, mainstream seismologists. On the other hand, your contributions show that you are a single-purpose editor (editing only this article and VAN method), whose edits either promote VAN, or remove content critical of VAN, distinctly demonstrating non-neutral violation of WP:NPOV.
Regarding your specific points:
1. Off-hand I don't recall if the original VAN 1981 paper is available, but the "2.6" claim has been reported by a reliable source. Which is cited, but if you find the linkage not clear enough just tag it, and I will remedy that.
2. I believe the false alarm rate of 89% came up in 2016. It may have been a calculation (which, incidentally, we are allowed to). If you really want to insist on the point: tag it, and I might look around for the data source.
3. Your "literature update" shows only the same old proponents refining the same old crap; there is nothing to show increased acceptance in the mainstream. (And the Applied Science journal is published by MDPI, whose peer-review has been questioned.)
4. Perhaps you could point to what consensus you allege I "violated" in 2016? And as you seem to be quite familiar with the past history here perhaps you would reveal under what name(s) you have previously participated here.
5. The source cited here is Geller, not Cosmos. We are not required to second-guess why Geller trusts that Cosmos is a true report.
Your quote from the 2013 encyclopedia article, that "seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data", is rather amazing. Since 1981 "VAN" as been claiming an amazing role for SES data alone. That has still not come about. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the specific points 1, 2, and 5, J.Johnson did not provide any concrete source to substantiate content critical of VAN, thus fully justifying my deletion of the corresponding WP text. As for point 4: Everyone can verify that at 06:30, 23 November 2017 at “VAN seismic electric signals” J.Johnson deleted “Natural Time” for “lack of notability” which has been inserted since 3 March 2017 after a consensus achieved among several editors (see Talk at 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)). J.Johnson characterizes this VAN material –comprising several tens of papers in well known refereed journals- as “fringe” although it has been cited more than thousand times by researchers worldwide during the last 18 years, i.e., after 2002. To the contrary what seems to be “fringe” is the Criticism of VAN, because the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors, although have published a lot of criticism during the 1990s, they did not write any paper with content critical of VAN after 2002, i.e., during the last 18 years (cf. ICEF report in 2011 mentions one only criticism of VAN in 1996). Thus, in view of the above, we restore the previous content with the updated literature, and do hope that this time J.Johnson will consent to mention also the work of VAN during the last two decades. Otherwise, it would be obviously unscientific and unfair to mention in the WP article solely the criticism of VAN during 1990s.--EyeCont (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted again as there is no consensus here to make these additions. As to the 5 specific points, I would urge you to tag 1 & 2. JJ the RfC linked above seems pretty clear that "natural time" should get mentioned, although that is all that it asks for. The Geller quote is what it is - people can judge that for themselves. As to more recent criticism, I just came across this. Otherwise I stand by my earlier comments. Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Mike: Thanks for the link. I haven't been keeping up with this, and that looks like an excellent source. I suppose "natural time domain" could be mentioned, but it doesn't rate more than a sentence, as, aside from "VAN" and their groupies, it doesn't have any mainstream notability, or even presence. As far as I can tell, it's just mumbo-jumbo. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
EyeCont: you have not asked for any sources ("concrete" – whatever that is supposed to mean – or otherwise) for that content, you just proceeded to delete it. That is NOT justified. You have also deleted content (such as "resoundingly debunked") that is sourced, showing that your basis for deletion is not really lack of sourcing, but content critical of VAN.
That there has been very little criticism of VAN since 2011 is because, as Susan Hough has said, most consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked", and therefore no longer notable enough to warrant comment. If the VAN method, and "natural time", are indeed notable, it should be easy to show they are used by mainstream seismologists. So show us: where, outside of a small group of VAN proponents, there is anything more than a vanishingly small mention of "natural time domain", or any indication that anyone is using VAN "seismic electric signals" to predict earthquakes.
Attributing "Criticism of VAN" as arising solely from "the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors" is factually incorrect, and even asinine. Describing it as fringe is utter BULLSHIT. But we can hardly expect any better from a WP:SPA editor (with a possible COI) who is not here for the encyclopedia. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: I understand that you reverted as there was no consensus here to make these additions. By the same token, however, I revert again since J.Johnson had previously reverted it (see point 4) without any consensus just by claiming lack of notability and in addition without providing concrete sources as I asked for (regarding specific sources for the points 1, 2 and 5).

That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works, You made substantial changes and have been reverted. It is up to you to reach consensus with other editors in this discussion, which you have failed to do. Rather than making large-scale changes, come up with some proposals. Mikenorton (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@J.Johnson: Concerning your unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time, I am not going to comment on. I would like, however, to urge strongly the WP editors and WP readers to have a look on the ISI Web of Science to visualize the international impact of VAN research & natural time and compare it with that of the VAN critics (mainly Geller et al, though Geller claims that “Geller is widely recognized as one of the world's leading seismologists” in his official site https://www.rjgeller.com/).--EyeCont (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Misplaced Pages, suggesting that is your only purpose here. It's clear that you are acting as an advocate for the VAN method and that you believe that the VAN group are not being treated well here. That does indicate that you have a strong POV. Mikenorton (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
These "unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time" you are not commenting on (ha) don't exist. Likewise for "international impact": no one is using SES or "natural time domain" to predict earthquakes, and as far as I can see no one writes on these except for Varotsos, Skordas, Sarlis, and their co-authors. Who do keep churning out papers (with lots of cross-citations) full of mumbo-jumbo, but all their citations have little impact, and less notability.
Your view that the VAN critics are "mainly Geller et al." and "almost exclusively Geller and co-authors" is, as I said before, factually incorrect. It is also curiously similar to a view held be a previous anonymous VAN supporter here, who was linked to the University of Athens (and thus to Varotsos, Skordas, and Sarlis). So I will point out to you: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare.
And as you have already been advised: alleged issues with the content are best addressed by tagging them, not with large unilateral edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As EyeCont has been too bashful to respond, I have proceed with some edits that address some of his points, as well as some other outstanding deficiencies. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

EyeCont: with your tagging yesterday of the two VAN related sections with {{verifiability}} (with no further explanation than a link to a comment of yours here a month ago), and also your edits yesterday to VAN method (here and here), it seems necessary to remind you of what I said just above: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare. Note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, and may result in a block. (See WP:COI.)

Also, as a WP:SPA account with a demonstrated non-neutral viewpoint your edits here, and especially your repeated attempts to add the same material, are very suspect. As Mikenorton said on 5 Feb: there is no consensus here to make these additions.

When you add the verifiability tag you are expected specify what claims are disputed. You have not done so, only pointing to your comment above (@ 14:02) where you mention Sarlis et al. 2008 and Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008. (Are those the claims you dispute?) That lack, plus your edits at VAN method, suggest that you are not acting in good-faith.

For all of these reasons I am going rollback your recent edits. I strongly suggest that if have any bona fide edits – or better, suggestions – that you discuss them here first. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

At J.Johnson: My bona fide suggestion (following your own strong suggestion) is as follows by recalling the five points I explained in detail more than a month ago: Since a consensus had been achieved among several editors, published from March 3, 2017, until November 16, 2017, I now restore exactly this version, as edited by Jerry Russel (talk/contribs) at 22:36, 3 March 2017. In this version, I tag points 1 & 2 (as recommended by Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020). In view of the fact that these two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN) and should be deleted, I am tagging the two VAN related sections with {verifiability} and also your edits to VAN method. If you consent to the above, we can start bona fide discussion on each subsequent addition from either side until a new consensus will be again established.--EyeCont (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A community consensus has been achieved back in 2017, indeed. The discussion can start from this point and beyond.   ManosHacker 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

EyeCont's rollback wiped out some of the changes I made addressing the very points he complained of, and lost other improvements made by other editors. This needs attention, but unfortunately I am rather occupied of late (off-pedia as well as on), so someone else needs to take point on this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Earthquake memory in time and space

While it is useful to know it I am not sure it assists the article.   ManosHacker 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Some thing where I might agree with you, but more declaratively: that material does not "assist" the article. And very amatuerish. That is the kind of material that should not be allowed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability)

There are two excerpts tagged in the article regarding verifiability. A suggestion was made on February 3, 2020 at 14:02 which has not been properly addressed. These excerpts are:

  1. "of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" )
  2. "but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by Mikenorton on February 5, 2020 at 13:50) and, in view of the fact that the above two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN), I suggested that they should be deleted.--EyeCont (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

This is a literature update that corresponds to the following addition to the last but one paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals" or to the second paragraph of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

In 2013, the SES activities were found to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.

The above cited papers are the following:

  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity", Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125, Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V,
  • Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662, doi:10.3390/app10020662
  • Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN 1951-6401

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" )

The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":

More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made sources.

  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations", Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID 12636655
  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature", Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID 14524749

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

On the other hand, the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) edited by Harsh K. Gupta, ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".

The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--EyeCont (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" )

In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:

A rebuttal to this complaint, which insisted on the accuracy of this prediction, was published on the same issue.

  • Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010). "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 91 (18): 163–163. doi:10.1029/2010EO180004. ISSN 2324-9250.

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments on EyeCont's proposals

I haven't had time to look these through in detail, but I'm not sure that adding so many extra citations to the Van method in this article, with no other views expressed will lead to any sort of balanced article. My impression, and it has to stay as that for obvious reasons, is that the mainstream earthquake prediction/forecasting community are just ignoring the VAN method. What this article needs is views from uninterested third parties that show some sort of general acceptance of the method (or otherwise), so if you have some of those, they would be good to see. Mikenorton (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Significant space has been given here for inline criticism (in fact criticism pervades the whole article). Critique without the answers addressing it is biased but the specific article is not the right place for the history of VAN method scientific debate. As duplicates between this article and VAN method article should be avoided, I propose migrating the debate there. This will result to a clean-up here. The method can be presented in a summary followed by the mainstream seismology view and a link for further reading in VAN method article.   ManosHacker 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the VAN method article on its talk page, rather than here. I've just realised that I removed that page from my watchlist some time ago, when things were getting heated, so I've only now realised that EyeCont has proposed similar changes to both articles. That location is definitely the best place to sort things out and we should just have a summary in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I just came across "Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering" by Daniel Helman (2020), which contains an analysis and critique of the VAN method. To quote from the conclusions:

"The main question that interests the reader is "Does the VAN method work?" This may be seen as encompassing three questions - (1) whether predictions are predictive; (2) whether predictions issued using this method are actionable; and (3) whether other groups using this method are successful. The answers, unfortunately, are: (1) it is not clear whether they are predictive. The VAN group has done poorly in hosting their data publicly. Raw datasets and a list of predictions including misses and false positives are not present publicly. The updated time-series method describes medium-range predictions that then trigger short-term prediction algorithms using local seismic data, and in principle, this seems a plausible approach to prediction, i.e. via overlap of methods. Mechanisms for SES generation are physical and testable. The updated VAN method remains an unvalidated hypothesis. (2) Predictions issued using this method are not actionable beyond increased local seismic monitoring and increased awareness of earthquake safety. Predictions ought not be assumed correct—with the caveat that increased local seismic activity may be taken as precursory but outside the framework of a validated scientific process. Thus it is up to the relevant governmental body to make decisions in the absence of scientific confidence. Unfortunately the data are not present to make any stronger recommendation. (3) It is not clear whether the high rate of false positives has been overcome in trials in Japan or elsewhere". Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The above VAN criticism by Helman mentioned by Mikenorton has been recently shown (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/583/htm) that does not stand.--EyeCont (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not true. That article was simply pointing out that the VAN group is now using a parameter named beta rather than kappa as its predictor. Still, there is no public hosting of their datasets. And it is still not clear whether their work is helpful for EQ prediction. 119.252.119.106 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Daniel S. Helman - Education Division, College of Micronesia-FSM, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia / WHOIS 119.252.119.106 - State of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Possible WP:COI   ManosHacker 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Politics

A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.

  1. It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.
  2. There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.
  3. The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.
  4. Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.

   ManosHacker 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Machine Learning

Is this citation acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.   ManosHacker 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph cited with the above, More, this arxiv citation should be replaced by the one finally published.   ManosHacker 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash

Recently, an edit was made which added the text "However in a 2021 paper coauthored by 37 researchers in the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, the main scientific objective of which is to investigate possible correlations between electromagnetic perturbations and the occurrence of major earthquakes, it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective, the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by natural time analysis."

This is essentially an appeal to authority to say what has already been said, namely "that earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed". I reverted the passage and added the Martucci et al (2021) reference to the subsequent paragraph. I did this because

  • These references are not a secondary source, nor have the primary sources been evaluated in the literature. If they had, we would be citing those discussions.
  • The number of authors is not relevant.
  • The possibility of EM perturbations accompanying major earthquakes is mentioned elsewhere.
  • Natural Time Analysis is already mentioned in the VAN section. Any additional discussion needs to be done either there or in its own section. Mentioning it in this place without explanation is confusing.

Elriana (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • The Martucci 2021 reference is a secondary source to Natural Time Analysis.
  • There exist a multitude of authors dealing with earthquake prediction, from a variety of universities and research institutes.
  • The focus here is on the "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event" argument, not EM.
  • Natural time analysis is a distinct Misplaced Pages article. The method applies to diverse time series and not only to EQ time series or VAN method alone. In other words, NTA answers the question under discussion, quoted above.   ManosHacker 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


Dear Elriana, it's been a few days since my reply. I would appreciate if you can find some time to study the above. Regards,   ManosHacker 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Martucci et al. 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMartucciSparvoliBartocciBattiston2021 (help)
  2. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVarotsosSarlisSkordas2020 (help)

Redirection

Hello, this is Xiaohan Song a student from Stanford who created a wiki page for the earthquake cycle as my course project. Would you like to make the earthquake cycle term redirect to this new page?

Xiaohansong (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Earthquake prediction: Difference between revisions Add topic