Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 17 July 2014

Earthquakes B‑class High‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

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

Prediction vs forecasting

The introduction makes a distinction between earthquake prediction and earthquske forecasting, and yet there is no separate wiki page for earthquake forecasting. Indeed, earthquake forecasting redirects to this prediction page. So it seems this is a loose end that might be reasonably tidied up. 166.147.88.26 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest that the article be expanded to cover both topics, since they are closely related. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If we accept that "forecasting" is a statistical statement of future occurrences, while "prediction" is about the occurrence of a specific earthquake, then the discussion in the present article concerning statistical significance is very appropriate for the evaluation of forecasting methods. More generally, the distinction between forecasting and prediction is slightly gray. 128.138.65.45 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I removed the statement about "naive" assumption of null hypothesis of randomness. In some cases, especially for the global occurrence of large earthquakes, a null hypothesis of randomness in time is actually appropriate. As always, the issue is whether or not the simple null hypothesis can be rejected, and for large earthquakes, like above M8, it is very difficult to reject randomness in time. It is only when you start getting into aftershocks that the randomness in time hypothesis really starts to be obviously violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.45 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  On a smaller topic it might be acceptable to cover several closely related topics. But this article has quite enough to cover as it is, and will only confuse people if it tries to cover other topics. So even though earthquake forecasting is closely related, with a lot of overlap, it is a different topic, with distinct differences. E.g.: Prediction is (as stated in the lead sentence) about determining the specific time, location, and magnitude of the next strong earthquake. Forecasting is the assessment for a broad region of the probability of any earthquake of a given magnitude in some extended period of time. These are quite different approaches, with vastly different public policy ramifications.

  That earthquake forecasting redirects to this article is only a stop-gap until someone writes that article. Which anyone may do. Trying to slap such material onto this article would confuse both topics, and create a difficult task when eventually it is realized that the topics have to be split and that material extracted. Better to develop that topic on its own page from the start, even if it is only a stub. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Faulty "word smithing" introduces bias

In this edit ("Word smithing a sentence") 166.147.88.22 changed "intense optimism amongst scientists" to "many geophysicists were optimistic". This is faulty on several counts: 1) "Intense optimism" is the precise term used by one of the sources. (I've added the missing citation.) 2) "Geophysicists" is not in the sources; the context is scientists. 3) "Many" is indefinite and weasely, diminishing what was a predominant opinion, and thus giving a biased impression the situation. This should be corrected. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There being no objections I have fixed the problems. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the edits is trivial, the main difference being that "intense optimism" is less appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should seek to stick to facts when possible and avoid the kind of colorful adjectives that an advocacy group would use to try to persuade the reader to embrace a particular POV. When advocacy language is used, it should be attributed to a source. JJ, I think you have historically failed to understand this point -- you say you are being faithful to sources, but you are often putting the source's POV in Misplaced Pages's voice, essentially endorsing that POV. NPOV means we report on different points of view without taking sides. I see nothing "weaselly" or biased in the edit you "fixed." I also don't see much difference in your version, although I think "intense optimism" is unnecessary and "optimism" should suffice. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As was the case in the past, J. Johnson appears to like dramatic language. Please remember that you, J. Johnson, only were not topic-banned because the WP:ANI thread was archived. Sometimes less dramatic language is more unencylopedic. Even if the source uses dramatic language, we don't have to use dramatic language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  You have that backwards: the topic ban some sought did not fail because the discussion was archived. Rather, the discussion was archived because no admin was interested in a topic ban.

  As to the editing, "intense optimism" is hardly dramatic, and advocates nothing: it takes no sides, it presents fairly and without comment a factual description of the heightened expectations at that time. Nor was that the message of any advocacy group (unless you consider the entire mainstream geological establishment as an advocacy group). This fact is central to understanding both the enthusiasm of 1970s and even the nature and interpretation of the research, and the reaction since the 1990s. To reduce this to "many .. were optimistic" (editorial substitution of "geophysicists" having no support in the sources) diminishes the reader's understanding. It could be said that today "many" are optimistic about prediction, but that is in no way comparable to the "many" (seemingly everyone) who were optimistic in the 1970s. The essential fact of those times is not that there was optimism, but that it was intense. Underplaying this is non-neutral POV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has switched "there was intense optimism among scientists" to "scientists were optimistic". Which is not quite what the main source says, but perhaps close enough, except for the omission of one word: "intense". I am going to correct that because, as I just explained, the characteristic of the 1970s was not simply "optimism", but the intensity of the optimism, and the omission is a subtle non-neutral POV. Joe and Robert say the word "intense" is unencyclopedic (what ever that means). Certainly not uncommon, as a search of article space finds 36 thousand hits. (Does anyone need examples?) If anyone feels "intense" (or "intensely") is too "dramatic" please explain. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a familiar pattern: we explain, you ignore the explanation, and then you demand that we explain. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  What explanations? 166* made no explanation at all, just said he was "word smithing a sentence". You claim that '"intense optimism" is less appropriate for an encyclopedia' (i.e., "unencyclopedic"), apparently (to judge by your subsequent comments) because that term is non-factual (utterly and absolutely wrong, sir), and a "colorful adjective" (what??) such as an advocacy group would use. And Robert implies (though without actually saying so) that this phrase is too "dramatic". I see a bunch of hand-waving, I have yet to see any actual explanations.

  Perhaps (?) the heart of your objection is where you complain that I am "often putting the source's POV in Misplaced Pages's voice, essentially endorsing that POV." You also interpret WP:NPOV as not taking sides. I think you really should study WP:NPOV past the nutshell summary. The essence is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So please explain to me: what significant view says that the optimism of the 1970s was not intense? What POV is being slighted? Who controverts that?

  Perhaps you would not object if "intense optimism" was directly and specifically cited to Geller et al. But note that WP:NPOV also says: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice." (Emphasis added.) So why should an uncontested and uncontroversial (right?) factual assertion made by a reliable source not be "stated in Misplaced Pages's voice"?

  While you're at it perhaps you (or Robert?) would explain: how is "intense" (or "intensely") unencyclopedic when it appears in Misplaced Pages over thirty-six thousand times? Should all of those instances likewise be removed? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• B-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• High-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• WikiProject Earthquakes articles